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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 1/3/25 is considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “parallelepiped with at least one of its sides truncated” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 3, “is rectangular” should read –is a rectangular–.
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.
Claims 10-12 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 10 recites the limitation "the first electromagnetic wave detecting unit" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 11-12 are included for their dependency upon claim 10.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the fourth port" in line 3 and "the second electromagnetic wave detecting unit" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 12 is included for its dependency upon claim 11.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the output variation" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Further regarding claim 12, the limitation of “the first electromagnetic wave detecting unit and/or the second electromagnetic wave detecting unit” in conjunction with “connected to a cancellation system … or an offset unit including a squaring system” is indefinite as it does not clearly define which of said units are connected to which of said systems, the systems thus being ambiguously defined as recited.
To expedite prosecution, these claims will be examined as best understood by the examiner.
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)(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.
Claim 1-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Morgan et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2017/0170540).
Regarding claim 1, Morgan et al. teaches (Fig. 1) an electromagnetic wave input/output element attachable to a waveguide (100), comprising: a dielectric three-dimensional object in the shape of a parallelepiped (140), wherein the radio b/c of the length b of the long side of the aperture surface (130; see direction 133 of second transmission direction, rendering 130 an aperture end, having a length and width) and the length c of the side of the parallelepiped in the direction perpendicular to the aperture surface (length of 140 in direction 193 is perpendicular to aperture surface) is smaller than 0.75 (by visual demonstration of Fig. 1, ratio of length of face of distal end 130 to length of 140 in direction 193 is evidently smaller than 0.75).
Regarding claim 2, Morgan teaches the electromagnetic wave input/output element according to Claim 1, wherein the parallelepiped is rectangular parallelepiped (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Morgan teaches the electromagnetic wave input/output element according to claim 1, wherein the ratio b/c is 0.6 or less (by visual demonstration of Fig. 1, ratio of length of face of distal end 130 to length of 130 in direction 193 is evidently smaller than 0.6).
Regarding claim 4, Morgan teaches the electromagnetic wave input/output element according to claim 1, wherein the ratio b/c is 0.4 or less (by visual demonstration of Fig. 1, ratio of length of distal end 130 to length of 130 in direction 193 is evidently smaller than 0.4).
Regarding claim 6, Morgan teaches the electromagnetic wave input/output element according to claim 1 wherein the surface opposite the aperture surface (142) has a protrusion (144) with a tapered tip (110) for attachment to a waveguide (102, see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Morgan teaches the electromagnetic wave input/output element according to claim 1 wherein the electromagnetic wave is microwave, millimeter wave or terahertz wave (¶19 lines 13-18, 120-160 GHz are millimeter waves).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2017/0170540) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Awaji (US PG Pub. No. 2020/0021022).
Regarding claim 5, Morgan teaches the electromagnetic wave input/output element according to claim 1.
Morgan does not teach wherein the dielectric three-dimensional object contains fluorinated resin in the material.
Awaji teaches (Fig. 1) an electromagnetic wave input/output element, comprising: a dielectric three dimensional object (11), wherein the dielectric three dimensional object contains fluorinated resin in the material (see ¶21).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electromagnetic wave input/output element such that the dielectric three dimensional object contains fluorinated resin in the material, employing the teachings of Awaji.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling physical flexibility of the dielectric three dimensional object (Awaji, ¶21).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2017/0170540) in view of Futagami et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2021/0234278).
Regarding claim 8, Morgan et al. teaches (Fig. 1) an electromagnetic wave input/output element attachable to a waveguide (100), comprising: a dielectric three-dimensional object in the shape of a parallelepiped (140), wherein the radio b/c of the length b of the long side of the aperture surface (130; see direction 133 of second transmission direction, rendering 130 an aperture end, having a length and width) and the length c of the side of the parallelepiped in the direction perpendicular to the aperture surface (length of 140 in direction 193 is perpendicular to aperture surface) is 0.75 or less (by visual demonstration of Fig. 1, ratio of length of face of distal end 130 to length of 140 in direction 193 is evidently smaller than 0.75).
Morgan does not teach the three dimensional object in the shape of a parallelepiped with at least one of its sides truncated.
Futagami et al. teaches (Figs. 4-5) an electromagnetic wave input/output element attachable to a waveguide (transmission line 12 may be considered a waveguide), comprising: a three-dimensional object (20) in the shape of a parallelepiped with at least one of its sides truncated (see truncation, Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electromagnetic wave input/output element attachable to a waveguide such that at least one of its side is truncated, employing the teachings of Futagami.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of desirably increasing the antenna gain in a particular direction (Futagami, ¶44).
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2017/0170540) in view of Patton et al. (US Patent No. 11,496,229).
Regarding claim 9, Morgan et al. teaches an electromagnetic wave input/output head (100), comprising: a coupler (102); and an electromagnetic wave input/output element forming a parallelepiped (140), wherein the electromagnetic wave input/output element is attached to a first port of the coupler (see Fig. 1).
Morgan does not teach the coupler having at least three ports.
Patton et al. teaches (Fig. 2A) an electromagnetic wave input/output head, comprising: a coupler (210) having at least three ports (right port, left port, coupled port, isolated port); and an electromagnetic wave input/output element (140), wherein the electromagnetic wave input/output element is attached to the first port of the coupler (right port).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electromagnetic wave input/output head of Morgan such that the coupler has at least three ports, wherein the electromagnetic wave input/output element is attached to the first port of the coupler, employing the teachings of Patton.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling detection of the presence or absence of the electromagnetic wave input/output element by the electromagnetic wave input/output head (Patton, Col 4 lines 61-66).
Regarding claim 10, Morgan teaches the electromagnetic wave input/output head according to claim 9, wherein a second port of the coupler is connected to an output source of electromagnetic waves (port of 102 connected to 128 of 108).
Morgan does not teach the third port is connected to the first electromagnetic wave detecting unit.
Patton et al. teaches (Fig. 2A) an electromagnetic wave input/output head, comprising: a coupler (210) having at least three ports (right port, left port, coupled port, isolated port); and an electromagnetic wave input/output element (140), wherein the electromagnetic wave input/output element is attached to the first port of the coupler (right port), and the third port is connected to the first electromagnetic wave detecting unit (coupled port to 230).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electromagnetic wave input/output head of Morgan such that the coupler has at least three ports, wherein the electromagnetic wave input/output element is attached to the first port of the coupler, and the third port is connected to the first electromagnetic wave detecting unit, employing the teachings of Patton.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling detection of the presence or absence of the electromagnetic wave input/output element by the electromagnetic wave input/output head (Patton, Col 4 lines 61-66).
Regarding claim 11, Morgan teaches the electromagnetic wave input/output head according to claim 10.
Morgan does not teach wherein the fourth port of the coupler is connected to the second electromagnetic wave detecting unit.
Patton et al. teaches (Fig. 2A) an electromagnetic wave input/output head, comprising: a coupler (210) having at least three ports (right port, left port, coupled port, isolated port); and an electromagnetic wave input/output element (140), wherein the electromagnetic wave input/output element is attached to the first port of the coupler (right port), wherein the fourth port of the coupler is connected to the second electromagnetic wave detecting unit (isolated port; see Col 5 lines 24-26).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electromagnetic wave input/output head of Morgan such that the coupler has at least three ports, wherein the electromagnetic wave input/output element is attached to the first port of the coupler, wherein the fourth port of the coupler is connected to the second electromagnetic wave detecting unit, employing the teachings of Patton.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling detection of the presence or absence of the electromagnetic wave input/output element by the electromagnetic wave input/output head (Patton, Col 4 lines 61-66).
Regarding claim 12, Morgan teaches the electromagnetic wave input/output head according to claim 11.
Morgan does not teach wherein the first electromagnetic wave detecting unit and/or the second electromagnetic wave detecting unit is connected to a cancellation system that cancels the output variation of the output source of the electromagnetic wave or an offset unit including a squaring system that superimposes the output of the electromagnetic wave output source.
Patton et al. teaches (Fig. 2A) an electromagnetic wave input/output head, comprising: a coupler (210) having at least three ports (right port, left port, coupled port, isolated port); and an electromagnetic wave input/output element (140), wherein the electromagnetic wave input/output element is attached to the first port of the coupler (right port), wherein the first electromagnetic wave detecting unit and/or the second electromagnetic wave detecting unit is connected to a cancellation system that cancels the output variation of the output source of the electromagnetic wave or an offset unit including a squaring system that superimposes the output of the electromagnetic wave output source (either of 230 and 240 are electrically connected to 220; see Col 6 lines 12-16, shorting of output to ground constitutes cancellation of the output variation of the output source by virtue of canceling the output).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electromagnetic wave input/output head of Morgan such that the coupler has at least three ports, wherein the electromagnetic wave input/output element is attached to the first port of the coupler, and such that the first electromagnetic wave detecting unit and/or the second electromagnetic wave detecting unit is connected to a cancellation system that cancels the output variation of the output source of the electromagnetic wave or an offset unit including a squaring system that superimposes the output of the electromagnetic wave output source, employing the teachings of Patton.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling detection of the presence or absence of the electromagnetic wave input/output element by the electromagnetic wave input/output head (Patton, Col 4 lines 61-66).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Morgan et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2017/0040659), Chaimov et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2016/0095171), Fujieda (US PG Pub. No. 2008/0036675), and Brankovic et al. (US Patent No. 6,748,203) each teach embodiments of an extended dielectric electromagnetic wave input/output element and coupling arrangements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jordan E. DeWitt whose telephone number is (571)270-1235. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday from 8:30 AM to 3:30 PM ET.
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, Dameon Levi can be reached at 571-272-2105. 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.
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/Jordan E. DeWitt/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights