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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Reference labels S2(2), S2(3), 1(2) and the corresponding values as shown in Figure 8; and
Reference labels S1(2), S1(3), and 1(2) and the corresponding values as shown in Figure 9.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Reference labels S2(2), S2(3), and 1(2) (Figure 8); and S1(2), S1(3), and 1(2) (Figure 9) and the corresponding values associated with the labels are not defined or mentioned within the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6-7, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, Line 5; and Claim 6, Line 3, “their heights” should be rewritten as –respective heights--;
Claim 1, Line 7; and Claim 6, Line 4, “wherein their heights” should be rewritten as – wherein the respective heights--;
Claim 7, Line 2, “their heights” should be rewritten as –the respective heights--;
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 2-18 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. Claims 6-10 and 13-18 depend upon rejected claim 4 and inherit the deficiency thereby.
Claim 2, Line 2, “both ends” is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to whether any “ends” have been positively defined to give any meaning to “both ends”, thereby leaving the boundaries of the claim unclear.
Claim 3, Lines 5-6, “a fastener” is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to how this recitation relates to the “a fastener” as defined in line 2 of the same claim (i.e. the same fastener, or a differing one), thereby leaving the boundaries of the claim unclear.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the same axis" in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4, Line 11, “at least one coaxial polarizer” is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to whether this recitation is related to the “a coaxial polarizer” as previously defined within the same claim and, if so, how it relates to the previously recitation (i.e. the same coaxial polarizer, a differing, distinct coaxial polarizer, or a further limiting aspect), thereby leaving the boundaries of the claim unclear.
Claim 5, Line 6, “has a diameter greater than that of the first waveguide” is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to what prior diameter limitations this recitation is being compared to (i.e. the first polarizer, the inner or outer circumferential surface, the second waveguide, etc.), thereby leaving the boundaries of the claim unclear.
Claim 11, Line 4, “a central axis” is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to how this recitation relates to the “same axis” as defined in claim 4 from which this claim depends (i.e. the same attribute, a differing attribute, etc.), thereby leaving the boundaries of the claim unclear.
Claim 12, Line 3, “a slit” is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to how this recitation relates to the “a slit” as defined in line 2 of the same claim (i.e. the same slit, a differing, distinct slit, etc.), thereby leaving the boundaries of the claim unclear.
Claim 17, Lines 2-3, “a longitudinal direction” is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to how this recitation relates to the previously recited “a longitudinal direction of the first waveguide” in claim 5, from which this claim depends (i.e. the same longitudinal direction, a differing, distinct longitudinal direction, etc.), thereby leaving the boundaries of the claim unclear.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mahon (US 8786380).
As per Claims 1-2:
Mahon discloses in Figure 2:
A coaxial polarizer comprising a first polarizer (“opposed fins”, 130, defined as P1 in annotated Image 1 below) having a hollow (“cylindrical bore”, not shown in the Figures, [Col. 7, Lines 2-4] of related Figure 6) where a guide body (“inner conductor”, 120) that is fixed to the first polarizer (P1) to prevent shock or vibration is inserted (fins 130 extend from the outer surface of inner conductor 120, [Col. 3, Lines 10-12], and are thereby fixed and thus necessarily prevent shock and vibration, as is deemed inherent to one of ordinary skill in the art) and a second polarizer (“opposed fins”, 130, defined as P2 in annotated Image 1 below) extending symmetrically to both ends in the longitudinal direction of the guide body from the first polarizer (as per claim 2, as is evident by P2 extending longitudinally across inner conductor 120, as shown in annotated Figure 2) and comprising a plurality of stepped elements (“conductive fin”, 132a-c) with heights from the guide body being different from one another as the plurality of stepped elements extend away from the first polarizer (the first, d1, second, d2, third, d3, and fourth distance, d4 are differing, [Col. 3, Lines 18-23]) and extending in a longitudinal direction of the guide body from the first polarizer (132a-c are stepped in a longitudinal direction, [Col. 3, Lines 14-16]).
PNG
media_image1.png
353
627
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Image 1
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mitchelson (US 11424538).
As per Claim 4:
Mitchelson discloses in Figure 3B:
A multiband antenna with a first waveguide (“central waveguide”, 120) and second waveguide (“outer waveguide”, 130) having a greater diameter than the first waveguide (as is evident by outer waveguide 130 circumferentially surrounding waveguide 120) and where the first and second waveguides are aligned such as to be sharing the same axis (as is evident by Figure 3B), at least one coaxial polarizer (“shorting pins”, 230) located between and fixed to the first and second waveguide (shorting pin 230 contacts the outer sidewall of the central waveguide extension 212, [Col. 15, Lines 9-13], which is located at a rear portion of central waveguide 120, [Col. 14, Lines 40-41], therefore polarizer 230 is between waveguides 120 and 130 and is in a fixed position),
a reflecting board (“parabolic reflector antenna”, 20, as shown in related Figure 1) on the other side of the first and second waveguides (coaxial waveguide structure 110, as shown in related Figure 2A, extends from feed hub 210 through the feed bore 22 of antenna 20, as shown in related Figure 1, [Col. 9, Lines 46-49], which is the left side of feed assembly interface 200, depicted by F1, as shown in annotated Image 2 below), and a feedhorn (“feed assembly interface”, 200, by coupling to feed assembly 100, [Col. 9, Lines 51-54], as shown in related Figure 1, such that interface 200 serves as a feedhorn) disposed on one side of the first and second waveguides (200 is on an opposing side of F1, as is evident by Image 2 below).
As per Claim 5:
The coaxial polarizer (“shorting pins”, 230) comprises a first polarizer (top “shorting pins” 230, corresponding to S1, as defined in image 2 below) formed to fill up between an outer circumferential surface of the first waveguide (“central waveguide”, 120) and an inner circumferential surface of the second waveguide (“outer waveguide”, 130, S1 is within the inner surface of the first waveguide 130 and outer surface of the second waveguide 120 and thereby fill up the space between) that shares the same axis as that of the first waveguide and has a diameter greater than that of the first waveguide (as is evident by outer waveguide 130 circumferentially surrounding the central waveguide 120 and therefore having a greater circumferential surface and sharing the same axis, as is evident by Figure 3B), and a second polarizer (bottom “shorting pins” 230, corresponding to S2, as defined in image 2 below) that extends in a longitudinal direction of the first waveguide (120) from the first polarizer (S1, S2 extends horizontally across the longitudinal direction of 120 through the multiple pins, as is evident by Figure 3B).
PNG
media_image2.png
497
602
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Image 2
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchelson (US 11424538) in view of Mahon (US 8786380).
As per Claim 6:
Mitchelson discloses in Figure 3B:
The rejections of Claims 4 and 5 as stated above.
Mitchelson does not disclose:
(as per Claim 6) The second polarizer comprises a plurality of stepped elements having their heights from the first waveguide being different from one another, wherein their heights change as the plurality of stepped elements is away from the first polarizer.
Mahon discloses in Figure 2:
(as per Claim 6) The second polarizer (“opposed fins”, 130, defined as P2 in annotated Image 1 above) comprises a plurality of stepped elements (“conductive fin”, 132a-c) having their heights from the first waveguide (corresponding to the “inner conductor”, 120) being different from one another, wherein their heights change as the plurality of stepped elements (132a-c) is away from the first polarizer (“opposed fins”, 130, defined as P1 in annotated Image 1 above, the first, d1, second, d2, third, d3, and fourth distance, d4 are differing, [Col. 3, Lines 18-23]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the first and second pin polarizers of Mitchelson with the first and second stepped polarizers of Mahon to provide for an obvious substitution of equivalent elements with equivalent structures performing the same function, thereby suggesting the obviousness of the combination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL YALDO whose telephone number is (703)756-1784. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7 AM - 4 PM.
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.
/ABIGAIL AMIR YALDO/Examiner, Art Unit 2843
/ANDREA LINDGREN BALTZELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights