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 Status
Claim 1 is amended, claims 2-4 were cancelled. New claims 5-20 are added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1 and 5-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: between “an RF transmission line”, “a coolant flow path”, and “an RF load”. Also, the claim attempts to define the subject-matter in terms of the result to be achieved, which merely amounts to a statement of the underlying problem (i.e. said termination has an overall power measurement accuracy better than 0.25%), without providing the technical features necessary for achieving this result. Dependent claims 5-20 are also rejected.
Regarding claim 5, how and what obtains “a thermal settling time… is under 60 seconds” is not clear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Meltzer et al. (US 2016/0025783 A1) hereafter Meltzer.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood by the examiner, Meltzer discloses a liquid-cooled termination for calorimic RF power measurement [see “According to one aspect of the present invention, a radio frequency (RF) power calorimeter is provided.” at ¶0006] comprising: an RF transmission line [see “RF input 2 can be configured as a transmission line of copper that provides an electrical path to load 3” ¶0068], a coolant flow path 5 having a coolant input 21 and a coolant output 22, and an RF load [load 3, ¶0067]; wherein said termination has an overall power measurement accuracy better than 0.25% [implicit to transmission line, coolant path and RF load as further defined by Meltzer].
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hedberg (US 3,213,392).
Regarding claim 1, Hedberg discloses Coaxial Transmission Line Termination Employing Tubular Resistor Cooled By Internal And External Annular Water Films. Hedberg at fig. 1-4, particularly at fig. 1 discloses a liquid-cooled termination for calorimic RF power measurement comprising: an RF transmission line 17/39, a coolant flow path [93 to 93’] having a coolant input 93 and a coolant output 93’, and an RF load 31; wherein said termination has an overall power measurement accuracy better than 0.25%.[implicit to transmission line, coolant path and RF load as further disclosed by Hedberg].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hedberg as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oliver (US 2800793) and Wilson (US 4009423).
Regarding claim 5, Hedberg discloses all the elements including said RF transmission line being electrical communication with said RF load having a resistor 31 and said RF load 31 is in said coolant flow path, such that a heat generated by said RF power being applied to said RF load through said RF transmission line is convected to said coolant [water] while said coolant flows past said RF load. Hedberg is silent about a heat sink; a thermal settling time for said overall power measurement accuracy better than 0.25% is under 60 seconds; a turbulent mixer, to reduce heat stratification in the coolant exiting the coolant outlet, is located: along said coolant flow path between said RF load and the coolant outlet; or at the coolant outlet.
Oliver discloses “… novel invention disclosed herein there is provided two insulated chambers that are each independently thermally connected to a heat sink. The 'heat sink is kept at a low temperature by the use of running water, however neither the temperature of the water, nor rate of flow of the water need be determined. A component which dissipates heat, the quantity being unknown, is placed in one of the two chambers and a unit that can dissipate a known quantity of heat is placed in the other chamber. Heat transfer will soon take place and there will be a flow from the two chambers to the heat sink, which is of lower temperature than the inside of the chambers. A thermocouple is connected to the two heat conducting columns that connect the chambers to the heat sink and the electromotive force induced by the different temperatures is read by a galvanometer. ... using Thermocouple 19.” Oliver at fig. 2 discloses a heat sink 15 with inlet at 17 and outlet at 18.
Wilson in similar environment discloses a turbulent mixer [using rod 40] , to reduce heat stratification in the coolant exiting the coolant outlet, is located: along said coolant flow path [see “Mixing of the coolant induced by the presence of rod 40 also lowers the temperature of the coolant. “] between said RF load and the coolant outlet; or at the coolant outlet.
Oliver uses heak sink 15 to ,maintain coolant temperature relatively low. Wilson discloses use of rod 40 to lower the temperature of coolant. Therefore, itwould have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add teaching of Oliver and Wilson to the coolant path of Hedberg in order to maintain desired temperature as further taught by Oliver and Wilson. Modified Hedberg discloses a thermal settling time for said overall power measurement accuracy better than 0.25% is under 60 seconds because they discloses all the components required.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PARESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-1968. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am to 4:00pm.
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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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.
/PARESH PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
July 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights