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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suesada et al. (JP 2015185858 A).
As to claim 1, Suesada et al.’s figure 1 shows a waveguide comprising: an inner electrical insulator (1) that comprises a dielectric foam (Suesada et al. teaches that “[a]s a material of the dielectric 1, for example, there is a rod-like foamed polyethylene …”) that extends along a length; and an electrically conductive shield (2 and 3) that surrounds and abuts the inner electrical insulator along a majority of the length, and at least one dielectric fiber (polyethylene is a fiber) that extends through the dielectric foam, wherein the waveguide is configured to propagate radio frequency electrical signals (figure 3), wherein the waveguide is devoid of electrically conductive material disposed inside the shield.
As to claim 2, figure 1 shows that the dielectric foam is a monolithic and homogenous structure.
As to claim 3, figure 1 shows that the dielectric foam and gas (Suesada et al. further teaches that the dielectric 1 includes air layer) are the only materials inside the electrically conductive shield.
As to claim 14, figure 1 shows that the electrically conductive shield comprises a metal.
As to claim 15, figure 1 shows that the electrically conductive shield comprises a wrap.
As to claim 16, figure 2 shows that the electrically conductive shield comprises a coating (4).
As to claim 17, figure 2 shows that the electrically conductive shield comprises first and second layers (4 and 5).
As to claim 18, figures 1 and 2 show that the electrically conductive shield provides total internal reflection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 1, 5-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suesada et al. (JP 2015182828 A) in view of Chang et al. (US 20080312579).
As to claim 1, Suesada et al.’s figure 1 shows at least one dielectric fiber (polyethylene) that extends through the dielectric foam. Furthermore, Chang et al.’s ¶0048 teaches that “[t]he foam structure may include dielectric fibers”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include dielectric fibers in or extended through Suesada’s dielectric foam for the purpose of enhancing thermal and mechanical stability or improving signal transmission.
As to claim 5, a filament and a tape are known dielectric fibers. It is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance.
As to claim 6, EPTFE is a well-known foam material. It is seen as an obvious design preference to select EPTFE for Suesada et al.’s dielectric 1 in order to ensure optimum performance.
As to claim 7, the modified Suesada et al.’s figure 1 shows that the inner electrical insulator is elongate along a central axis, and the at least one dielectric fiber extends through the dielectric foam along a direction parallel to the central axis (inherent).
As to claim 8, the modified Suesada et al.’s figure 1 shows that the dielectric foam is co-extruded with the electrically nonconductive fiber.
As to claim 9, cylindrical waveguide is well known in the art. It is seen as an obvious design preference to shape Suesada et al.’s waveguide cylindrical in order to ensure optimum performance.
As to claim 10, the modified Suesada et al.’s figure 1 shows that the dielectric foam is extruded.
As to claim 11, the modified Suesada et al.’s figure 1 shows that the foam comprises a fluoropolymer (PTFE is a fluoropolymer).
As to claim 12, fluorinated ethylene propylene (FEP) and a perfluoroalkoxy alkane (PFA) are well known foam materials. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use FEP or PFA for Suesada et al.’s dielectric 1 for the purpose of improving stability.
As to claim 13, the modified Suesada et al.’s figure 1 shows that the foam comprises Teflon? (PTFE is a Teflon).
As to claim 21, the modified Suesada et al.’s figure 1 shows that at least one dielectric fiber comprises a plurality of dielectric fibers (Chang et al.’s ¶0048 teaches that “[t]he foam structure may include dielectric fibers”)
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suesada et al. (JP 2015182828 A) in view of Kodama et al. (US 20130180752).
As to claim 19, Suesada et al.’s figure 2 shows an outer electrical insulator (4) that surrounds the electrical shield. Furthermore, Kodama et al.’s figure 1 shows a similar device that comprises an outer electrical insulator 5. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to further include an outer electrical insulator surrounding Suesada et al.’s electrical shield for the purpose of reducing interference.
As to claim 20, Suesada et al. teaches that the discloses that “waveguides are used in aircraft, marine radar, and communication equipment that use microwaves and millimeter waves, and their construction requires flexibility. In addition, a lightweight waveguide is required for aircraft.” It is seen as an obvious design preference to use the device to propagate RF signal in order to ensure optimum performance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Chang et al. is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Suesada et al.’s teaches that the material of the dielectric 1, for example, there is a rod-like foamed polyethylene, which is a fiber material. Furthermore, Chang et al.’s further teaches that foam structure may include dielectric fibers. Since both of Suesada et al. and Chang et al. teach that foam material structure includes fiber(s). Chang et al.’s are an analogous art to Suesada et al.’s reference.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ANH-QUAN TRA whose telephone number is (571)272-1755. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri from 8:00 A.M.-5:00 P.M.
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.
/QUAN TRA/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights