The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: At all instances throughout the specification, note that it is unclear whether the terminology “conductor region(s)” would be an accurate characterization of this aspect of the invention, especially since such “conductor region(s)” are formed of “thermoplastic material”, which is nominally a non-conductor material and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Rather than using the terminology “conductor region(s)”, perhaps the terminology --electromagnetic wave propagating region(s)-- would be a more accurate characterization of these “regions”. Page 1, in paragraph [0004], 5th line therein, for the “coaxial line” described in this paragraph, note that it is unclear whether the “transmitted by the dielectric” limitation would accurately reflect the operation of the coaxial line and thus appropriate clarification is needed. At all appropriate instances throughout the specification where pronouns are used (e.g. this, these, they, it, its, their, etc.), such pronouns should be rewritten to indicate the intended feature(s) for clarity and completeness of description. Page 19, in paragraph [0068], 6th, 11th lines therein, note that reference label (6) is vague in meaning, especially since no such label appears in either of figures 1 and 2 and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Page 21, in paragraph [0072], 18th line therein, note that reference label (AS2) is vague in meaning, especially since no such label appears in figure 2 and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Page 22, in paragraph [0076], 11th, 14th lines therein, note that reference label (12) is vague in meaning, especially since no such label appears in figure 3 and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9, 12-14, 19; 15-17, 21-24 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In all appropriate instances throughout the claims, note that it is unclear whether the terminology “conductor region(s)” would be an accurate characterization of this aspect of the invention, especially since such “conductor region(s)” are formed of “thermoplastic material”, which is nominally a non-conductor material and thus appropriate clarification is needed.
In claims 21, 23, note that the subject matter recited in these claims appear redundant. Note that each of these claims directly depend from independent claim 15, which already recites the same subject matter as recited in claims 21 & 23. Accordingly, appropriate clarification is needed.
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, 3-5, 8, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Knox et al (of record).
Knox et al (i.e. FIG. 9B) discloses a dielectric waveguide, comprising: a first conductor region of thermoplastic material (i.e. dielectric waveguide (121) of polystyrene or polytetrafluoroethylene, which are known thermoplastics, as per claim 9); a second conductor region of thermoplastic material (i.e. dielectric film (125) of polypropylene, polystyrene or polytetrafluoroethylene, which are known thermoplastics, as per claim 9); the first and second conductor regions (121, 125) are in contact with each other and extend along a longitudinal axis (i.e. into the sheet of the drawing) and where the first thermoplastic material has a higher permittivity (e.g. 4 to 25 as described at column 12, lines 64 & 65) than the permittivity of the second thermoplastic material (e.g. less than 3 as described at column 13, lines 6 & 7). Regarding claims 3, 16, as evident from the cross-sectional view in FIG. 9B, the first and second conductor region (121, 125) are each of a quadrangular (e.g. rectangular) shape. Regarding claims 4, 17, as evident from FIG. 9B, the lower side surface of the first conductor region (121) contacts the upper side surface (125), where at least one of the lower and upper side surfaces constitutes an “outer side surface”, as far as such terminology can be understood. Regarding claim 5, as evident from FIG. 9B, the second conductor region (125) has a larger surface area or dimension than the first conductor region (121). Regarding claim 8, as described at column 14, lines 11-14, a minimum ratio of permittivity between the first and second conductor regions is 2:1 (or 1:2), depending on the ratio taken. Regarding claim 1, note that these claims include particular methods of manufacture for the first/second conductor regions, and as such no patentable weight is given to the method limitations in assessing the patentability of these apparatus claims.
Claims 1-5, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Yoshimoto et al (of record).
