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 .
Unity of Invention
Applicant’s election of Species I (Figs. 1A-6D) in the reply filed on 5/13/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out any errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
The restriction requirement is deemed moot since Applicant has canceled all of the non-elected claims.
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 1-6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being clearly anticipated by West et al. (US 5,225,799 previously cited by examiner).
West (e.g. Figs. 4-6) teaches a cavity filter including:
Regarding Claims 1 and 5, a housing (e.g. the walls form a cavity such as shown in Figs. 5 and 6), a filter cover (e.g. wall 154) for closing a cavity which is defined by a housing and in which a plurality of resonators (e.g. 140, 142) is disposed, the filter cover having an inner surface which faces the cavity, wherein the inner surface is provided with at least one flexible flap for frequency tuning (e.g. 160-166) or coupling tuning (e.g. 171-175), which extends from and substantially perpendicular to the inner surface (e.g. see Fig. 4, the tuning tabs are substantially perpendicular to the top/cover of the housing), and the device is for RF frequencies (e.g. see the abstract, microwave frequencies are by definition RF frequencies).
Regarding Claim 2, wherein the at least one flexible flap includes a first flexible flap for frequency tuning (e.g. 160-166), which is arranged to substantially overlap a corresponding resonator after the filter cover is joined to the housing (e.g. see Figs. 4 and 6, the tuning tabs 160-164 overlap the respective resonators).
Regarding Claim 3, wherein the at least one flexible flap includes a second flexible flap for coupling tuning (e.g. tabs 171-175), which is arranged to be located between two adjacent resonators after the filter cover is joined to the housing (e.g. 171-175 are respectively between adjacent resonators, e.g. tab 171 is between resonators 140 and 142).
Regarding Claim 4, wherein the filter cover is not provided with any hole or slot for tuning (e.g. wall cover 154 in Fig. 4 does not have any hole or slot).
Regarding Claim 6, wherein each of the plurality of resonators extends in a first direction from a first end which is fixed to a bottom wall of the housing to a second end which is directed towards and spaced from the inner surface of the cover (e.g. the resonators have a first end attached to a bottom wall (147/158) of the housing and a second end of the resonators is directed/extended towards and spaced from the cover/wall 154 as shown in Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 13, wherein at least two of the plurality of resonators is made of a single sheet metal (e.g. see Col. 2, lines 53-59, the resonators and device are made from a sheet of metal such as copper).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeo (CN112514156A cited by applicant) in view of West et al. (US 5,225,799 previously cited by examiner).
Yeo (e.g. Figs. 3-4) teaches a cavity filter including:
Regarding Claims 1 and 5, a filter cover (e.g. 112) for closing a cavity which is defined by a housing (e.g. 102, 104, 106, 108) and in which a plurality of resonators (e.g. 110) is disposed, the filter cover having an inner surface which faces the cavity, wherein the inner surface is provided with at least one flexible flap for frequency tuning (e.g. 125-1) or coupling tuning (e.g. 125-2), which extends from the inner surface of the cover, and the filter is for RF frequencies (e.g. see Fig. 5, shows GHz which is RF frequencies).
Regarding Claim 2, wherein the at least one flexible flap includes a first flexible flap for frequency tuning, which is arranged to substantially overlap a corresponding resonator after the filter cover is joined to the housing (e.g. see Figs. 3-4, the tuning flaps 125-1 overlap the respective resonators).
Regarding Claim 3, wherein the at least one flexible flap includes a second flexible flap for coupling tuning (e.g. 125-2), which is arranged to be located between two adjacent resonators after the filter cover is joined to the housing (e.g. see Figs. 3-4, the tuning flap 125-2 is for coupling adjustment between adjacent resonators).
Regarding Claim 6, wherein each of the plurality of resonators extends in a first direction from a first end which is fixed to a bottom wall of the housing to a second end which is directed towards and spaced from the inner surface of the cover (e.g. see Fig. 3, the resonators extend fixedly at 110a-1 from the bottom of the housing to a folded second end 110c of the resonators).
Regarding Claim 7, wherein each of the plurality of resonators is made of a sheet metal, and has a body portion extending in a first plane and a folded portion formed at the second end by bending the sheet metal (e.g. see page 5 of the translation, copper/plate/sheet).
Regarding Claim 8, wherein the folded portion extends substantially in a second plane which is parallel to the inner surface of the cover (e.g. see Fig. 3, folded portion 110c of the resonator extends parallel to the cover 112).
Regarding Claim 10, wherein the first plane is parallel to a sidewall (e.g. resonator base plane 110a-1 is parallel with the front/back sidewalls in Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 13, wherein at least two of the plurality of resonators is made of a single sheet metal (e.g. see page 5 of the translation, a sheet/plate is used to make the resonators and cavity which is conductive metal sheet/plate).
However, Yeo does not teach that the tuning flaps are substantially perpendicular to the cover surface (Claims 1 and 5) and the filter cover is not provided with any hole or slot for tuning (Claim 4), that the at least one flexible flap extends in a plane substantially parallel to the first plane (110a-1 of Yeo) and the side wall (e.g. the front/back walls of Fig. 3 of Yeo) of the housing (Claim 10), that the side wall of the housing is provided with at least one hole at a position corresponding to a free end of the at least one flexible flap (Claim 11), or that the at least one hole is sealed off after the frequency tuning or the coupling tuning is completed (Claim 12).
West (e.g. Fig. 4) teaches that tuning flap/tabs (160-164, 171-175) can be substantially perpendicular to the cover wall and are parallel to the sidewalls and resonator (e.g. 140, 142) bases. Also, the cover wall (154) does not have any holes or slots for tuning. Additionally, West (Figs. 4, 5) teaches that the sidewall can have holes (e.g. 82-88) corresponding to a free end of the respective tuning tabs/flaps.
Regarding Claims, 1, 4, and 5, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Yeo cavity filter to have the slotted tuning flaps/tabs to instead have been perpendicularly arranged to the cover wall tuning tabs/flaps with no holes or slots in the cover/wall such as taught by West, because the modification would have been a mere substitution of alternative structures for providing the same problem solving function of tuning characteristics of resonators in a cavity filter. As an obvious consequence of the modification, the flaps/tabs being perpendicular to the cover in the Yeo modified device would also be parallel to the resonator base 110a-1 extension direction and parallel to the front/back walls of the Yeo housing as in Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 11, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified Yeo device to have holes in the sidewall such as taught by West (e.g. 82-88), because the holes would have provided the benefit of access to the inside of the cavity filter to tune the device after assembly (e.g. see West Col. 5 lines 5-12). Additionally, regarding Claim 12, it would have been considered obvious and routine to one of ordinary skill in the art to have sealed/plugged the tuning holes after the device is tuned, because it is well-known in the art that holes in RF cavities can cause unwanted signal leakage or unwanted electromagnetic intrusion and thus sealing with a well-known conductive material would have been obvious for providing the benefit of a more reliable shielding characteristic of the housing structure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 14 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
Prosecution Insights