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 .
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(s) 1-7 and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruiz-Cruz et al. (US 20140347148) in view of Goebel et al. (US 20090275631).
As to claim 1, Ruiz-Cruz et al.’s figure 11 shows a combline waveguide filter (abstract) obtained by metal additive manufacturing, comprising at least two resonators interconnected by main irises (86, 89, 85), each resonator comprising a cavity (81 and 82) with a first axis (vertical axis), each cavity being delimited in particular by a flat base extending perpendicularly to the first axis. The figure fails to show that each cavity is further delimited by a roof converging towards a single point. However, Goebel et al.’s figure 2 shows a resonator that its cavity is delimited by a roof converging towards a single point. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to add a roof as claimed on each of Ruiz-Cruz et al.’s resonator for the purpose of compensating temperature. Or it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to couple two of Goebel et al.’s resonators via main irises for the purpose of forming a filter.
As to claim 2, the modified Ruiz-Cruz et al. or Goebel et al.’s figure shows that each roof comprises a first lateral portion (that is equivalent to Goebel et al.’s 21) adjacent and perpendicular to the planar base and a second lateral portion (that is equivalent to Goebel et al.’s 22) converging towards the single point.
As to claim 3, the modified Ruiz-Cruz et al. or Goebel et al.’s figure shows that each resonator has rotational symmetry about the first axis.
As to claim 4, modified Ruiz-Cruz et al. or Goebel et al.’s figure shows that each flat base is circular or polygonal with at least three sides, preferably circular, square, pentagonal, hexagonal or octagonal.
As to claim 5, modified Ruiz-Cruz et al. or Goebel et al.’s figure shows that each resonator comprises a post (Ruiz-Cruz et al.’s 201, 202. Or it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include a post in Goebel et al.’s resonator(s) for the purpose of controlling the bandwidth of the filter) rising from the planar base parallel to the first axis.
As to claim 6, modified Ruiz-Cruz et al. or Goebel et al.’s figure shows that at least one post is formed integrally a flat base of a resonator.
As to claim 7, the modified Ruiz-Cruz et al. or Goebel et al.’s figure shows that the post of each resonator has a circular or polygonal with at least three sides cross-section, preferably a circular, square, pentagonal, hexagonal or octagonal cross-section.
As to claim 11, the modified Ruiz-Cruz et al. or Goebel et al.’s figure shows that the at least one main iris (24) comprises a connection portion (85) not parallel to the plane base (Ruiz-Cruz et al.’s figure 12 shows plurality of resonators having different heights. Arranged the connection portion as claimed is seen as an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance), the connection portion extending between two resonators connected by the at least one main iris.
As to claim 12, the modified Ruiz-Cruz et al. or Goebel et al.’s figure shows that the connection portion connects said single points of the resonators connected by said at least one main iris (at least via intervening elements).
As to claim 13, Ruiz-Cruz et al.’s figure 1 or 18 shows that the resonators that are not arranged coaxially. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to arranged several main irises as claimed for the purpose of forming a filter.
As to claim 14, the modified Ruiz-Cruz et al. or Goebel et al.’s figure shows at least three resonators (Ruiz-Cruz et al.’s figure 1, 12 or 18) connected consecutively by said main irises, a first and a second resonator being connected together by a secondary iris.
As to claim 15, the modified Ruiz-Cruz et al. or Goebel et al.’s figure shows the secondary irises have a different cross-section from the main irises (since Ruiz-Cruz et al.’s figure 12 shows the resonators have different sizes. Selecting different cross-sections for the irises connecting between the resonators is seen an obvious design preference to ensure optimum performance).
As to claim 16, the modified Ruiz-Cruz et al. or Goebel et al.’s figure shows that the atleast one said secondary iris comprises a secondary connection portion (30) extending between the resonators connected by the at least one said secondary iris.
As to claim 17, the modified Ruiz-Cruz et al. or Goebel et al.’s figure shows that the main irises of the resonators are arranged coaxially along an axis of propagation of an electromagnetic signal (see Ruiz-Cruz’s figure 12).
As to claim 18, the modified Ruiz-Cruz et al. or Goebel et al.’s figure shows at least four resonators (Ruiz-Cruz’s figures 1, 12 or 18), one of the at least four resonators being connected to at least three separate resonators.
As to claim 19, polarizer and/or a septum used to split or combine signal is well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include polarizer and/or a septum in the modified Ruiz-Cruz et al. or Goebel et al.’s figure for the purpose of splitting or combining signals input or outputted by the filter.
As to claim 20, the modified Ruiz-Cruz et al. or Goebel et al.’s figure shows a method of manufacturing the filter as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH-QUAN TRA whose telephone number is (571)272-1755. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri from 8:00 A.M.-5:00 P.M.
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 at 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 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.
/QUAN TRA/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights