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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 13 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 13 (line 2), it appears the phrase “a circulator transmission line” should instead read as --the circulator transmission line-- since the circulator transmission line has previously been recited in Claims 12 and 3.
In Claim 15 (lines 1-2), it appears the phrase “a circulator transmission line” should instead read as --the circulator transmission line-- since the circulator transmission line has previously been recited in Claims 12 and 3.
In Claim 15 (lines 2-3), it appears the phrase “a high-power transmission” should instead read as --a high power transmission line--. Appropriate correction is required.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-9, 11-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo et al. (US 2001/0017576 of record) in view of Genfan et al. (US 2005/0134399 of record).
Kondo (e.g. Fig. 3) teaches a circulator/isolator including:
Regarding Claim 1, the isolator for transmitting microwaves (e.g. see [0056]) in one direction, wherein the circulator comprises: a receiving port (e.g. input 39a connects to the high frequency power amplifier 31) for receiving a high-power microwave beam generated by a solid state microwave source (e.g. the amplifier 31); a transceiver port (e.g. output 39b) for transmitting the high-power microwave beam to a microwave chamber and the transceiver port for receiving a reflected microwave beam from the microwave chamber (e.g. the fundamental purpose of an output port of an isolator is to receive the output signal from the source such as the amplifier and to receive the reflected signal from the output device and forward it to the isolated port); a microwave absorber (e.g. resistor 46) connected to a terminating port (e.g. 39c) of the circulator, a casing (e.g. 41, 42) housing the circulator and the casing having a void for housing the solid state microwave source (e.g. the open area/void in the casing 41, 42 contains the amplifier 31).
Regarding Claim 2, and a circuit board (e.g. substrate 30), wherein the circulator is attached to the circuit board and the circuit board is held by the casing, the circuit board having a section for holding the solid state microwave source (e.g. see Figs. 3 and 4b) the circulator is electrically attached to the circuit board and the amplifier is mounted on the substrate).
Regarding Claim 3, wherein the circuit board comprises a circulator transmission line for conducing microwaves in the circulator (e.g. see planar lines 44, 45, 47, and 36).
Regarding claim 7, wherein the casing houses a solid state microwave source (e.g. the amplifier 31) arranged on the circuit board (e.g. 30), the solid state microwave source for generating the high-power microwave beam.
Regarding claim 8, wherein the circuit board comprises a high- power transmission (e.g. output electrode/line 44) for conducting microwaves from a port of a solid state microwave source to the receiving port of the circulator (e.g. see [0056]).
Regarding Claim 9, wherein, a high-power transmission (e.g. output electrode/line 44) for conducting microwaves from a port of a solid state microwave source to the receiving port of the circulator and the circulator transmission line forming together a continuous circuit board transmission line (e.g. the circulator lines 39 and board lines 44, 45, 47, 36 are connected together continuously).
Regarding Claim 11, wherein the circuit board comprises a transceiver transmission line (e.g. 36) for conducing microwaves between the transceiver port (e.g. output 39b) of the circulator and an antenna port (e.g. see [0054], an antenna, which would necessarily have an antenna port to be functional, can be electrically connected to 39b).
Regarding Claim 12, wherein the circuit board comprises a transceiver transmission line (e.g. 36) for conducing microwaves between the transceiver port (e.g. output 39b) of the circulator and an antenna port (e.g. see [0054], an antenna, which would necessarily have an antenna port to be functional, can be electrically connected to 39b), the transceiver transmission line and the circulator transmission line forming together a continuous circuit board transmission line (e.g. the circulator lines 39 and board lines 44, 45, 47, 36 are connected together continuously).
Regarding Claim 13, wherein at least one of (i) a circulator transmission line for conducing microwaves in the circulator of the circuit board, (ii) a high- power transmission for conducting microwaves from a port of a solid state microwave source to the receiving port of the circulator of the circuit board, or (iii) the transceiver transmission line is formed by a planar transmission line (e.g. the transmission lines 39, 44, 45, 47, 36 are planar).
Regarding claim 15, wherein (i) a circulator transmission line for conducing microwaves in the circulator of the circuit board, (ii) a high-power transmission for conducting microwaves from a port of a solid state microwave source to the receiving port of the circulator of the circuit board, and (iii) the transceiver transmission line forming together a continuous circuit board transmission line (e.g. the circulator lines 39 and board lines 44, 45, 47, 36 are connected together continuously).
However, regarding Claim 1, Kondo does not appear to teach a heat sink casing thermally conductively coupled to the microwave absorber (e.g. resistor 46), the heat sink for transferring heat, which is generated by absorbing the microwave beam, to a fluid medium, wherein the heat sink is formed by a casing.
Genfan (e.g. Fig. 1) provides the general teaching of an isolator have the isolated port connected to resistive termination (3, i.e. an absorber) and is connected to a plug (2) in the housing/base (e.g. 1) of the device where heat can be dissipated (e.g. see [0024]).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Kondo resistor termination to instead be a resistive termination absorber connected to a plug in the housing/base of the device where heat can be dissipated such as taught by Genfan, because the Genfan termination arrangement would have provided the advantageous benefits of providing a heat transmission path to the exterior of the device and reduction of detrimental galvanic couple and corrosion (e.g. see Genfan (0014-0015]). As an obvious consequence of the termination/plug being connected and in contact with the base/casing 41, 42 of Kondo, the casing housing/base would provide some heat dissipation to the surrounding environment (i.e. fluid air) and thus the casing effectively acting as a form of heat sink for some of the heat generated in the termination absorber.
