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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species VI (Fig. 10A) in the reply filed on 1/28/26 is acknowledged.
Applicant indicated that Claims 1-5, 7-10, 12 ,14, 16-17, 20-27, and 29-32 read on the elected species. However, upon examination, Claims 20 and 30-31 appear to read on non-elected species (e.g. Claim 20’s adjustable tuning such as non-elected Fig. 11A and Claims 30-31’s cascaded waveguides such as non-elected Fig. 5).
Accordingly, Claims 6, 11, 13, 15, 18-20, 28, and 30-31 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/28/26.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 9, it appears the phrase “the or an” should instead read as --the--.
Note that non-elected Claim 11 has the same issue.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
In Claim 21, the limitation of “light entering/leaving the waveguide” is not disclosed such that one skilled in the art could make and use the invention. There is no disclosure of how light relates to the functionality of the invention and how such light would be introduced into and out of the device for one skilled in the art to be enabled to make and use the device. If applicant is attempting to claim a structural detail or structural relationship then such a limitation should be described in terms of the elements and their positions.
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 23 and 25 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 23, the claim is dependent on itself and thus is indefinite.
Claim 25 inherits the defects of claim 23 by virtue of its dependency.
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, 7-9, 12, 14, 17, 22-26, 29, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being clearly anticipated by Park et al. (US 2014/0320239 cited by applicant).
Park (e.g. Fig. 6) teaches a multi-mode waveguide cavity including:
Regarding Claim 1, the waveguide configured to support at least two degenerate modes of electromagnetic fields, the waveguide comprising: an input node (e.g. 610) configured to couple electromagnetic fields into the waveguide; an output node (e.g. 611) configured to couple electromagnetic fields out of the waveguide; a perturbation configured to couple the at least two degenerate modes within the waveguide (e.g. one corner of the cavity is cut/chamfered to change the shape of the cavity); wherein the input node and the output node are positioned such that the coupled degenerate modes form clockwise and counter-clockwise propagating waves within the waveguide with at least two transmission minima (e.g. the input and output are 90 degrees apart resulting in the same orientation as the elected species including the perturbation corner, and since the Park device is the same structurally as the presently claimed invention it would function the same).
Regarding Claim 2, wherein the input node and the output node are positioned such that an angle between a first vector from the input node to a centre point of the waveguide and a second vector from the centre point to the output node is less than 170 degrees, wherein the centre point is the geometrical centre of an internal volume of the waveguide, such that the coupled degenerate modes form the clockwise and counter-clockwise propagating waves within the waveguide with the at least two transmission minima (e.g. the angle is 90 degrees which is less than 170 degrees, resulting in the same orientation as the elected species, and since the Park device is the same structurally as the presently claimed invention it would function the same).
Regarding Claim 3, wherein the waveguide comprises a first end (e.g. the top wall), a second end (e.g. the bottom wall), and at least one sidewall (e.g. the sidewalls) connecting the first end and the second end; and wherein at least one of the input node and the output node is located in the at least one sidewall (e.g. 610 and 611 are on the sidewalls).
Regarding Claim 4, wherein both the input node and output node are located in the at least one sidewall such that the coupled degenerate modes form an elliptically or circularly-polarised wave within the waveguide with at least two transmission minima (e.g. the angle is 90 degrees between the input/outputs and the device is rectangularly shaped, resulting in the same orientation as the elected species, and since the Park device is the same structurally as the presently claimed invention it would function the same as described for rectangular waveguide in Applicant’s specification page 1 to have elliptic filtering).
Regarding Claim 5, wherein the at least one sidewall comprises a plurality of sidewalls (e.g. the 4 side walls), and wherein the input node is located in a first sidewall of the plurality of sidewalls, and the output node is located in a second sidewall of the plurality of sidewalls (e.g. 610 and 611 are on respective first and second sidewalls).
