The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The specification is replete with grammatical errors too numerous to mention specifically. The specification should be revised carefully. Examples of such errors are: At all appropriate occurrences throughout the specification, note that the articles –a--, --an-- & --the-- should be inserted prior to certain features for grammatical clarity. Some, but not all, representative examples include: in paragraph [0015], second line therein, --an-- prior to “electromagnetic:, --a-- prior to “waveguide”, --a-- prior to “lumped”; in paragraph [0071], first line therein, --the-- prior to “termination” & 4th line therein, --the-- prior to “feedline”; in paragraph [0094], third line therein, --the-- prior to “resonator”, 4th line therein, --an-- prior to “annular” & --a-- prior to (round, square, slot, square), respectively; etc.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Page 1, in paragraph [0002], first line therein and page 2, in paragraph [0004], second, third lines therein, note that --frequency-- should be inserted after “radio”, respectively at these instances for an appropriate characterization. Page 1, in paragraph [0003], 5th line therein, note that --devices-- should be inserted after “these” for an appropriate characterization. Page 2, in paragraph [0003], last line therein, note that the recitation of “referred to as beyond-5G systems” should be rewritten as -- referred to as “beyond-5G systems”-- for an appropriate characterization. Page 2, in paragraph [0004], second line therein, note that --the year-- should be inserted prior to “2030” for an appropriate characterization; third line therein, note that “as fast as” should be rewritten as --faster than-- for an appropriate characterization. Page 3, in paragraph [0006], 11th line therein, note that the acronym “UE” should be strictly defined (i.e. in words) for clarity and completeness of description; 17th line therein, note that the terminology “softwarization” is vague in meaning and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Page 5, in paragraph [0012], third line therein, note that the pronoun “they” should be rewritten as --these loads-- for an appropriate characterization. Page 6, in paragraph [0016], second line therein, note that the term “Absorbing” should be rewritten as --An absorbing-- for an appropriate characterization. Page 7, in paragraph [0018], 8th line therein, note that the recitation of “means of adjusting the line width only is not effective because it doesn’t” should be rewritten as --means for only adjusting the line width is not effective because adjusting the line width does not-- for an appropriate characterization; 10th line therein, note that --deficiency-- should be inserted after “This” for an appropriate characterization. Pages 8, 15, in the respective headings therein, note that --OF THE INVENTION-- should be inserted after “SUMMARY” and inserted after “DETAIL DESCRIPTION”, respectively for consistency with PTO guidelines. Page 8, in paragraph [0021], 18th line therein, note that the term “said” should be rewritten as --the-- for an appropriate characterization. At all instances throughout the specification, note that the terminology “radio-absorbing” should be rewritten as --radio-frequency absorbing--, respectively at these instances for an appropriate characterization of this aspect of the invention. Page 9, in paragraph [0029], second line therein and page 27, in paragraph [00104], third line therein, note that the designation “(VIA)” should be deleted as being unnecessary, respectively at these instances. Page 9, in paragraph [0029], second line therein, note that the recitation of “distance between which” is vague in meaning, especially since it is unclear which features/elements is such a “distance” intended and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Page 11, in paragraph [0038], first line therein, note that the recitation of “Before undertaking the DETAIL DESCRIPTION below” is vague in meaning and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Page 15, in paragraph [0056], 6th line therein, note that the recitation of “receive signal from the outside” should be rewritten as --receive external signals-- for an appropriate characterization. Page 16, in paragraph [0057], first line therein, note that the recitation of “PCB makes its manufacture easier” should be rewritten as --the PCB provides for easier manufacture-- for an appropriate characterization. Page 16, in paragraph [0059], first line therein, note that the recitation of “referred to as power divider” should be rewritten as --referred to as “a power divider”-- for an appropriate characterization; last line therein, note that the term “adder” should be rewritten as --combiner-- for an appropriate characterization. Page 17, in paragraph [0063], third line therein, note that the recitation of “Figs 1 and 2” should be rewritten as --Figs. 1, 2A and 2B-- for consistency with the numbering of the drawings. Page 18, in paragraph [0073], 5th line therein, note that the recitation of “the intermediate state” is vague in meaning and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Page 19, in paragraph [0074], first line therein, note that --(i.e. +, -) in in Fig. 4A-- should be inserted after “anti-phase signals” for an appropriate characterization consistent with the labeling in that drawing; third, 9th & 10th lines therein, note that it is unclear the recitation of “Z2 = ∞” would be an accurate characterization, respectively at these instances and thus appropriate clarification is needed; 6th line therein, note that --(i.e. +, +) in in Fig. 4B-- should be inserted after “in-phase signals” for an appropriate characterization consistent with the labeling in that drawing; 12th line therein, note that the recitation of “the impedance changes to the opposite” is vague in meaning and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Page 20, in paragraph [0075], 8th line therein, note that the pronoun “it” should be rewritten to indicate the intended feature for clarity and completeness of description. Page 