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 § 112
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 2-6, 8-9, 11, 13 and 18-19 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2-4 and 6, Line 2, note that the recitation of the “first connection strip”; Claims 2 and 3, Line 4, note that the recitation of the “second connection strip”; and Claims 2 and 4-5, Line 5, note that the recitation of the “third connections strip” are each unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to how these three connection strips would relate to the singular “a connection strip” as recited in line 9 of independent claim 1 from which these claims directly depend. It is unclear if it is intended to identify three completely new connection strips or to further limit the existing “a connection strip” which is in a singular form, thereby making it difficult to ascertain the boundaries of the claims.
Claim 8, Line 1, note that the claim dependency (i.e. to claim 7) is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as such a dependency improperly depends from a canceled claim.
Claim 9, Lines 5-6, “planar heads” is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to whether this reference to planar heads is related to the first, second and third planar heads as defined in claim 1 from which this claim directly depends or whether this is a completely new recitation and identification of different planar heads. Furthermore, note that the recitation of “plurality of resonant components” is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to whether this is a different plurality of resonant components in relation to the first, second and third resonant component already associated with the first, second and third planar heads as previously defined in lines 10-13 of claim 1 from which this claim directly depends.
Claim 11, Lines 7-8, “a plane” is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to whether this recitation of “a plane” is the same as or at all related to “a common plane” as identified in claim 1 from which this claim directly depends or whether this is a different plane.
Claim 11, Lines 6-8, “the resonator arrangement… plurality of resonant components” is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art how or which portion of the resonator arrangement or the plurality of resonator components relates to the like feature as previously defined in claim 1 from which this claim directly depends. It is especially not apparent how the resonant components are arranged in a common plane inside the cavity as in lines 3-4 of claim 1, but “extending from the frame and lying in the plane” as recited in line 8 of claim 11.
Claim 13, Line 2, “a plurality of cavities” is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to how the housing comprises “a plurality of cavities” when line 2 of claim 1, from which this claim directly depends, only discloses a singular cavity within the housing and not a plurality of resonators. Therefore, such inconsistent terminology making it difficult to determine the metes and bounds of the claim.
Claim 13, Lines 2-3, “one resonator arrangement” is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to whether this one resonator arrangement is comprised of “the resonator arrangement” as disclosed in claim 1 from which this claim directly depends or whether there is another and newly defined resonator arrangement that is being referred to.
Claims 18 and 19, Line 1, “each connection strip” is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to whether there is more than one connection strip, especially since only “a connection strip” was disclosed in line 9 of claims 1 and 17 from which these claims depend, thereby making the metes and bounds of the claim unclear as to whether additional connection strips are being added or disclosed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 11/28/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-6 and 8-17 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b), §102(a)(1) and §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the 112(b) rejections as stated above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 10, 12 and 14-17 are allowable over the prior art of record, since the closest prior art of record to Chiu (US 9525198) and Jia (US 20210226310) in view of Chiu (US 9525198), while teaching a first, second and third resonant component connected through a connection strip, fails to teach or suggest the first, second and third resonant components arranged in an interdigital structure and as recited in independent claims 1 and 17.
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 ABIGAIL YALDO whose telephone number is (703)756-1784. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7 AM - 4 PM.
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.
/ABIGAIL AMIR YALDO/Examiner, Art Unit 2843
/ANDREA LINDGREN BALTZELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights