The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The substitute specification filed on 3 January 2026 has been reviewed, found acceptable and has replaced the original specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities found in the substitute specification: Page 2, line 24, should --of the Invention-- be inserted after “Summary” for an appropriate characterization? Page 3, line 15, note that the following sentence --It is noted that like features are denoted by the same reference labels throughout the detail description of the drawings.-- should be added after “embodiment.” for an appropriate characterization. Page 6, line 8, should --of the Embodiments-- be inserted after “Detail Description” for an appropriate characterization? Page 6, lines 17, 20, note that the term “whose” should be rewritten as --and a--, respectively at these instances for an appropriate characterization. Page 7, line 8, note that the term “centre” should be rewritten as --center-- and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Page 10, lines 2 & 3, note that the label “DW-L1” should be rewritten as --DE-L3-- such as to commensurate with the pointing orientation of the dielectric waveguides as depicted in Figure 3. Page 12, line 17, it is noted that --as shown in Figures 5A and 5B-- should be inserted after “simulations” for an appropriate characterization consistent with label (300) in these drawings; line 18, note that --in dB-- should be inserted after “distributions” for an appropriate characterization consistent with the labeling in Figures 5A-5H; lines 22, 25, note that the recitation of “these figures” (i.e. line 22) and “the figures (i.e. line 25) should be respectively rewritten as --Figures 5A to 5H-- for an appropriate characterization; line 32, note that --in GHz-- should be inserted after “Freq” for an appropriate characterization. Page 14, line 6, note that the recitation of “figures 5 and 6” should be rewritten as --Figures 5A to 5H and 6-- for an appropriate characterization. Throughout the detail description, note that the terminologies (TSA tapering, DW tapering, FERMI tapered) are each vague in meaning and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Perhaps, the “TSA tapering” should be rewritten as --tapered slot antenna (i.e. TSA) tapering--, the “DW tapering” should be rewritten as --dielectric waveguide (i.e. DW) tapering-- and “FERMI tapered” should be rewritten as --FERMI or exponentially tapered--, respectively for appropriate characterizations. Note that the following reference label appearing in the indicated drawings still needs to be correspondingly described in the specification description of the indicated drawing for clarity and completeness of description: FIGS. 2A, 2B, “Directional coupler”. Appropriate correction is required.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the absorbers (i.e. claim 17) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-4, 6-19 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 claim 1, line 13, note that the respective recitations of “the microwave range” and “the millimeter-wave range” lack strict antecedent basis and thus appropriate clarification is needed.
In claim 6, note that it is still unclear whether the recitation of “the dielectric waveguide structures” being “on top of the free propagation region substrate” would be consistent with what is recited in claim 1, from which this claim directly depends. Note that claim 1 requires the “dielectric waveguide structures” being associated with “access ports”, where such access ports are “establish along” (first/second) “edges” of the “free propagation region substrate”, which appears contradictory to the “dielectric waveguide structures” being “on top” of the “free propagation region substrate”. Accordingly, appropriate clarification is needed.
In claim 13, line `13, note that it is unclear whether the recitation of “tapered end of the first dielectric waveguide” would be an accurate characterization of what “the fourth dielectric waveguide” is being “pointed toward”. As evident from FIG. 3, the fourth dielectric waveguide (DW-R4) appears to be pointed towards the third dielectric waveguide (DW-L3). Appropriate clarification is needed.
The following claims have been found to be objectionable for reasons set forth below:
In claim 2, line 3 and in claim 3, line 4, note that the term “whose center” should be rewritten as --and a center which--, respectively at these instances for an appropriate characterization.
In claim 8, line 10, 13, note that the recitations of “a TSA tapering profile” (i.e. line 10) and “a DW tapering profile” (i.e. line 13) should be rewritten as –a tapered slot antenna (TSA) tapering profile-- and --a dielectric waveguide (DW) tapering profile--, respectively at these instances for appropriate characterizations.
In claim 11, note that the terminology “FERMI tapered” should be rewritten as --FERMI or exponentially tapered-- for an appropriate characterization.
Applicant's arguments filed 3 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections based on prior art, applicants’ contend that amended independent claim 1 now includes the limitation that the dielectric waveguides are coupled by “far-field propagation” through the free propagation region substrate, which is not taught or suggested by the prior art of record to Fox. Moreover, applicants’ contend that the Fox reference relies on near-field coupling between the dielectric waveguides therein.
In response, the examiner acknowledges that the limitations in amended claim 1 (i.e. far-field propagation) do indeed distinguish over the Fox reference and therefore the grounds of rejection based on the prior art of record (i.e. Fox) has now been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections based on indefiniteness under 35 USC 112, paragraph (b), applicants’ contend, in particular, with respect to claim 6 that “access ports” along respective “edges” of the free propagation region would not be inconsistent with the “dielectric waveguide structures” being “established on top” of the free propagation region, due to the orthogonal positional characteristic between the “edges” and the “top”.
In response, the examiner, having considered applicants’ contentions, finds such contention to be unpersuasive. In particular, applicants’ should reference the 5th & 6th paragraphs in independent claim 1, where the “access ports comprise: dielectric waveguide structures …”. Accordingly, since the “access ports” are located on respective “edges” in claim 1, then corresponding “dielectric waveguide structures” associated with the “access ports” must necessarily be on respective “edges” and thus apparently cannot be on a “top” of the free propagation region as per claim 6. Appropriate clarification is still needed.
Regarding the objections to the drawings and specification regarding the different permittivity of claim 16 and the absorbers of claim 17, applicants’ contend that the drawings only need to show features necessary to understand the invention, as well as contending that the limitations in claims 16 & 17 are indeed disclosed in the specification (i.e. with respect to paragraphs 22, 23, 54 & 55).
In response, the examiner acknowledges that the descriptions of claims 16 & 17 as noted by applicants’ and thus the objection to the specification on this basis has been withdrawn. Moreover, the objection to the drawings with respect to claim 16 has also been withdrawn. However, with respect to the objection to the drawings with respect to claim 17, such objection has not been overcome. It should be noted that the “absorbers”, being a physical structure, still needs to be depicted in the drawings to understand the invention (i.e. where would the absorbers be found/located within the free propagation region?).
Regarding the objection to the specification, regarding the various types of “tapering”, applicants’ contend that such tapering are known in the art.
In response, the examiner acknowledges that the respective tapering being known in the art is found satisfactory to address the objections to the specification. Moreover, it should be noted that the suggested inclusion of a statement noting that like features are denoted by the same reference labels should go a long way to addressing labeling and description issues in the specification and drawings.
Claims 1-4, 6-19 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 T LEE at telephone number (571) 272-1764.
/BENNY T LEE/PRIMARY EXAMINER
ART UNIT 2843
B. Lee