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: Pages 2, 7, in the respective headings therein, note that --OF THE INVENTION-- should be inserted after “SUMMARY” (i.e. page 2) and inserted after “DETAIL DESCRIPTION” (i.e. page 7), respectively for consistency with PTO guidelines. Page 2, in paragraph [0006], second line therein, note that the recitation of “referred to as filter-type circuit” should be rewritten as --referred to as “filter-type circuit”-- for an appropriate characterization. Page 2, in paragraph [0008], 4th line therein and page8, in paragraph [00029], 4th line therein, note that --thereby-- should be inserted prior to “resulting”, respectively at these instances for an appropriate characterization. Page 3, in paragraph [00011], third & 4th lines therein and page 8, in paragraph [00032], third line therein, note that the recitation of “referred to as the design frequency” should be rewritten as --referred to as the “design frequency”--, respectively at these instances for an appropriate characterization. Page 3, in paragraph [00011], 8th line therein and page 9, in 0aragraph [00032], 8th line therein, “its” should be rewritten as --the--, respectively at these instances for an appropriate characterization. Page 4, in paragraph [00011], 17th & 18th lines therein and page 9, in paragraph [00032], 17th & 18th lines therein, note that the recitation of “the further in physical distance the corrective mismatch is from the native mismatch” is vague in meaning, respectively at these instances especially since it is unclear how a “physical location” would relate to electrical parameters such as “mismatch” and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Page 6, in paragraphs [00017] & [00018], note that reference label “100” appearing in these paragraphs are inappropriate and thus should be deleted therefrom. Page 9, in paragraph [00034], 7th line therein, --(i.e. designated as Output)-- should be inserted after “110” for an appropriate characterization. Page 10, in paragraph [00036], second line therein, note that --FIG. 1B of the-- should be inserted after “in” for an appropriate characterization; 8th line therein, note that the reference to (z, y, x) axes are vague in meaning and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Page 10, in paragraph [00037], first line therein, note that --as shown in FIG. 1A-- should be inserted after “112” for an appropriate characterization consistent with the labeling in that drawing; 4th line therein, note that the recitation of “in a TWT they” should be rewritten as --in a traveling wave tube (TWT), the ends--. Page 11, in paragraph [00042], “FIG. 2A shows” should be written as –FIGS. 2A, 2B and 2C show--. Page 12, in paragraph [00043], first line therein, note that --along line 2D-2D-- should be inserted after view”; third line therein, note that --along line 2E-3E-- should be inserted after “view”. Page 13, in paragraph [00046], second line therein, note that --(i.e. a width tapered section as shown in FIG. 1B)-- for an appropriate characterization. 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 method steps of “fabricated in (the) device layers (e.g. claims 1, 8) and the method step of “fabricated by removing material (i.e. claim 13), respectively 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 specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The specification needs to provide a corresponding description of the method steps of “fabricated in (the) device layers (e.g. claims 1, 8) and the method step of “fabricated by removing material (i.e. claim 13).
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 4-6; 16, 17 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 4, note that it is unclear whether the recitation of “the first filter circuit is a folded-waveguide circuit or serpentine waveguide circuit” would be an accurate characterization of this aspect of the invention and thus appropriate clarification is needed.
In claims 4, 5, note that it is unclear what orientations relative to the physical structure of the circuit device would characterize the (x, y, z) directions and thus appropriate clarification is needed.
In claim 16, note that it is unclear, even in light of the specification, as to what characterizes “comes as close as possible to a quarter-wave transformer” and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Moreover, note that it is unclear how “a transformer dimension”, as recited herein would relate to “a transformer dimension” recited earlier in independent claim 8 (i.e. one in the same dimension, separate and distinct dimensions, etc.) and thus appropriate clarification is needed.
In claim 17, note that it is unclear how “a first dimension” and “a second dimension”, as recited herein would relate to a first dimension” and “a second dimension” recited earlier in independent claim 8 (i.e. one in the same dimensions, separate and distinct dimensions, etc.) and thus 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 8-10, 13, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Malter et al.
Malter et al (i.e. Fig. 2) discloses a first waveguide (i.e. 10) having a first dimension (i.e. a height dimension) aligned with a first layer; a second waveguide (i.e. 11) having a second dimension (i.e. a height dimension) aligned with a second layer; a waveguide transformer (i.e. matching section 12) having a transformer dimension (i.e. a height dimension) aligned with a third layer. Note that the limitation “fabricated in device layers” is typically not given patentable weight when being evaluated in the context of an apparatus claim. Regarding claims 9, 10, as evident from Fig. 2, the first, second and transformed dimensions are at different heights. Regarding claim 13, note that the first, second and transformer waveguides are present and note that the method limitation of “fabricated by removing material” is typically not given patentable weight when being evaluated in the context of an apparatus claim, as in claim 13. Regarding claim 18, note that waveguide transformers are typically known in the art for necessarily performing the function of minimizing reflections over a range of frequencies.
Claims 8-10, 12, 13, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Wu et al.
Wu et al (i.e. FIG. 8) discloses a first waveguide (i.e. 402) having a first dimension (i.e. a height dimension a) aligned with a first layer; a second waveguide (i.e. 404) having a second dimension (i.e. a height dimension b) aligned with a second layer; a waveguide transformer (i.e. transformer portion 406) having a transformer dimension (i.e. a height dimension h1) aligned with a third layer. Note that the limitation “fabricated in device layers” is typically not given patentable weight when being evaluated in the context of an apparatus claim. Regarding claims 9, 10, as evident from Fig. 8, the first, second and transformed dimensions are at different heights. Regarding claim 12, note that the first, second and transformer dimensions can be characterized as a length, which are different. Regarding claim 13, note that the first, second and transformer waveguides (402, 404, 406) are present and note that the method limitation of “fabricated by removing material” is typically not given patentable weight when being evaluated in the context of an apparatus claim, as in claim 13. Regarding claim 18, note that waveguide transformers are typically known in the art for necessarily performing the function of minimizing reflections over a range of frequencies.
Claims 8, 9, 11, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Killen et al.
Killen et al (Fig. 3) discloses a first waveguide (i.e. input transmission line section 302) having a first dimension (i.e. a width dimension) aligned with a first layer; a second waveguide (i.e. output transmission line section 306) having a second dimension (i.e. a width dimension) aligned with a second layer; a waveguide transformer (i.e. quarter-wave transformer section (304) as per claims 15, 16) having a transformer dimension (i.e. a width dimension) aligned with a third layer. Note that the limitation “fabricated in device layers” is typically not given patentable weight when being evaluated in the context of an apparatus claim. Regarding claims 9, 11, as evident from Fig. 3, the first, second and transformed dimensions are at different widths. Regarding claim 13, note that the first, second and transformer waveguides are present and note that the method limitation of “fabricated by removing material” is typically not given patentable weight when being evaluated in the context of an apparatus claim, as in claim 13. Regarding claim 17, note that the height dimensions of the first and second waveguide match each other. Regarding claim 18, note that waveguide transformers are typically known in the art for necessarily performing the function of minimizing reflections over a range of frequencies.
Claims 1-3, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Seidel.
Seidel (i.e. FIG. 8) discloses a circuit device, comprising: a filter (i.e. 72); a transmission line (i.e. waveguide (71) as per claim 3) and a corrective mismatch (i.e. reduced height quarter wave sections (73, 74), as evident from FIG. 8) disposed in the filter/transmission line arrangement. Regarding claim 2, as is known in the art corrective mismatches necessarily correct native or naturally occurring mismatch in the arrangement. Regarding claim 7, note that the reduced height quarter wave section (74) of the corrective mismatch is located adjacent and interface with the waveguide (71). Note that the limitation “fabricated in device layers” is typically not given patentable weight when being evaluated in the context of an apparatus claim.
Claims 1-3, 7; 8-10, 13, 14, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Grabowski et al.
Grabowski et al (i.e. FIG. 1) discloses a traveling wave tube as per claim 14 coupled to an input waveguide transducer (i.e. 16) of the waveguide type as per claim 3, through to an impedance step transformer (i.e. 17) of the waveguide type, where the impedance transformer (17) necessarily provides a corrective mismatch to counter a native or naturally occurring mismatch, as per claim 3. Note that the limitation “fabricated in device layers” is typically not given patentable weight when being evaluated in the context of an apparatus claim. Regarding claim 7, note that the stepped impedance transformer (17) is immediately adjacent the waveguide (16). Regarding claims 8-10, note that the stepped impedance transformer has different dimensions in the height dimension. Regarding claim 13, note that the method limitation of “fabricated by removing material” is typically not given patentable weight when being evaluated in the context of an apparatus claim, as in claim 13. Regarding claim 18, note that waveguide transformers are typically known in the art for necessarily performing the function of minimizing reflections over a range of frequencies.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Error! Unknown document property name. at telephone number Error! Unknown document property name..
/BENNY T LEE/PRIMARY EXAMINER
ART UNIT 2843
B. Lee