Regarding Claim 7, wherein a position of the input node and/or output node is selected based on desired frequencies for the at least two transmission minima; or the input node and the output node are positioned such that an angle between a first vector from the input node to a centre point of the waveguide and a second vector from the centre point to the output node is less than 1700, wherein the centre point is the geometrical centre of an internal volume of the waveguide, such that the coupled degenerate modes form the clockwise and counter-clockwise propagating waves within the waveguide with the at least two transmission minima and wherein the angle between the first vector and the second vector is selected based on desired frequencies for the at least two transmission minima (e.g. the angle is 90 degrees between the input/outputs and the device is rectangularly shaped, resulting in the same orientation as the elected species, and since the Park device is the same structurally as the presently claimed invention it would function the same as described for rectangular waveguide in Applicant’s specification page 1, also note that the limitations “based on” are product by process limitations not given patentable weight since only the final product structure is patentable in apparatus claim.).
Regarding Claim 8, wherein the desired frequencies are symmetric with respect to a resonant frequency of the waveguide (e.g. the input/outputs are 90 degrees angled to each other and thus are symmetrical in the same manner as described by applicant’s specification page 10).
Regarding Claim 9, wherein the or an azimuthal angle between input node and the output node is 90 degrees (e.g. the angle is 90 degrees between the input/outputs).
Regarding Claim 12, wherein the input node and output node are at the same position along a longitudinal axis of the waveguide (e.g. the input/outputs 610 and 611 are at the same position in the top to bottom longitudinal direction/axis).
Regarding Claim 14, wherein the perturbation comprises a perturbation structure extending at least a majority of the length of the waveguide along a longitudinal axis of the waveguide (e.g. the cut/chamfered corner in the cavity housing extends from the top to bottom longitudinal direction/axis).
Regarding Claim 17, wherein the perturbation structure is formed by an irregularity in the cross-sectional shape of the waveguide (e.g. the cut/chamfered corner forms an irregular shape of the rectangle cross-section taken in a plane perpendicular to the top to bottom axis/direction).
Regarding Claim 22, wherein the perturbation is provided by an asymmetry in a cross-section of the waveguide, the cross-section perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the waveguide (e.g. the cut/chamfered corner forms an irregular asymmetric shape of the rectangle cross-section taken in a plane perpendicular to the top to bottom axis/direction).
Regarding Claim 23, wherein the cross-section is rectangular (e.g. see Fig. 6, the cavity is rectangular in a cross section perpendicular to the top to bottom direction of the cavity).
Regarding Claim 24, wherein the waveguide is a dual-mode waveguide configured to support two degenerate modes (e.g. the Park device including the perturbation corner is the same structurally as the presently claimed invention thus it would function the same since irregularities support degenerate modes).
Regarding Claim 25, wherein the waveguide is a cylindrical waveguide or a cuboidal waveguide (e.g. see Fig. 6, cuboid shape).
Regarding Claim 26, wherein the waveguide is a triple-mode waveguide configured to support three degenerate modes (e.g. see the abstract, triple modes caused by the irregular shape).
Regarding Claim 29, wherein the fundamental resonant frequency of the waveguide is in the microwave range of the electromagnetic spectrum (e.g. see Fig. 9, microwave frequencies).
Regarding Claim 32, A method of filtering one or more frequencies from an electromagnetic field, the method comprising coupling the electromagnetic field into a waveguide or waveguide device according to claim 1 (e.g. see [0002-00015], filtering frequencies from inputted signal).
Claims 1-4, 7, 10, 12, 14, 24, 29, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being clearly anticipated by Kwak (US 2017/0033424 cited by applicant).
Kwak (e.g. Figs. 1-4) teaches a multi-mode waveguide cavity including:
Regarding Claim 1, the waveguide configured to support at least two degenerate modes of electromagnetic fields (e.g. see Fig. 4 modes), the waveguide comprising: an input node (e.g. 210) configured to couple electromagnetic fields into the waveguide; an output node (e.g. 220) configured to couple electromagnetic fields out of the waveguide; a perturbation configured to couple the at least two degenerate modes within the waveguide (e.g. the perturbation piston 140 and [0054]); wherein the input node and the output node are positioned such that the coupled degenerate modes form clockwise and counter-clockwise propagating waves within the waveguide with at least two transmission minima (e.g. the input and output are between 90 and 180 degrees apart including the perturbation piston, and since the Park device is the same structurally to have the angular relationship between the input/outputs and the perturbation as the presently claimed invention it would function the same such as described in applicant’s specification page 10, e.g. azimuthal angle determines which frequencies are
filtered by the waveguide, when the waveguide is perturbed two frequency minima will be formed).
Regarding Claim 2, wherein the input node and the output node are positioned such that an angle between a first vector from the input node to a centre point of the waveguide and a second vector from the centre point to the output node is less than 170 degrees, wherein the centre point is the geometrical centre of an internal volume of the waveguide, such that the coupled degenerate modes form the clockwise and counter-clockwise propagating waves within the waveguide with the at least two transmission minima (e.g. see [0044-0045]).
Regarding Claim 3, wherein the waveguide comprises a first end, a second end, and at least one sidewall connecting the first end and the second end; and wherein at least one of the input node and the output node is located in the at least one sidewall (e.g. the top and bottom walls and the sidewall having the ports).
Regarding Claim 4, wherein both the input node and output node are located in the at least one sidewall such that the coupled degenerate modes form an elliptically or circularly-polarised wave within the waveguide with at least two transmission minima (e.g. the top and bottom walls and the sidewall having the ports, the circular cross-section device would function the same as described in Applicant’s specification page 1 to have elliptic filtering).
Regarding Claim 7, wherein a position of the input node and/or output node is selected based on desired frequencies for the at least two transmission minima; or the input node and the output node are positioned such that an angle between a first vector from the input node to a centre point of the waveguide and a second vector from the centre point to the output node is less than 1700, wherein the centre point is the geometrical centre of an internal volume of the waveguide, such that the coupled degenerate modes form the clockwise and counter-clockwise propagating waves within the waveguide with the at least two transmission minima and wherein the angle between the first vector and the second vector is selected based on desired frequencies for the at least two transmission minima (e.g. the angle between the input/outputs and the device is cylindrical shaped (i.e. circular cross section), and since the Park device is the same structurally as the presently claimed invention it would function the same as described for circular waveguide in Applicant’s specification page 1 to have elliptic filtering, also note that the limitations “based on” are product by process limitations not given patentable weight since only the final product structure is patentable in apparatus claim.).
Regarding Claim 10, wherein the desired frequencies are asymmetric with respect to a resonant frequency of the waveguide (e.g. the input/outputs are not at 90 or 180 degrees angled to each other and thus are asymmetrical in the same manner as described by applicant’s specification page 10).
Regarding Claim 12, wherein the input node and output node are at the same position along a longitudinal axis of the waveguide (e.g. see Fig. 1 the input/outputs are at the same position in the top to bottom longitudinal direction/axis).
Regarding Claim 14, wherein the perturbation comprises a perturbation structure extending at least a majority of the length of the waveguide along a longitudinal axis of the waveguide (e.g. the piston perturbation is along the entire diameter direction/longitudinal axis of the device).
Regarding Claim 24, wherein the waveguide is a dual-mode waveguide configured to support two degenerate modes (e.g. see [0054]).
Regarding Claim 29, wherein the fundamental resonant frequency of the waveguide is in the microwave range of the electromagnetic spectrum (e.g. see Fig. 4, microwave frequencies).
Regarding Claim 32, A method of filtering one or more frequencies from an electromagnetic field, the method comprising coupling the electromagnetic field into a waveguide or waveguide device according to claim 1 (e.g. see [0003], filtering inputted signals).
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.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2014/0320239 cited by applicant) in view of Memarian et al. (US 2010/0013578).
Park teaches a filter as described above. However, Park does not appear to explicitly teach that the rectangular device can be cubic.
Memarian provides the general teaching that multi-mode cavity waveguides can be rectangular or cubic (e.g. see [0006])
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Park rectangular device to instead have been cubic such as generally taught by Memarian, because the modification from rectangular to cubic would have been a mere substitution of art-recognized alternative cavity waveguide shapes while providing the benefit of supporting triple modes such as taught by Memarian (e.g. see [0006]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kwak (US 2018/0138571) teaches a dual mode filter.
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