21, in paragraph [0080], second line therein; page 25, in paragraph [0097], last line therein; page 26, in paragraph [0099], 9th, 10th lines therein: note that it is unclear whether the recitations of “Aquadag E” (i.e. in paragraph [0080]), of “Eccosorb” (i.e. in paragraph [0097]), and of “MagRAM” & “ZIPSIL” (i.e. both in paragraph [0099]), respectively are considered trademarks, in which case such trademark needs to be capitalized and provided with the generic terminology. Page 21, in paragraph [0080], 5th line therein, note that the pronoun “it” should be rewritten as --the resistive film (4)-- for an appropriate characterization. Page 22, in paragraph [0084], 4th & 5th lines therein, it is noted that parameter (G1, G2) should be rewritten as --Γ1-- and --Γ2--, respectively for consistency with the labeling in Fig. 6. Page 22, in paragraph [0086], second equation therein, note that the parameters associated with this equation do not appear consistent with parameters previously set forth and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Page 23, in paragraph [0087], third line therein, note that the pronoun “it” should be rewritten as --the resonator-- for an appropriate characterization. Page 24, in paragraph [0094], second line therein, note that the pronoun “its” should be rewritten as --the square-- for an appropriate characterization. Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Note that in the following drawings, appropriate labels and descriptive terminology depicted therein need to be correspondingly described in the detail description of these drawings for clarity and completeness of description: FIGS. 3, 5A, 5B, 6, 11. Moreover, note that in general, applicants’ should review the detail description of the drawings to ensure that labels and descriptive wording used to describe any particular drawing is consistent with what is actually depicted in that particular drawing. For those instances where the detail description and the described drawing do not coincide, then appropriate action should be taken (e.g. either adding appropriate labels to the drawings and/or reference described labels with respect to other drawings in which those labels actually appear, etc.). Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-16; 17-20 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 8 and in claim 17, line 10, note that it is unclear as to which one of the plural “feed lines” is intended by the recitation of “the feedline”, respectively at these instances and thus appropriate clarification is needed.
In claim 1, line 13 and in claim 17, line 15, note that it is unclear how “additional power divider branches”, as recited herein relates to the earlier recitation of “an additional power divider branch”, recited in claims 5 & 6 of the claim (i.e. the singular additional divider branch is a part of the plural additional divider branches, the singular additional divider branch is separate and distinct from the plural additional divider branches, etc.), respectively at these instances and note that the recitation of “are connected” appears incomplete (i.e. connected to what feature?), respectively at these instances and thus appropriate clarification of these issues are required.
In claim 1, line 19 and in claim 17, line 21, note that the recitation of “is arranged longitudinally” is vague in meaning, especially since the nature of any longitudinal orientation does not appear to have been previously established, respectively at these instances and thus appropriate clarification is needed.
In claim 7, note that it is unclear as to which dimensions would characterize “a size” of the “resonator patch”, especially since the configuration (e.g. a shape) of the resonator patch has been positively established. Appropriate clarification is needed.
In claim 10, lines 1 & 2, note that the recitation of “is surrounded over a perimeter” is vague in meaning, especially since it is unclear what characterizes “surrounded” and “the perimeter” (i.e. how surrounding?; which perimeter?) and thus appropriate clarification is needed; line 2, note that the recitation of “distance between which” is vague in meaning, especially since it is unclear which features/elements is such a “distance” intended and thus appropriate clarification is needed.
In claim 10, line 3 and in claim 14, line 2, note that the parameter “ε” needs to be strictly defined (i.e. in words), respectively in these claims for clarity and completeness of description (e.g. see claim 4).
In claim 11, note that it is unclear whether the subject matter recited herein would be considered redundant, especially since the same or substantially the same subject matter already appears in independent claim 1, from which this claim directly depends. Appropriate clarification is needed.
The following claims have been found to be objectionable for reasons set forth below:
In claim 5, lines 2, 3; in claim 6, lines 1, 2; in claim 8, line 3; in claim 9, line 1; in claim 20, lines 2, 3: note that the terminology “radio-absorbing” should be rewritten as --radio-frequency absorbing--, respectively at these instances for an appropriate characterization of this aspect of the invention.
In claim 10, line 2, note that the designation “(VIA)” should be deleted as being unnecessary.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yum et al (i.e. Fig. 2) discloses a planar power divider with main divider branches and additional divider branches, but does not specify that the lengths of the main divider branches and the additional divider branches are λ/4 and λ/2, respectively. Sakagami et al (Fig. 1) discloses a planar power divider with main divider branches with a length of λ/4 and additional divider branches of length λ/2, but does not disclose a termination element. Tsai et al (i.e. FIG. 3) discloses a termination for a power divider configured to couple to an exciting slot, but does not disclose a resonator patch having a gap filled with resistive material.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Benny Lee at telephone number 571 272 1764.
/BENNY T LEE/PRIMARY EXAMINER
ART UNIT 2843
B. Lee