Yoshimoto et al (e.g. FIGS. 1, 2) discloses a dielectric waveguide, comprising: a first conductor region of thermoplastic material (i.e. dielectric layer (11/21) of polytetrafluoroethylene, which is a known thermoplastics, as per claim 9); a second conductor region of thermoplastic material (i.e. dielectric layer (12/22) of polytetrafluoroethylene, which is a known thermoplastics, as per claim 9); the first and second conductor regions (11,12; 21, 22) are in contact with each other and extend along a longitudinal axis (i.e. into the page in FIG. 1; along the length of layer 21 in FIG. 2) and where the first thermoplastic material has a higher permittivity than the permittivity of the second thermoplastic material (e.g. dielectrics (12/22) have lower permittivity as described in paragraphs [0108], [0115]). Regarding claim 2, as evident from paragraph [0108], the dielectric layer (12) can be formed of foamed polyethylene. Regarding claims 3, 16, as evident from the perspective view in FIG. 2, the first and second conductor region (21, 22) are each of a quadrangular (e.g. rectangular) shape. Regarding claims 4, 17, as evident from FIG. 2, the lower side surface of the first conductor region (21) contacts the upper side surface (22), where at least one of the lower and upper side surfaces constitutes an “outer side surface”, as far as such terminology can be understood. Regarding claim 5, as evident from FIG. 2, the second conductor region (22) has a larger surface area or dimension than the first conductor region (21). Regarding claim 1, note that these claims include particular methods of manufacture for the first/second conductor regions, and as such no patentable weight is given to the method limitations in assessing the patentability of these apparatus claims.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Henry et al (of record).
Henry et al (i.e. FIG. 18A) discloses a dielectric waveguide (i.e. cable 1800), comprising: a first conductor region of a thermoplastic material (i.e. dielectric rod (1802) of high-density polyethylene, which is a known thermoplastic, as per claim 9); a second conductor region of thermoplastic material (i.e. cladding (1804) of a foam of expanded polyethylene, which is a known thermoplastic, as per claims 2, 9); the first/second conductor regions each extend along a longitudinal axis (i.e. along the length of the dielectric waveguide 1800), where the foam thermoplastic material (1804) has a lower permittivity than the permittivity of the dielectric rod (1802), as described in columns 40 & 41. Regarding claims 4, 17, as evident from FIG. 18A, the outer side surface of the first conductor region (1802) contacts the inner side surface of the second conductor region (1804), where the outer side surface of the first conductor region (1802) constitutes an “outer side surface”, as far as such terminology can be understood. Regarding claim 5, as evident from FIG. 18A, the second conductor region (1804) has a larger surface area or dimension than the first conductor region (1802). Regarding claim 1, note that these claims include particular methods of manufacture for the first/second conductor regions, and as such no patentable weight is given to the method limitations in assessing the patentability of these apparatus claims.
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 of this title, 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 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over any one of Knox et al, Yoshimoto et al and Henry et al taken in combination with Krumme et al (all references of record).
Krumme et al (e.g. Figs. 8, 9) discloses a computed tomography (i.e. CT) device, where such a device includes a rotatable part (i.e. 809) mounted with respect to a stationary part. As described with respect to Fig. 9, dielectric waveguide (i.e. 400) is usable with the CT device disclosed in Fig. 8. In particular, the dielectric waveguide (400) includes a closed loop (i.e. either stationary or rotary) dielectric waveguide electromagnetically coupled to couplers (420, 440) of the dielectric waveguide type.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious in view of the references to have modified the dielectric waveguide arrangement in the CT device of Krumme et al to have taken the form of any one of the dielectric waveguide arrangements as taught in any one of Knox et al, Yoshimoto et al and Henry et al. Such a modification would have been considered an obvious substitution of art recognized dielectric waveguide arrangements, especially since the generic nature of the dielectric waveguide arrangement usable in the CT device of Krumme et al would have suggested that any equivalent dielectric waveguide arrangements, such as in Knox et al, Yoshimoto et al or Henry et al would have been usable in Krumme et al, thereby suggesting the obviousness of such a modification. Accordingly, as an obvious consequence of such a modification, the resultant combination would have necessarily provided a CT device (i.e. as per claim 13) capable of transmitting data through a dielectric waveguide (i.e. as per claim 12) and capable of operating over a frequency range between 10 GHz to 500 GHz), especially since any one of Knox et al, Yoshimoto et al and Henry et al is capable of operation over such a frequency range (i.e. as per claim 14).
Applicant's arguments filed 23 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants’ have presented the following arguments regarding the Office action:
With regard to the specification objection and claim rejections regarding the terminology “conductor regions”, applicants’ contend that such terminology is appropriate and refers the examiner to paragraph [0021] as support for such terminology. Contrary to applicants’ assertion, the examiner again points out that the “thermoplastic material” making up the “conductor region” is not a material that functions as a conductor, in the normal sense of the term “conductor”. The thermoplastic material is strictly a dielectric material that normally does not exhibit properties of a “conductor”. The examiner reiterates that the dielectric material of the “conductor region” is suitable for the propagation of --electromagnetic waves-- and it is again emphasized that such would be a more accurate characterization of such “regions”;
With regard to the specification objection of the “transmitted by the dielectric” limitation, applicants’ contend that the characterization of the operation of the coaxial line by the examiner is inaccurate. Contrary to applicants’ assertion, it should be noted that a coaxial line typically includes conductors which carry electrical signals. Accordingly, in a coaxial line, the electrical signal is carried or transmitted by a conductor (e.g. a center/inner conductor) and not by the “dielectric”;
Regarding, the objection in the specification of the use of certain pronouns, applicants’ contend that the use of pronouns do not constitute an objectionable informality. In response, the examiner is not contending that the use of pronouns would be inappropriate. In fact, the examiner agrees that a pronoun, when used to unambiguously identify a particular feature or features is acceptable. However, there are certain circumstances where, within the context of a description, it would be difficult to ascertain as to which one of numerous described feature(s) would be intended to be associated with a certain pronoun, and this is the issue that the examiner finds objectionable;
Regarding the objection of certain reference labels being not appearing in certain drawings being described, applicants’ contend such labels appear in specific drawings. The examiner acknowledges such circumstances and thus suggests that perhaps those labels should be reference with respect to the drawing(s) in which they appear. For example, label (6) should reference --Fig. 4-- and label (AS2) should reference --Fig. 1--, respectively for consistency with the labeling in those drawings;
Regarding the rejections of independent claim 1 and certain claims dependent therefrom based on prior art being anticipated by any one of Knox et al, Yoshimoto et al & Henry et al, applicants’ contend that that independent claim 1 has now been amended with limitations pertaining to structural features manufactured in a specific manner and thus such limitations now distinguish over the prior art of record, as those prior art references do not teach the manufacturing of such structural features. In particular, applicants’ assert that independent claim 1 is considered a “product-by-process” claim and thus due consideration of the manufacturing of the structural features must be considered in evaluating the patentability of the claims. In response, the examiner has considered applicants’ assertions, but have found them to be unpersuasive. As set forth in MPEP 2113, section I, it should be noted that a product-by-process claim is ultimately a “product” claim, where patentability of the product is not dependent on the manner of manufacture for the resultant final product. However, the examiner does acknowledge that under certain circumstances, the manner of manufacturing may be relevant if such manufacturing imparts distinctive structural characteristics to the final product. However, in the present application, such is not the case, as the specific manners of manufacturing (e.g. 3-D printing, injection molding, welding, etc.) do not impart any distinctive structural characteristic to the final product. In other words, whatever the manner of manufacture, a first thermoplastic material will be applied to a second thermoplastic material, as set forth in amended independent claim 1. Accordingly, no patentable weight has been given to the manner of manufacturing set forth in independent claim 1. Regarding independent method claim 15, applicants’ amendments thereto which include specific manners of manufacture is deemed sufficient to distinguish over the prior art of record and thus the rejection of independent claim 15 and claims dependent therefrom have now been withdrawn.
Claims 15-17, 21-24 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this Office action.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 should be directed to Benny Lee at telephone number (571)272-5918.
/BENNY T LEE/PRIMARY EXAMINER
ART UNIT 2843
B. Lee
Prosecution Insights