DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2 and 5-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schloemann (US 4,853,660), in view of Kim et al. (US 2010/0253450).
In regard to Claim 1:
Schloemann discloses, in Figure 2, a waveguide element, comprising a waveguide member capable of guiding an electromagnetic wave having a frequency of 30 GHz or more (Figure 4B: 35Ghz) and 20 THz or less, wherein the waveguide member includes:
an inorganic material substrate (22); and
a conductor layer (27, 28) arranged above the inorganic material substrate (22), and wherein a thickness "t" of the inorganic material substrate satisfies the following expression:
t < λ/a*√Ɛ
where "t" represents the thickness of the inorganic material substrate (Column 7: line 16, t = 100 µm), λ represents a wavelength of an electromagnetic wave to be guided by the waveguide member (wave length is calculated by λ = c/f, where c is the speed of light and f is the frequency, so λ = 299,792,458 m/s/35,000,000,000 Hz, see Figure 4B; therefore λ = 0.008 m or 8000 µm), ε represents a relative dielectric constant of the inorganic material substrate at 300 GHz (Column 7: line 17-18, ε = 10), and "a" represents a numerical value of 3 or more (knowing the values of ε, t, and λ, the value of a can be calculated as follows:
t < λ/a*√Ɛ
100 µm = 8000 µm/a*√10
100 µm = 8000 µm/a*3.16
3.16 *100 µm = 8000 µm/a
316 µm* a = 8000 µm
a = 8000 µm/316 µm
a = 25.3
Schloemann does not disclose a supporting substrate, which is arranged below the waveguide member, and is configured to support the waveguide member.
Kim discloses, in Figure 4, a supporting substrate (260), which is arranged below the waveguide member (210, 220, 250), and is configured to support the waveguide member (260 supports 210, 220, and 250; Paragraph 0030).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the supporting substrate taught by Kim with the waveguide member taught by Schloemann, since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
In regard to Claim 2:
Schloemann further discloses, in Figure 2, the waveguide element according to claim 1, wherein, in the expression (1), "a" represents a numerical value of 6 or more (as discussed above, a = 25.3).
In regard to Claim 5:
Schloemann further discloses, in Figure 2, the waveguide element according to claim 1, wherein the conductor layer is coplanar-type electrodes (Column 9: lines 24-31).
In regard to Claim 6:
Schloemann further discloses the waveguide element according to claim 5, wherein, when the frequency of the electromagnetic wave to be propagated through the waveguide member is 30 GHz or more (Figure 4B: 35 GHz) and 5 THz or less, the thickness of the inorganic material substrate is 10 μm or more (Column 7: line 16, t = 100 µm).
In regard to Claim 7:
Schloemann further discloses, in Figure 2, the waveguide element according to claim 1, wherein the thickness of the inorganic material substrate is 31 μm or more (Column 7: line 16, t = 100 µm).
In regard to Claim 8:
Schloemann further discloses, in Figure 2, the waveguide element according to claim 1, wherein the thickness of the inorganic material substrate is 100 μm or less (Column 7: line 16, t = 100 µm).
In regard to Claim 9:
Schloemann further discloses, in Figure 2, the waveguide element according to claim 5, further comprising a ground electrode (24) arranged on a surface of the inorganic material substrate (22) on an opposite side to a surface thereof on which the conductor layer (27, 28 is on the opposite side of 22 from 24) is provided.
In regard to Claim 10:
Schloemann further discloses, in Figure 2, the waveguide element according to claim 1, wherein the conductor layer is a microstrip-type electrode (27, 28; Column 5: lines 1-20), and wherein the waveguide element further comprises a ground electrode (24) arranged on a surface of the inorganic material substrate (22) on an opposite side to a surface thereof on which the conductor layer (27, 28 is on the opposite side of 22 from 24) is provided.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 12-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John W Poos whose telephone number is (571)270-5077. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jessica Han can be reached at 571-272-2078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN W POOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896