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
Claims 1-6, 8 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 3, the examiner suggests rewriting “the outside of the opening” to --an outside of the opening-- to avoid an antecedent issue.
Claim 1, lines 8-9, the examiner suggests rewriting “the outside of the metal resonant rod” to --an outside of the metal resonant rod-- to avoid an antecedent issue.
Claim 2, line 1, the examiner suggests rewriting “the bottom of the fixing member” to --a bottom of the fixing member-- to avoid an antecedent issue.
Claim 2, line 2, the examiner suggests rewriting “the top of the fixing member” to --a top of the fixing member-- to avoid an antecedent issue.
Claim 3, line 2, the examiner suggests rewriting “the outer diameter” to --an outer diameter-- to avoid an antecedent issue.
Claim 3, line 3, the examiner suggests rewriting “than that of the second resonant part” to --than an outer diameter of the second resonant part-- to provide a more proper description.
Claim 3, line 5, the examiner suggests rewriting “the inner diameter” to --an inner diameter-- to avoid an antecedent issue.
Claim 3, line 5, the examiner suggests rewriting “than that of the second cavity” to --than an inner diameter of the second cavity-- to provide a more proper description.
Claim 4, line 1, the examiner suggests rewriting “the outside” to --an outside-- to avoid an antecedent issue.
Claim 5, lines 1-2, at both instances, the examiner suggests rewriting “the top” to --a top-- to avoid an antecedent issue.
Claim 5, line 2, the examiner suggests rewriting “the same plane” to --a same plane-- to avoid an antecedent issue.
Claim 6, line 2, the examiner suggests rewriting “the outer diameter” to --an outer diameter-- to avoid an antecedent issue.
Claim 6, line 3, the examiner suggests rewriting “than that of the second dielectric body” to --than an outer diameter of the second dielectric body-- to provide a more proper description.
Claim 6, line 4, the examiner suggests rewriting “the top surface” to --a top surface-- to avoid an antecedent issue.
Claim 6, line 4, the examiner suggests rewriting “the same plane” to --a same plane-- to avoid an antecedent issue.
Claim 6, lines 4-5, the examiner suggests rewriting “the top surface” to --a top surface-- to avoid an antecedent issue.
Claim 8, line 1, the examiner suggests rewriting “the diameter” to --a diameter-- to avoid an antecedent issue.
Claim 8, line 2, the examiner suggests, at both instances, the examiner suggests rewriting “the inner diameter” to --an inner diameter-- to avoid an antecedent issue.
Claim 10, line 2, the examiner suggests rewriting “the bottom surface” to --a bottom surface-- to avoid an antecedent issue.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xinghua (CN116345094A, Machine English Translation Provided by Examiner).
In regards to claim 1, Xinghua teaches in Fig. 3 a filter/resonator comprising:
A housing (10) comprising a resonant cavity (60) with an opening;
A cover plate (20) covering an outside of the opening of the resonant cavity and connected to the housing;
A metal resonant rod (31) disposed in the resonant cavity;
A dielectric member (32) disposed in the resonant cavity, the dielectric member being disposed on the metal resonant rod; and
A fixing member (33) disposed in the resonant cavity, detachably connected to the outside of the metal resonant rod (31) and the dielectric member (32), and the dielectric member is limitedly connected between the fixing member and the metal resonant rod (see machine English translation Paragraph [0100], which discloses that the fixing member is a sleeve to secure the dielectric member to the metal resonant rod, since the fixing member is a “sleeve” type which isn’t permanent, the fixing member is “detachable” and is “limitedly” connected between the dielectric member and the metal resonant rod since it not permanently attached).
In regards to claim 9, based on Fig. 3, a tuning screw (50) and a nut (present but not labeled) connected to the tuning screw, the tuning screw is threaded (203, see Machine English Translation Paragraph [0118]) connected to the cover plate (20) and extends through the cover plate into the resonant cavity, and the nut is located outside the cover plate (20).
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xinghua (CN116345094A, Machine English Translation Provided by Examiner) in view of Hershtig (USPAT 5,936,490).
As disclosed above, Xinghua teaches the claimed invention as recited in claim 1. However, Xinghua does not teach: in regards to claim 10, wherein the housing of the resonator further comprises a mounting platform protruding from the bottom surface of the resonant cavity, the metal resonant rod is fixed on the mounting platform, the metal resonant rod and the mounting platform are connected by a connecting bolt.
Hershtig teaches in Fig. 2 a resonator filter comprising: a resonant cavity having a resonator body (R1) located above a mounting platform (32A), in which the mounting platform (32A) protrudes from a bottom surface of the resonant cavity. Based on Fig. 2, the resonator body (R1) is fixed on to the mounting platform, the resonator body and the mounting platform are connected by a connecting bolt (see column 3, lines 42-47).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Xinghua and have included a mounting platform to attached to the metal resonator rod via a connecting bolt because such a modification would have been a well-known in the art substitution of art-recognized alternative way to attach a resonator rod to a cavity filter as exemplary taught by Hershtig.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yuan et al. (US2019/0319331 A1) teaches in Fig. 2 a resonator filter comprising a dielectric member (40) attached to a resonator body (34) via a fixing member (50).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORGE L SALAZAR JR whose telephone number is (571)-272-9326. The examiner can normally be reached between 9am - 6pm Monday-Friday.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JORGE L SALAZAR JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843