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
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 14 (line 2), it appears that the phrase “in its cavity, wherein it comprises” would be clearer grammatically if it instead read as --a cavity, wherein the cavity filter comprises-- since the terms “it” and “its” can be confusing.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 8 is 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.
In Claim 8, the phrase “the variable non-metallized area-- lacks antecedent basis and is unclear as to what it is referring. Should Claim 8 instead depend from Claim 6 instead of Claim 1?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-2, 9, 11-12 ,and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being clearly anticipated by Scott et al. (US 5,329,687).
Scott (e.g. Figs. 2, 3C, 3B, and 4) teaches a cavity filter including:
Regarding Claim 1, a cover body (e.g. 202) made of plastic and an inner metal layer applied on an inner side of the cover that is in contact with a cavity of the cavity filter (e.g. see Col. 2, lines 25-34, cover made of plastic with metal coating layer to enclose the cavity), wherein a capacitance-influencing structure (e.g. see Col. 5, lines 53-68) is provided on the inner side of the cover and comprises a recess (e.g. see the recess in 202 in Fig. 3D) formed in the cover body and/or a protrusion (e.g. see the protrusion 209 in 202 in Fig. 3C and 3D) integrally formed (e.g. see Col. 5, lines 53-58, 209 is integrally formed with the cover 202) with a base of the cover body and/or a non-metallized area in the inner metal layer.
Regarding Claim 2, wherein the capacitance-influencing structure comprises the recess or the protrusion that faces a resonator in the cavity and/or comprises the protrusion that extends into a space between two adjacent resonators in the cavity (e.g. see Fig. 4, Fig. 3C and Fig. 2, some of the protrusions 209 are over the top of the resonators (e.g. the 209Cs and 209E) and some protrusions (e.g. 209D) are between adjacent resonators as shown in Fig. 4 as applied to Fig. 2, see Col. 5, lines 53-58) .
Regarding Claim 9, wherein the capacitance-influencing structure comprises an isolation shielding means that is integrally formed with the base of the cover body as a rib or a grid protruding into the cavity of the cavity filter (e.g. metallized protrusions 209D are disposed between adjacent resonators and are rib like shaped and extend partially from the cover to the bottom of the filter thus provide some shielding between adjacent resonators because of the metallization on the protrusions).
Regarding Claim 11, wherein the capacitance-influencing structure comprises a positive coupling means configured in the form of an aperture or a hole provided in the isolation shielding means (e.g. protrusions 209D are disposed between adjacent resonators and extend partially from the cover to the bottom of the filter and thus provide some shielding between adjacent resonators because of the metallization on the protrusions, and the opening between the bottom of the protrusion 209D and the bottom of the filter can thus be considered an aperture opening in a shielding).
Regarding Claim 12. (Currently Amended) The cover according to claim 1, wherein the cover body is made by plastic injection molding (e.g. see Col. 5, lines 45-48, and Col. 2, lines 25-34).
Regarding Claim 14, at least one resonator (e.g. 204) disposed in its cavity, wherein it comprises a cover (e.g. 202) comprising a cover body made of plastic and an inner metal layer applied on an inner side of the cover that is in contact with a cavity of the cavity filter (e.g. see Col. 2, lines 25-34, cover made of plastic with metal coating layer to enclose the cavity), wherein a capacitance-influencing structure (e.g. see Col. 5, lines 53-68) is provided on the inner side of the cover and comprises a recess (e.g. see the recess in 202 in Fig. 3D) formed in the cover body and/or a protrusion (e.g. see the protrusion 209 in 202 in Fig. 3C and 3D) integrally formed (e.g. see Col. 5, lines 53-58, 209 is integrally formed with the cover 202) with a base of the cover body and/or a non-metallized area in the inner metal layer.
Regarding Claim 15, wherein the cavity filter comprises a metal housing that is covered by the cover, and a closed cavity is defined by the housing and the cover for housing the at least one resonator (e.g. see Col. 2 lines 25-34, housing has a metal layer and the cover 202 closes the cavity).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7, 10, and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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