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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/26/25 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In Claims 1 and 11, the limitation of the radial stub having a centerline facing the gap is not supported by the original disclosure and thus is new matter. Although the Figures such as Figure 3 show a stub generally facing the gap of the ring, nowhere in the specification or drawings is it disclosed that the centerline is facing the gap, and the drawings are not disclosed as scaled drawings and do not show a centerline detailed to be facing the gap. Accordingly, the specific new limitation of a centerline facing the gap is new matter.
Dependent claims inherit the issues of the claims from which they depend.
Claims 5, 7, 9, 10, 15, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In Claim 5, it is not clear how the at least one radial stub of Claim 5 located at any location along the conductive trace relates to the at least one stub in Claim 1 since the at least one stub in Claim 1 requires the stub to have a centerline facing the gap which appears to be describing a specific location rather the “any location” in Claim 5, thus Claim 5 lacks clarity and does not appear to properly read on Claim 1 since Claim 1 was amended.
In Claim 7, it is not clear how the at least one radial stub of Claim 7 located at any location along the conductive trace relates to the at least one stub in Claim 1 since the at least one stub in Claim 1 requires the stub to have a centerline facing the gap which appears to be describing a specific location rather the “any location” in Claim 7, thus Claim 7 lacks clarity and does not appear to properly read on Claim 1 since Claim 1 was amended.
In Claim 9, the phrase “the at least one radial stub comprises sizes that are identical or different” lacks clarity as to what the sizes being identical or different means in the case that the at least one stub is only one stub.
In Claim 10, it is not clear how the at least one radial stub of Claim 10 integrated into the conductive trace by any side or edge of the radial stub relates to the at least one stub in Claim 1 since the at least one stub in Claim 1 requires the stub to have a base connected to an interior region of the conductive trace rather than “any side or edge” as recited in Claim 10, thus Claim 10 lacks clarity and does not appear to properly read on Claim 1 since Claim 1 was amended.
In Claim 15, it is not clear how the at least one radial stub of Claim 15 located at any location along the conductive trace relates to the at least one stub in Claim 11 since the at least one stub in Claim 11 requires the stub to have a centerline facing the gap which appears to be describing a specific location rather the “any location” in Claim 15, thus Claim 15 lacks clarity and does not appear to properly read on Claim 11 since Claim 11 was amended.
In Claim 17, it is not clear how the at least one radial stub of Claim 17 located at any location along the conductive trace relates to the at least one stub in Claim 11 since the at least one stub in Claim 11 requires the stub to have a centerline facing the gap which appears to be describing a specific location rather the “any location” in Claim 17, thus Claim 17 lacks clarity and does not appear to properly read on Claim 11 since Claim 11 was amended.
In Claim 19, the phrase “the at least one radial stub comprises sizes that are identical or different” lacks clarity as to what the sizes being identical or different means in the case that the at least one stub is only one stub.
In Claim 20, it is not clear how the at least one radial stub of Claim 20 integrated into the conductive trace by any side or edge of the radial stub relates to the at least one stub in Claim 11 since the at least one stub in Claim 1 requires the stub to have a base connected to an interior region of the conductive trace rather than “any side or edge” as recited in Claim 20, thus Claim 20 lacks clarity and does not appear to properly read on Claim 11 since Claim 11 was amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-5, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being clearly anticipated by Zhong et al. (CN106025458A of record).
Zhong (e.g. Figs. 1-6) teaches ring resonators including:
Regarding Claim 1, a substrate (e.g. see the abstract, a ceramic substrate); a conductive trace (e.g. the microstrip ring filter, e.g. see Claim 7 of Zhong, a microstrip by definition is conductive) on the substrate comprising a first end and a second end (e.g. the ends of the ring resonators having a gap between them), wherein the conductive trace encloses an interior region except for a gap between the first end and the second end (e.g. each ring resonator has an interior region enclosed except for the gap region); and at least one radial stub integrated into an interior region of the conductive trace (e.g. the stub extends towards the gap, see page 2 of the translation previously provided by examiner, the stub is a rectangular/polygonal stub that is radially connected to the interior edge of the ring which can thus be considered a radial stub consistent with Applicant’s definition of a radial stub that can be rectangular/polygonal), see the present specification [0025] and [0028] which describes a radial stub can be rectangular/polygonal), the at least one radial stub having a base (e.g. the connection point of the stub to the ring resonator) connected to the interior region of the conductive trace, a tip disposed within the interior region, and a centerline facing the gap (e.g. Zhong shows the stub tip centered generally perfectly lined up with the gap of the ring in the same manner as the present invention disclosure which is the full extent of applicant’s original disclosure), and the ring resonators are capable of broadband communications, especially since they are the same structurally as the presently claimed invention thus they would function the same.
Regarding Claim 2, wherein the conductive trace comprises a shape comprising a circle, a square, a rectangle, or a polygon (e.g. see the rectangular/polygonal shaped rings in Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 3, wherein the conductive trace and the at least one radial stub each comprises a metal or a non-metallic material infused with conductive material to enable the non-metallic material to be conductive (e.g. e.g. see Claim 7 of Zhong, a microstrip, and a microstrip by definition is conductive).
Regarding Claim 4, wherein the metal comprises copper, aluminum, or iron and the substrate comprises a printed circuit board, a semiconductor, a ceramic, or a glass (e.g. see the abstract, ceramic substrate, and see Table 1, a copper foil conductor).
Regarding Claim 5, wherein the at least one radial stub comprises one radial stub integrated into the conductive trace at any location along the conductive trace with the interior enclosed by the conductive trace or at any location along the conductive trace exterior to the conductive trace (e.g. the stub is connected/integrated with a side/edge (i.e. any location) of the ring/trace).
Regarding Claim 8, wherein the at least one radial stub comprises pointed edges or rounded edges in any combination or permutation (e.g. the edges of the stub at the ends include corner points at the tip).
Regarding Claim 10, wherein the at least one radial stub is integrated into the conductive trace by any side or edge of the at least one radial stub (e.g. the stub is connected/integrated with a side/edge (i.e. any location) of the ring/trace).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 11-15, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong et al. (CN106025458A of record).
Regarding Claims 11-15, 18, and 20, Zhong teaches all of the features of these claims as described regarding Claims 1-5, 8, and 10 nearly identically above, but does not explicitly teach the Claim 11 limitation of depositing a dielectric layer on the substrate.
Regarding Claim 11, it would have been considered obvious and routine to have included dielectric layers deposited on the substrate, because it is well-known to incorporate dielectric layers on a substrate for the benefits of insulative mounting of the functional conductor materials and for controlling impedance by having dielectric layers of selected dielectric constants and permittivities.
Alternatively, to expedite prosecution, in the case of interpreting applicant’s lexicography and use of the phrase “radial stub” to mean a radial stub having a pie wedge shape as is the most common/typical meaning in the art of the phrase (although applicant appears to be using the phrase radial stub broadly as described in the 102 rejections above), the claims are also rejected as follows:
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. (Theory and Experiment of Novel Microstrip Slow-Wave Open-Loop Resonator Filters) in view of Sagawa et al. (JP 2000252706A) and Zhong et al. (CN106025458A) all of record.
Hong (e.g. Figs. 1b and 9) teaches a broadband ring resonator (e.g. see page 2362, col. 2, wide-band response which can be considered broadband since broadband means wide band) including:
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, a substrate (e.g. see Fig. 9 mounting substrate); a conductive trace (e.g. the open-ring microstrip conductors) on the substrate comprising a first end and a second end, wherein the conductive trace encloses an interior region except for a gap between the first end and the second end (e.g. the ends facing each other by a gap in the ring, i.e. the ends of the open stubs are also facing the gap); and at least one stub integrated into the conductive trace (e.g. see page 2360, section III., both ends of the ring at the gap are open stubs facing the gap).
Regarding Claims 2 and 12, wherein the conductive trace comprises a rectangle (see Fig. 1b, rectangular shaped microstrip conductor).
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, the at least one stub comprises one stub integrated into the conductive trace at any location along the conductive trace with the interior enclosed by the conductive trace (e.g. the stubs are integrated on the ring trace at the ends which is a location along the conductive trace).
