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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 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 § 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.
Claims 1-9, 11, 15, & 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindell (WO 2009/067056 A1) in view of Schlicke et al. (US 3,093,803), hereinafter Schlicke.
Regarding claim 1, Lindell discloses, in figures 2, 4, & 5, A cavity resonator, comprising:
a metal cavity (pg. 5, “two or more individually separated rods/posts sharing one cavity, metallic and/or ceramic, inside a housing forming part of a dual mode resonator”);
a first resonator rod extending in a first direction between a first wall and a second wall of the metal cavity (first rod 3b extends in a first direction between a bottom and top wall); and
a second resonator rod extending in a second direction between a third wall and a fourth wall of the metal cavity (second rod 3a extends in a second direction between side walls of the metal cavity), the second direction being perpendicular to the first direction (first direction is perpendicular to the second direction),
wherein the first resonator rod and the second resonator rod do not intersect each other (pg. 5, “two or more individually separated rods/posts sharing one cavity”), the first resonator rod is provided with a first dielectric body (pg. 7, “asymmetries 19a and 19b in the cavity itself are used, between one or both ends of a rod and the wall, to provide coupling. The asymmetries are made of the same material as the wall or made of other dielectric material”…first dielectric body 19b on rod 3b), and the second resonator rod is provided with a second dielectric body (second dielectric body 19a on rod 3a…alternatively pg. 6 discloses a second embodiment of the rods with “regions of other dielectric constant within them such as holes or inserts 17 in one end, in both ends, or in any place of the rod”), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first dielectric body is a first dielectric collar that encircles a portion of the first resonator rod; and/or
the second dielectric body is a second dielectric collar that encircles a portion of the second resonator rod.
However, Schlicke discloses, in figure 1, wherein the first dielectric body is a first dielectric collar that encircles a portion of the first resonator rod (Col. 3, Lines 27-28, “capacitor dielectric 15 is a thin circular wafer formed preferably of a high K dielectric material”…that encircles a portion of the first resonator rod 10); and/or
the second dielectric body is a second dielectric collar that encircles a portion of the second resonator rod (second capacitor dielectric body 15 encircles a portion of the second resonator rod 10’).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the dielectric collars of Schlicke in the cavity resonator of Lindell, to achieve the benefit of adjusting the frequency response of the cavity resonator (Schlicke, Col. 4, Lines 55-65).
Regarding claim 2, Lindell in view of Schlicke discloses the cavity resonator according to claim 1, and Lindell continues to disclose, in figure 4, wherein each of the first resonator rod and the second resonator rod is grounded (pg. 7, “rods are directly attached to a cavity wall”…both resonator rods 3a, 3b are grounded to the metal cavity).
Regarding claim 3, Lindell in view of Schlicke discloses the cavity resonator according to claim 2, and Lindell continues to disclose, in figure 2 & 4, wherein:
the first resonator rod comprises a first part extending from the first wall of the metal cavity and a second part extending from the second wall of the metal cavity (pg. 6, “Figure 2…illustrate different shapes of rods making parts of a resonator…the rods can have equal or different shapes belonging to one or more groups of…partially hollowed”), with a first air gap being formed therebetween (partially hollowed rods of 15a with a formed air gap between first and second parts extending from the top and bottom of the cavity); and/or
the second resonator rod comprises a first part extending from the third wall of the metal cavity and a second part extending from the fourth wall of the metal cavity (pg. 6, “Figure 2…illustrate different shapes of rods making parts of a resonator…the rods can have equal or different shapes belonging to one or more groups of…partially hollowed”), with a second air gap being formed therebetween (partially hollowed rods of 15a with a formed air gap between first and second parts extending from the sidewalls of the cavity).
Regarding claim 4, Lindell in view of Schlicke discloses the cavity resonator according to claim 2, and Lindell continues to disclose, in figure 4, wherein:
the first resonator rod extends from the first wall of the metal cavity towards the second wall of the metal cavity (first resonator rod 3b extends from the first wall and towards the second wall of the cavity), and is spaced from the second wall with a first air gap being formed therebetween (pg. 7, “one or more gaps 18 are placed between the rod and the cavity wall. The gap or other material may occur at one or both walls”); and/or
the second resonator rod extends from the third wall of the metal cavity towards the fourth wall of the metal cavity (second resonator rod 3a extends from the third wall towards the fourth wall of the cavity), and is spaced from the fourth wall with a second air gap being formed therebetween (pg. 7, “one or more gaps 18 are placed between the rod and the cavity wall. The gap or other material may occur at one or both walls”).
Regarding claim 5, Lindell in view of Schlicke discloses the cavity resonator according to claim 3, and Lindell continues to disclose, in figure 2 & 4, wherein:
the first dielectric body is a first dielectric chip provided at the first air gap (pg. 6, “the rods can also have regions of other dielectric constant within them such as holes or inserts 17 in one end, in both ends or in any place of the rod”…thus both resonator rods with the inserts 17 are provided at the air gap 18); and/or
the second dielectric body is a second dielectric chip provided at the second air gap (pg. 6, “the rods can also have regions of other dielectric constant within them such as holes or inserts 17 in one end, in both ends or in any place of the rod”…thus both resonator rods with the inserts 17 are provided at the air gap 18).
Regarding claim 6, Lindell in view of Schlicke discloses the cavity resonator according to claim 5, and Lindell continues to disclose, in figure 2 & 4, wherein:
the first dielectric chip is grounded at one end or both ends thereof in the first direction (pg. 7, “rods are directly attached to a cavity wall…alternatively or additionally, one or more asymmetries 19a and 19b in the cavity itself are used, between one or both ends of a rod and the wall, to provide coupling”…both resonator rods 3a, 3b are grounded to the metal cavity at dielectric ends 17 or via the dielectric asymmetries 19a and 19b); and/or
the second dielectric chip is grounded at one end or both ends thereof in the second direction (pg. 7, “rods are directly attached to a cavity wall…alternatively or additionally, one or more asymmetries 19a and 19b in the cavity itself are used, between one or both ends of a rod and the wall, to provide coupling”…both resonator rods 3a, 3b are grounded to the metal cavity at dielectric ends 17 or via the dielectric asymmetries 19a and 19b.
Regarding claim 7, Lindell in view of Schlicke discloses the cavity resonator according to claim 5, but does not explicitly disclose the first dielectric chip fixed to an end of the first resonator rod by welding; and/or
the second dielectric chip fixed to an end of the second resonator rod by welding.
However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to weld the chips to the rods since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art [i.e., establishing a strong connection between the chip and rod for the benefit of effective coupling in the cavity, see pg. 7]. (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415‐421, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
Regarding claim 8, Lindell in view of Schlicke discloses the cavity resonator according to claim 7, but does not explicitly disclose one end surface or both end surfaces of the first dielectric chip in the first direction is/are at least partially electroplated; and/or
one end surface or both end surfaces of the second dielectric chip in the second direction is/are at least partially electroplated.
However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to electroplate the surfaces of the chips since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art [i.e., utilizing a well-known metal deposition technique to establish a connection between the chip and rod/wall for the benefit of effective coupling in the cavity, see pg. 7 for a further disclosure of the dielectric chips comprising a conductive material identical to that of the rods]. (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415‐421, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
Regarding claim 9, Lindell in view of Schlicke discloses the cavity resonator according to claim 8, and Lindell continues to disclose, in figure 4 & 5, wherein:
an electroplating area of the first dielectric chip is smaller than, equal to, or larger than a surface area of the first resonator rod (the circular surface area of the dielectric chips are depicted as smaller than the surface area of the resonator rod 3b); and/or
an electroplating area of the second dielectric chip is smaller than, equal to, or larger than a surface area of the second resonator rod (the circular surface area of the dielectric chips are depicted as smaller than the surface area of the second resonator rod 3a)
Regarding claim 11, Lindell in view of Schlicke discloses the cavity resonator according to claim 5, but does not explicitly disclose the first dielectric chip fixed to an end of the first resonator rod by using conductive glue; and/or
the second dielectric chip fixed to an end of the second resonator rod by using conductive glue.
However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to glue the chips to the rods since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art [i.e., establishing a strong connection between the chip and rod for the benefit of effective coupling in the cavity, see pg. 7]. (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415‐421, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
Regarding claim 15, Lindell in view of Schlicke discloses the cavity resonator according to claim 3, and Lindell continues to disclose, in figure 4, wherein a tuning screw or a tuning tab (14) is provided at the first wall and/or the second wall (pg. 7, “Other antennas 13 and 14, dielectric and/or metallic, penetrate the cavity 2b…tuning means (antennas, gaps asymmetries) are used in purpose to achieve one or more of the following…flexible filter performance tuning”), adjacent to the first resonator rod (14 is adjacent to first rod 3b); and/or
a second tuning screw or second a tuning tab (13) is provided at the third wall and/or the fourth wall (pg. 7, “Other antennas 13 and 14, dielectric and/or metallic, penetrate the cavity 2b…tuning means (antennas, gaps asymmetries) are used in purpose to achieve one or more of the following…flexible filter performance tuning”), adjacent to the second resonator rod (13 is adjacent to second rod 3a).
Regarding claim 24, Lindell in view of Schlicke discloses the cavity resonator according to claim 1, and Lindell continues to disclose, in figure 1 & 4, a plurality of resonators (pg. 5, “an appropriate number of such or other resonators are combined into one or several filters”), wherein at least one resonator is the cavity resonator (middle cavity of figure 1 comprises the rods 3a, 3b).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindell in view of Schlicke, as applied to claims 1-9, 11, 15, & 24 above, and further in view of Puoskari et al. (US 9,768,484 B2), hereinafter Puoskari.
Regarding claim 16, Lindell in view of Schlicke discloses the cavity resonator according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose a metal part or a metallization structure, which forms an angle of 30-60 degrees with the first direction and the second direction.
However, Puoskari discloses, in figure 1 & 2, a metal part or a metallization structure (Col. 4, Lines 7-9, “resonator parts in this example are elongated rods, and they are formed of a conductive material”…resonator part 204), which forms an angle of 30-60 degrees with the first direction and the second direction (Col. 4, Lines 13-15, “resonator parts in this example are located symmetrically about a 46 degree angle to the longitudinal axis of the base portion 106”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the metal part of Puoskari in the cavity resonator of Lindell and Schlicke, to achieve the benefit of arranging the structures of the cavity in a way to more selectively produce the resonance width of the cavity resonator (Puoskari, Col. 4, Lines 53-59).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 & 13-14 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.
Claims 17-19 are allowed.
Claim 17 is allowed because none of the prior art or combination thereof teaches or fairly suggests the following features in combination with the other limitations of the claim:
the cavity resonator comprising a third resonator rod extending in a third direction between a fifth wall and a sixth wall of the metal cavity, the third direction being perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction, wherein the third resonator rod does not intersect the first resonator rod or the second resonator rod, and is provided with a third dielectric body.
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 TYLER J PERENY whose telephone number is (571)272-4189. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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, Taelor Kim can be reached at (571) 270-7166. 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.
/TYLER J PERENY/Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights