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 1, line 16, note that the recitation of “the radius R of its cylindrical cavity is” should be rewritten as --the hollow cylinder is defined by a cylindrical cavity of radius R which is-- for an appropriate characterization; line 17, note that --a-- should be inserted after “of” and --that-- should be inserted after “assuming”, respectively for appropriate characterizations; line 18, note that “as” should be rewritten as --is-- for idiomatic clarity; line 23, note that the recitation of “stands on a thought” should be rewritten for a more appropriate description and note that --an-- should be inserted after “that”, respectively for appropriate characterizations. Page 2, lines 5, 7, note that --plurality of-- should be inserted prior to “second”, respectively at these instances for an appropriate characterization; line 7, note that --at-- should be inserted prior to “a” for idiomatic clarity; line 10, note that the recitation of “the top end of the center conductor” is vague in meaning and thus appropriate clarification is needed; line 29, note that --THE-- should be inserted after “TO” for idiomatic clarity. Page 3, line 1, note that the recitation of “Aimed at solving” should be rewritten for a more appropriate description; line 3, note that the recitation of “after distributed or combined” appears incomplete and thus appropriate clarification is needed; lines 5, 7, note that --configured-- should be inserted after “terminal” (i.e. line 5) and inserted after “terminals” (i.e. line 7), respectively at these instances for appropriate characterizations; line 6, note that the recitation of “the center axis” should be rewritten as --a center axis-- for an appropriate characterization; line 7, note that --respective-- should be inserted prior to “electromagnetic”. Page 3, lines 13, 17 and page 4, line 14, note that --THE-- should be inserted after “OF”, respectively at these instances for idiomatic clarity. Page 4, lines 3, 10; page 9, line 18; page 10, line 14: note that the term “drawing” should be rewritten as --graph--, respectively at these instances for a more appropriate characterization consistent with what is depicted in these figures. Page 4, line 14, in the heading therein, note that --DETAIL-- should be inserted prior to “DESCRIPTION” for consistency with PTO guidelines; line 19, note that the recitation of “defined to be the lower side” should be rewritten as --defined to be the “lower side”-- for an appropriate characterization; line 20, note that the recitation of “defined to be the upper side” should be rewritten as --defined to be the “upper side”-- for an appropriate characterization. Page 5, line 5, note that the recitation of “the near circular top face” is vague in meaning and thus appropriate clarification is needed and note that --with-- should be inserted after “intersects”, respectively for an appropriate characterization; line 6, note that --the-- should be inserted prior to “two” for an appropriate characterization and note that the recitation of “that oppose in the radial direction” is vague in meaning and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Page 5, line 13 and page 7, line 15,, note that --(FIG. 3)-- should be inserted after “C” (i.e. page 5) and inserted after “S” (i.e. page 7), respectively at these instances for consistency with the labeling in that drawing. Page 6, line 21, note that --the-- should be inserted prior to “center” for idiomatic clarity. Page 6, lines 6 & 7 and page 9, line 7, it is noted that the recitation of “our simulation” should be rewritten as --A simulation by the inventors--, respectively at these instances for an appropriate characterization. Page 7, line 8, note that the recitation of “can occasionally satisfy the boundary conditions” is vague in meaning, especially since the “occasionally” satisfying nature of this description is unclear and thus needs clarification. Page 7, line 30 and page 8, lines 1, 8, note that --(FIGS. 1-3)-- should be inserted after “11” (i.e. page 7, line 30; page 8, line 8) and inserted after “12” (i.e. page 8, lines 1, 8), respectively at these instances for consistency with the labeling in those drawings. Page 8, lines 16, 18, 23, 26 and page 9, line 6, note that --power-- should be inserted after “microwave”, respectively at these instances for an appropriate characterization. Page 8, line 25, note that the term “idea” should be rewritten as --principle-- for an appropriate characterization. Page 10, line 5 and page 11, line 5, note that --level of-- should be inserted prior to “reflection”, respectively at these instances for consistency with the labeling in FIGS. 8, 11. Page 10, lines 6, 14, 15 and page 11, line 5, note that --in dB-- should be inserted after “characteristic”, respectively at these instances for consistency with the labeling in FIGS. 8, 11. Page 10, line 14, note that --the level of-- should be inserted prior to “reflection” for consistency with the labeling in FIG.8; line 24, note that the recitation of “a 20D coaxial tube” is vague in meaning and thus appropriate clarification is needed; line 26, note that the recitation of “antenna whose center conductor 121A of” should be rewritten as --antenna with a center conductor 121A (FIG. 10)-- for an appropriate characterization. Page 10, line 19 and page 11, lines 1, 4, 6, note that the label “1 B” should be rewritten as --1B--, respectively at these instances for an appropriate designation. Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Note that the following descriptive terminology appearing in the indicated drawings need to be correspondingly described in the specification description of those drawings for clarity and completeness of description: FIGS. 8, 11 (FREQUENCY [GHz], LEVELS OF … [dB]). Appropriate correction is required.
The drawings are objected to because of the following: In FIG. 3, note that it is unclear whether label (C) should be associated with the center conductor (121), especially since the detail description designates that the “center axis C” is associated with the “radial waveguide 101” and not necessarily with the center conductor (121) and thus 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 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 1 & 2 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 1, line 2, note that the recitation of “after distributed or combined” appears incomplete and thus appropriate clarification is needed.
The following claims have been found to be objectionable for reasons set forth below:
In claim 1, lines 5, 8, note that --configured-- should be inserted after “terminal” (i.e. line 5) and inserted after “terminals” (i.e. line 8), respectively at these instances for appropriate characterizations.
In claim 1, line 8 and in claim 2, lines 3, 6, note that --respective-- should be inserted prior to “electromagnetic” (i.e. in claim 1) and inserted prior to “conductor” (i.e. in claim 2, lines 3, 6), respectively at these instances for appropriate characterizations.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Shao et al (cited by applicants’).
Shao et al (i.e. Fig. 2(a), Table 1) discloses a power distributor/combiner, comprising: a main body that defines a radial waveguide including a cylindrical cavity (i.e. not labeled, but evident from the cross-section view in Fig. 2 and the perspective view in related Fig. 4); a center terminal arranged in the radial waveguide along a center axis {i.e. the centrally located feature protruding into the cavity from a bottom wall of the cavity, as evident from Fig. 2(a)}, which is capable of coupling with electromagnetic fields within the cavity; a plurality of peripheral terminals arranged radially away from the center terminal (i.e. four radially spaced features protruding into the cavity from the top wall of the cavity, as evident from Figs. 2(a) & 4). Note that the radial waveguide cavity has a radius of 11.6 mm (i.e. one-half of the cavity diameter of 23.2 mm from Table 1), which is smaller than a free-space wavelength (i.e. 35.29 mm @ 8.5 GHz) divided by a value of 2.619 yielding a quotient or ratio of 13.47 mm.
Claims 1 & 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Crouch.
Crouch (i.e. FIGS. 1, 1A-1D) discloses a power distributor/combiner (i.e. 100), comprising: a main body that defines a radial waveguide including a cylindrical cavity (i.e. matching cavity (140) as evident from FIG. 1); a center terminal arranged in the radial waveguide along a center axis {i.e. centrally located coaxial transmission line (120), as evident from FIGS. 1 & 1A), which is capable of coupling with electromagnetic fields within the cavity (140); a plurality of peripheral terminals arranged radially away from the center terminal (i.e. coaxial transmission lines (130a-130h) as evident from FIG. 1B). Note that the radial waveguide cavity has an optimal radius Rcavity of 1.74 inches (i.e. see paragraph [0065]) which is smaller than a free-space wavelength (i.e. 11.808 inches @ 1 GHz) divided by a value of 2.619 yielding a quotient or ratio of 4.508 inches. Regarding claim 2, as evident from FIG. 1C, the coaxial transmission lines (130a-130h) defining the peripheral terminals have center conductors vertically extending (i.e. along the direction of the center axis) into the cavity (140) from the bottom wall (i.e. 140b) of the cavity (140), where the extending center conductors necessarily function as respective monopole antennas. Moreover, with respect to claim 2, as evident from FIG. 1D, the peripheral conductors (130a-130h) are respectively located at a distance corresponding to a radius Rmatch, which has an optimized value of 1.44 inches (i.e. see paragraph [0065]), thereby yielding a distance between the peripheral terminals and a peripheral wall of the cavity or 0.3 inches (i.e. Rcavity minus Rmatch), where the 0.3 inches difference in distance is less than a value that is one-eighth of the free-space wavelength (i.e. 11.808 @ 1 GHz) of 1.476 inches.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Swift et al, Wu et al, Kinsey each disclose radial combiner structures having vertically extending connecting arrangement.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to BENNY T LEE at telephone number (571) 272-1764.
/BENNY T LEE/PRIMARY EXAMINER
ART UNIT 2843
B. Lee