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, the stubs are identical in size as shown in Fig. 1b (also note that the claim is essentially meaningless since multiple of anything must either be the same or different sizes in some combination as is claimed).
Regarding Claims 10 and 20, the stubs are integrated with the microstrip ring trace at its edges as shown in Fig. 1b.
However, Hong does not explicitly teach a radial stub having a base connected to an interior region having a tip with centerline facing the gap (Claims 1, 7, 11, 17); that open stubs, which have their open ends facing the gap and facing each other, are radial stubs (Claims 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20), that the conductors/stubs are metal (Claims 3 and 13) that is copper or aluminum and the substrate is a printed circuit board (Claims 4 and 14), or that the radial stub has rounded or pointed edges (Claims 8 and 18), or that the substrate includes a dielectric layer deposited on it (Claim 11).
Zhong (e.g. Fig. 4) teaches open-ring resonators having stubs with a base connected to an interior of the rings extending from the rings in the enclosed area with a tip centrally lined up with the gap.
Sagawa, teaches a ring resonator having stubs can have a pie wedge radial stub (e.g. see 102 in Fig. 1) or alternatively a rectangular open-stub (e.g. see 405 in Fig. 4), and the pie-wedge radial stub has rounded (e.g. the end edge of 102 is rounded) and pointed edges (e.g. straight sides of 102) in the same manner as the present invention.
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Hong ring resonators to have included a stub (i.e. a third stub) extending into the enclosed area and having the tip centerline generally facing the gap of the open ring resonator such as taught by Zhong, because the ring resonator having a stub extending into the enclosed area would have provided the advantageous benefits of temperature stability, compact size, and control of losses such as taught by Zhong (e.g. see page 2 of the translation).
Regarding Claims (1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 20), it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combination of Hong and Zhong ring resonators to have the three open-stubs instead be radial stubs (having rounded end) such as taught by Sagawa, because radial stubs instead of open-stubs would have been a mere substitution of art-recognized alternative stub pattern for a ring resonator including the advantageous benefits of impedance control and unnecessary mode coupling reduction such as taught by Sagawa (e.g. see page 5 of the Sagawa translation). Additionally, regarding Claims 3-4 and 13-14, it would have been considered obvious and routine to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the conductors be copper or aluminum and the substrate be a printed circuit board, because it is well-known to make conductors for microstrips of copper or aluminum because of the advantageous benefits of good conductivity and affordability, and the use of printed circuit board technology for the substrate would have been obvious especially since Hong mentions printed circuit technology (e.g. see page 2358) and printed circuit board substrates are a well-known specific substrate technology for microstrips having the benefits of ease of manufacture and affordability. Additionally, regarding Claim 11, it would have been considered obvious and routine to have included dielectric layers deposited on the substrate, because it is well-known to incorporate dielectric layers on a substrate for the benefits of insulative mounting of the functional conductor materials and for controlling impedance by having dielectric layers of selected dielectric constants and permittivities.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that that Hong does not teach a radial stub. This argument is not persuasive since applicant’s own disclosure describes radial stubs can be rectangular as well as pie wedge shape thus a rectangular stub connected radially along a ring resonator meets the applicant’s lexicography and definition of a radial stub (e.g. see the present application [0025]). Accordingly, new 102 rejections have been made as detailed above. Applicant further argues Sagawa functionality in relation to Hong, but this argument is not persuasive especially since it is Zhong which teaches having a rectangular radially connected interior stub facing the gap and not Hong or Sagawa, and Sagawa generally teaches that rectangular and pie wedge shaped radially connected stubs are alternatives thus one of ordinary skill in the art would at a minimum find it obvious to try such a substitution in the combination. Applicant’s arguments regarding Zhong having a different purpose is not convincing since the addition in the Hong device of an interior stub such as taught by Zhong has additional benefits as detailed in the rejections that are in addition to the functions of the Hong end stubs facing each other across the gap. Furthermore, Applicant’s new amendments regarding a centerline of the stubs have been rejected as new matter as detailed above since there is no explicit support for the limitations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN E JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-1762. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM to 5PM.
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, Andrea Lindgren Baltzell can be reached at 571-272-5918. 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.
/Stephen E. Jones/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843