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 because of the following:
Figures 2-4 needs to be labeled as --PRIOR ART-- or --RELATED ART-- since these drawings are based on a “basic single microstrip filter” as disclosed on Page 3, and are not an embodiment of the invention.
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
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 3, the examiner suggests inserting --the-- before the recitation of “L-shaped slotted microstrip resonators” to avoid an antecedent issue.
Claim 1, line 7, the examiner suggests removing the limitation of “can be” to avoid any ambiguity in the claim.
Claim 1, lines 8-9, the examiner suggests rewriting “the 50 Ohm microstrip impedance line” to -- the 50 Ohm microstrip impedance lines-- to provide consistency in the claim language.
Claim 1, line 9, the examiner suggests rewriting “microstrip resonator” to --the L-shaped slotted microstrip resonators-- to provide consistency in the claim language.
Claim 1, line 11, the examiner suggests removing the parentheses in the recitation of “(TD=0.0023)” since it is not needed.
Claim 1, line 14, the examiner suggests rewriting “resonators” to --the L-shaped slotted microstrip resonators-- to provide consistency in the claim language.
Claim 1, line 18, the examiner suggests rewriting “having a function is to convert high-frequency signal” to -- having a function
Claim 1, line 19, the examiner suggests rewriting “the input” to --a input-- to avoid an antecedent issue.
Claim 1, line 20, the examiner suggests rewriting “the resonators” to --the L-shaped slotted microstrip resonators-- to provide consistency in the claim language.
Claim 1, line 21, the examiner suggests rewriting “the 50 Ohm microstrip impedance line” to --the 50 Ohm microstrip impedance lines-- to provide consistency in the claim language.
Claim 2, lines 2-3, the examiner suggests rewriting “the L-shaped slotted microstrip resonator” to --each of the L-shaped slotted microstrip resonators-- to provide a more proper description and to provide consistency in the claim language.
Claim 2, lines 3-4, the examiner suggests rewriting “the resonant frequency can be adjusted by changing the respective dimensions” to --a resonant frequency of each of the L-shaped slotted microstrip resonators is adjusted by changing a respective dimension-- to avoid an antecedent issue and to provide a more proper description.
Claim 2, line 5, the examiner suggests rewriting “the filter bandwidth” to --the band-pass filter bandwidth-- to provide consistency in the claim language.
Claim 2, line 5, the examiner suggests rewriting “the distance” to --a distance-- to avoid an antecedent issue.
Claim 2, line 6, the examiner suggests rewriting “the main passband” to --a main passband-- to avoid an antecedent issue.
Claim 2, line 7, the examiner suggests rewriting “can be” to --are-- avoid any ambiguity in the claim.
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 1 and 2 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1, line 6, note that the recitation of “typically 0.017 mm, 0.035 mm, etc,” causes ambiguity in the claim since it is unclear if the thickness of the “thin metal sheets” have to meet this limitation of “typically” and furthermore, the recitation of “etc.” causes the claim to be indefinite, since it is unclear as to what “etc.” would include (i.e. metes and bounds of the recitation of “etc.” is not definite). Correction is required.
Claim 1, line 10, note that the recitation of “the best material is Roger 5880” causes ambiguity in the claim since it is unclear if “Roger 5880” needs to be used. Correction is required.
Claim 2, lines 9-10, note that the recitation of “(including edge coupling or face coupling…)” causes ambiguity in the claim since it is unclear if the limitation in parentheses is required and furthermore, the recitation of “…” causes the claim to be indefinite, since it is unclear as to what “…” would include (i.e. metes and bounds of the recitation of “...” is not definite). Correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
As discussed above, the claims have multiple claim objections and 35 USC 112(b) rejections to address. However, if claim 1 was amended to correct the noted issues above, while maintaining the “consists of the following” limitation, the specific metal thickness of “0.017 mm or 0.035 mm” and left the requirement of the dielectric substrate being “Roger 5880”, the claims would be novel over the prior since none of the prior arts discussed below, teaches the combination of limitations recited in claim 1 while maintaining the “consists” limitation. Therefore claim 1 would be novel and non-obvious over the prior art. By virtue of dependency from claim 1, claim 2 would also be novel and non-obvious over the prior art.
Guo et al. (CN108183294 A, Machine English Translation Provided by Examiner) teaches in Figs. 1 and 2, a high-frequency band-pass filter comprising: L-shaped slotted resonators located on a substrate (4) connected to high-frequency connectors (present but not labeled).
Louzir et al. (USPAT 9,666,923 B2) teaches in Figs 1-4 a high-frequency band-pass filter using L-shaped slotted microstrip resonators located on a substrate (1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORGE L SALAZAR JR whose telephone number is (571)-272-9326. The examiner can normally be reached between 9am - 6pm Monday-Friday.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JORGE L SALAZAR JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843