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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7-11, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jacobs et al. (US 2019/0186007, of record and hereinafter “Jacobs”).
Claim 1: Jacobs discloses a method (Figs.1-4) comprising:
filling a hollow structure (201; see [0025]) with a gas or a vapor (see steps 112 and 116 of Fig.1);
sealing a portion of the hollow structure to form a container enclosing the gas or the vapor (see step 114 of Fig.1); and
forming an electromagnetic reflective coating inside (steps 104 and 106; see [0027]-[0029]) or outside (210,. 220 in step 110) the container to form an electromagnetic waveguide (201, which is an electromagnetic waveguide; see [0024]).
Claim 7: Jacobs discloses wherein forming an electromagnetic reflective coating inside or outside the container includes forming the electromagnetic reflective coating inside the container (see Fig.13 and [0027]).
Claim 8: Jacobs discloses wherein the electromagnetic reflective coating includes a non-reactive metal (gold; see [0027]).
Claim 9: Jacobs discloses forming an electromagnetic reflective coating inside or outside the container includes forming the electromagnetic reflective coating outside the container (210 and 220 in step 110).
Claim 10: Jacobs discloses wherein forming the electromagnetic reflective coating outside the container includes forming the electromagnetic reflective coating on an exterior surface of the container (see Fig.13, where 220 and 210 are formed on the exterior surface of the container).
Claim 11: Jacobs discloses wherein the electromagnetic reflective coating includes a reactive metal (copper; see [0045]).
Claim 15: Jacobs discloses wherein the electromagnetic reflective coating includes an opening (208a, 208b), and the method further comprises: mounting a circuit board (“printed circuit boards” described in [0031]) including an antenna (210a, 210b) on a support structure (on a printed circuit board; see [0031]); and mounting the container on the support structure, in which the opening faces the antenna (208a/b faces 210a/b; see [0031], which discusses mounting the gas cell to a printed circuit board via flip chip bonding).
Claim 18: Jacobs discloses wherein the gas includes at least one of: water vapor ([0020], [0043]), acetonitrile ([0043]), cyanoacetylene (HC3N), ammonia (NH3), carbonyl sulfide (OCS), hydrogen cyanide ([0043]), or hydrogen sulfide (H2S).
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 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobs.
Jacobs discloses the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Jacobs further discloses that the cell may be made of “glass” (see [0025]), but does not explicitly disclose the glass as “borosilicate” as required by claim 17. However, Jacobs implies that borosilicate may be used as a glass for the gas cell in [0029], and the use of borosilicate specifically as the “glass” as broadly discussed would have been seen as both suitable and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have provided the gas cell as borosilicate, as discussed with regard to the second substrate of Jacobs, as a suitable glass material as broadly disclosed with regard to the cell material.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19, 20, and 22 are allowed.
Claims 2-6, 12-14, and 16 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not explicitly disclose the following limitations within the context of the amended claims:
repeatedly filling the hollow structure with the gas or the vapor and removing at least some of the gas or the vapor from the hollow structure until a purity of the gas or the vapor in the hollow structure reaches a target level (claim 2)
cutting the hollow structure to form the portion of the hollow structure, and heating opposite ends of the portion of the hollow structure to seal the portion of the hollow structure (claim 3)
wherein the portion of the hollow structure includes a first straight segment, a second straight segment, and a bent segment coupled between first and second straight segments; and wherein sealing the portion of the hollow structure includes sealing a first end of the first straight segment and sealing a second end of the second straight segment (claim 5)
crimping the portion of the hollow structure to form multiple connected cavities, wherein sealing the portion of the hollow structure includes sealing the connected cavities (claim 6)
positioning the container in an enclosure, and wherein forming the electromagnetic reflective coating outside the container includes forming the electromagnetic reflective coating on an interior surface of the enclosure interfacing the container (claim 12)
wherein the opening is at a tip of the container, and the antenna includes a Vivaldi antenna (claim 16)
the cavity storing a vapor or a gas; and an electromagnetic reflective coating inside or outside the container, the electromagnetic reflective coating and including an opening (claim 19).
Response to Arguments
In the response filed 2/24/2026, Applicant has amended claim 1 so as to require the coating inside or outside the container “to form an electromagnetic waveguide”. While the examiner agrees that such a limitation is not disclosed by Inukai (cited in the previous office action), Applicant has also removed the “homogenous” language of the claim. Therefore, claim 1 is now broad enough to be anticipated by Jacobs, as discussed above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1264. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Menna Youssef can be reached at (571)270-3684. 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.
/RYAN JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2849