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: Page 2, in the heading therein, note that --OF THE INVENTION-- should be inserted after “SUMMARY” for consistency with PTO guidelines. Pages 5, 7, in the respective headings therein, note that --THE-- should be inserted after “of”, respectively at these instances for idiomatic clarity. Page 8, in paragraph [0064], 7th, 8th, 9th lines therein, note that for labels (10, 21, 30), note that such labels should each reference --(FIG. 2)-- for consistency with the labeling in that drawing. Page 8, in paragraph [0064], 18th line therein and page 11, in paragraph [0072], 5th line therein, note that --as shown in FIG. 1-- should be inserted after “respectively” (i.e. in paragraph [0064]) and inserted after “other” (i.e. in paragraph [0072]), respectively at these instances for an appropriate characterization. Page 10, in paragraph [0068], 27th line therein, note that the term “operation” should be rewritten as --operational-- for an appropriate characterization. At all appropriate instances throughout the detail description, should label “S21” be correctly written as --S12-- for an appropriate characterization? For example, see paragraphs [0076], [0077], [0078], [0080], [0083], [0085], [0087], [0089]. Page 12, in paragraph [0077], 6th line therein, it is noted that --(FIG. 7)-- should be inserted after “S11” for consistency with the labeling in that drawing. Page 13, in paragraph [0079]; page 14, in paragraphs [0081], [0082]; page 16, in paragraph [0088]: note that in each paragraph reference to label “10” is vague in meaning, especially since no such label appears in any one of FIGS. 14, 18 & 30 and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Page 14, in paragraph [0083], 7th line therein, note that --in FIG. 19-- should be inserted after “seen” for an appropriate characterization consistent with the labeling in that drawing; 9th line therein, note that --as shown in FIG. 21-- should be inserted after “258.3°” for an appropriate characterization consistent with the labeling in that drawing. Page 15, in paragraph [0085], 7th line therein, note that --in FIG. 23-- should be inserted after “seen” for an appropriate characterization consistent with the labeling in that drawing; 9th line therein, note that --as shown in FIG. 25-- should be inserted after “259.7°” for an appropriate characterization consistent with the labeling in that drawing. Pages 15 & 16, in paragraph [0087], 7th line therein, note that --in FIG. 27-- should be inserted after “seen” for an appropriate characterization consistent with the labeling in that drawing; 11th line therein, note that --as shown in FIG. 29-- should be inserted after “253.9°” for an appropriate characterization consistent with the labeling in that drawing. Page 16, in paragraph [0089], 9th line therein, note that --the fact-- should be inserted after “due to” for an appropriate characterization; 12th line therein, note that --as shown in FIG. 33-- should be inserted after “260.5° for an appropriate characterization consistent with the labeling in that drawing. Page 18, in paragraph [0094], 14th line therein, note that the recitation of “antennaand” should be separated for grammatical clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Note that in the indicated drawings, the specification description needs to describe the many labels, values and descriptive wording appearing in these drawings for clarity and completeness of description: the graphs appearing in FIGS. 3-5, 7-9, 11-13, 15-17, 19-21, 23-25, 27-29, 31-33. Appropriate correction is required.
The drawings are objected to because of the following: In FIGS. 6, 10, should these drawings be designated as --PRIOR ART-- (or equivalent terminology), especially since the phase shifter in these drawing do not appear in include the inventive concept of split ring resonators? Appropriate clarification is needed.
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 claims have been found to be objectionable for reasons set forth below:
In claim 1, line 17, should “a split ring resonator” be rewritten as --at least one split ring resonator-- for consistency with the subsequent recitation of “a plurality of split ring resonators”? Appropriate clarification is needed.
In claim 1, line 17 and in claim 2, line 2, should --at least one-- be inserted prior to “split ring resonator”, respectively at these instances for consistency with the “plurality of split ring resonators” recited herein?
In claim 2, line 1, note that the recitation of “the number of” should be deleted for an appropriate characterization; line 2, note that the recitation of “more than one” should be rewritten as --a plurality of split ring resonators-- for an appropriate characterization.
In claims 3, 5, 7, 9, line 2 in each claim, note that the recitation of “nested in” should be rewritten as --nested within--, respectively at these instances for an appropriate characterization.
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 1, 2, 13, 15, 20, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al in view of the Journal of Physics document to Ding et al (cited by applicants’).
Li et al (i.e. FIGS. 4A-4C, 5) discloses a phase shifter, comprising: a first dielectric substrate (i.e. base plate 50) having first and second conductive patterns (i.e. first/second conductive structures (21/22) as evident from FIGS. 4A-4C); a second dielectric substrate (i.e. base plate 40) having a third conductive pattern with a main line (i.e. main body structure 11) and with first & second branches (i.e. branch structures 12) extending from the main line (11), as evident from FIGS. 4A-4C; an adjustable dielectric layer (i.e. liquid crystal layer 60) disposed between the first and second dielectric substrates (50, 40). Note that the first, second and third conductive patterns (21/22, 11/12) are disposed on the respective substrates (50, 40) to face each other across the adjustable dielectric (60). Regarding claim 15, as evident from FIGS. 4A-4C, the first/second branches extend from the main line (11) to overlap with the respective first/second conductive patterns (21, 22) with areas that are substantially equal (i.e. by virtue of the symmetrical nature of the third conductive pattern (11/12). Regarding claim 20, as evident from FIGS. 4A-4C, the third conductive pattern (11/12) is configured as a one-piece structure. Regarding claim 22, as described in column 1, lines 17-20, the phase shifter disclosed herein is usable in various electronic systems, such as a phase array radar. However, Li et al does not disclose that the phase shifter includes a split ring resonator arrangement associated therewith.
Ding et al exemplarily discloses the concept of integrating a liquid crystal phase shifter with a filter to thereby maintain high phase shift performance while providing an additional filtering function (e.g. see the last three lines in the abstract). As evident from Figures 1 & 2 in Ding et al, the filtering is implemented through split-ring resonators (i.e. SRR) that are disposed on an external side of the liquid crystal phase shifter, such that the SRR electrically couples with the liquid crystal phase shifter through a dielectric layer.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to have further modified the liquid crystal/adjustable dielectric phase shifter in Li et al to have included externally located SRRs on the second dielectric substrate, such as exemplarily taught by Ding et al. Such a modification would have provided the advantageous benefit of maintaining high phase shift performance afforded by such an integrated phase shifter/filter arrangement as exemplarily taught by Ding et al, thereby suggesting the obviousness of the modification. Note that as an obvious consequence of externally integrating a filter with the phase shifter, the location of such a filter can be arbitrarily placed on the outer surface of either dielectric substrate (e.g. such as the second dielectric substrate) to provide the necessary electrical coupling with the phase shifter, consistent with the exemplary teaching in Ding et al. Regarding claim 2, as an obvious consequence of the modification, the resultant combination necessarily provides the number or SRRs to be more than one, consistent with the teaching in Ding et al. Regarding claim 13, as an obvious consequence of the modification, the resultant combination necessarily provides SRRs that are circular in shape (e.g. see the blown-up view in Figure 1(b) of Ding et al), consistent with the teaching in Ding et al.
Claims 3-12, 14, 16-18 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to ANDREA LINDGREN BALTZELL at telephone number (571)272-5918.
/BENNY T LEE/PRIMARY EXAMINER
ART UNIT 2843
B. Lee