Note that the numerous “for” statements in the claims are merely reciting the capability or intended use of the device and the Kondo/Genfan device has all of the same structural details and thus is capable of the same functionality and use.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo et al. (US 2001/0017576) in view of Genfan et al. (US 2005/0134399) as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (WO 2012043909A1) (all of record).
The combination of Kondo and Genfan teaches an isolator as described above. Also, note that limitations stated as being optional are not given patentable weight.
However, the combination does not explicitly teach a directional coupler connected between the transceiver port and an antenna port, the directional coupler to couple a defined amount of the electromagnetic power in a transceiver transmission line to a measurement port of the directional coupler for measuring the electromagnetic power transported through the transceiver transmission line by a sensor, the directional coupler being arranged on the circuit board.
Kim (e.g. Fig. 8) teaches coupler sensors (e.g. see 370) with measurement ports (e.g. P5) on the circulator circuit board.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Kondo/Genfan isolator to have couplers/sensors and ports for monitoring the power on the circuit board substrate such as taught by Kim, because it would have provided the advantageous benefit of monitoring power transfer as taught by Kim (e.g. see Kim page 3 of translation).
Claims 5-6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo et al. (US 2001/0017576) in view of Genfan et al. (US 2005/0134399) as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Mathew et al. (all of record).
The combination of Kondo and Genfan teaches an isolator as described above including the ferromagnetic disc (e.g. ferrite 38). Also, note that limitations stated as being optional are not given patentable weight.
However, the combination does not teach that the permanent magnet (e.g. 40 of Kondo) on the circuit board can instead be an electromagnet (Claim 5) and the electromagnet is a coil (Claim 6), or that the microwave operating frequency of Kondo is between .5 GHz and 5 GHz.
Mathew provides the general teaching that a permanent magnet in an isolator can instead be an electromagnet (e.g. see Col. 14 lines 23-31), and that isolators can be operated in the claimed range (e.g. see Col. 7, lines 55-68).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Kondo/Genfan isolator to have the permanent magnet be replaced with an electromagnet such as taught by Mathew because the electromagnet would have provided the advantageous benefit of a reversible magnetic bias such as taught by Mathew (see Col. 14, lines 23-31). Also, to have selected the generically taught microwave frequency of Kondo to have been within the claimed microwave operating range would have been a mere selection of a specific known operating range in the Microwave band for microwave isolators as is recognized by Mathew.
Claims 14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo et al. (US 2001/0017576) in view of Genfan et al. (US 2005/0134399) as applied to claims 1, 2, 3, 12, 13, 15 above, and further in view Jin et al. (US 4,209,756) (all of record).
The combination of Kondo and Genfan teaches an isolator as described above. However, the combination does not teach that that the transmission line is a stripline (Claim 14), that the casing forms a ground plane for the transmission line (Claims 16-17), that the casing top/cover and bottom/base form the ground planes of the stripline (Claims 18-19).
Jin provides the general teaching that a circulator can have the transmission line be a stripline with the top and bottom casing being the ground planes for the stripline (e.g. see Col. 2, lines 30-35).
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Kondo/Genfan device to have the transmission line be a stripline with the casing top and bottom being grounds such a taught by Jin, because the forming of the transmission lines as stripline provides the advantageous benefits additional shielding and thus improved isolation from external/unwanted electromagnetic influences as well as a commonly grounded housing/casing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach a heat sink casing thermally conductively coupled to the microwave absorber, the heat sink casing for transferring heat, which is generated by absorbing the microwave beam, to a fluid medium, wherein the heat sink casing housing the circulator and the heat sink casing having a void for housing the solid state microwave source.
This argument is not persuasive because the obviousness combination of Genfan and Kondo results in all of the structural elements of present claim 1, and in the combination the absorber and plug being in contact with the casing necessarily results in the casing providing some heat dissipation and thus the casing can be considered a form of heat sink, as detailed in the rejections above.
Applicant also argues that the present invention does not require an additional heat sink or other hardware such as suggested by Genfan. This argument is not persuasive since it is not commensurate with the claims and nothing in the claim 1 precludes additional elements such as further heat sink elements.
Applicant further argues that changing the device of Kondo to include a plug and heat sink of Genfan is not the same as having a heat sink casing thermally conductively coupled to the microwave absorber as recited in claim 1 of the present invention, and changing the case members of Kondo to also become heat sinks would require a redesign of Kondo. This argument is not persuasive because claim 1 merely recites a heat sink casing. As detailed in the rejections above, the casing in the combination of Kondo and Genfan necessarily results in sinking some heat from the absorber because of the contact of the plug with the casing and the casing being exposed to the exterior environment. Thus the casing would transfer some heat to the environment. In the combination in the rejections, the housing of Kondo is being modified to have the plug/absorber design of Genfan, and thus the redesign of Kondo in view of Genfan is very straight forward to have the advantageous benefits of providing a heat transmission path to the exterior of the device and reduction of detrimental galvanic couple and corrosion (e.g. see Genfan (0014-0015]).
Applicant also argues that changing the device of Kondo to include a plug and heat sink of Genfan is not the same as having a heat sink casing thermally conductively coupled to the microwave absorber as recited in claim 1. As argued above, the casing in Genfan as it is applied to the combination with Kondo necessarily results in some heat transfer from the absorber/plug to the casing and nothing in claim 1 requires all of the heat transfer from the absorber to be heat-sinked through the housing as it appears applicant is arguing.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 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