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(s) 1-7 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 § 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rusch et al. (US 10,749,238).
In regard to Claim 1:
Rusch discloses, in Figure 1, a dielectric waveguide cable (100), comprising a core (106) composed of a dielectric material (Column 4: lines 18-20) and configured to transmit GHz-band electromagnetic waves by means of the core (106, Column 3: lines 46-49), wherein a cavity (112) extending along a cable longitudinal direction (Column 4: lines 25-26) is formed at a center of the core (106) in a cross-section perpendicular to the cable longitudinal direction (112 is at the center of 106), and wherein the cavity is filled with air (Column 4: lines 42-44).
In regard to Claim 2:
Rusch discloses, in Figure 1, the dielectric waveguide cable, according to claim 1, wherein the dielectric material constituting the core (106) is a resin with a dielectric tangent at a frequency of electromagnetic waves transmitted by means of the core (106) being smaller than 1 x 10-3 (PTFE, Column 6: lines 29-34)
In regard to Claim 3:
Rusch discloses, in Figure 1, the dielectric waveguide cable, according to claim 2, wherein a ratio of a cavity inner diameter to a cable outer diameter is 20% or more and 40% or less (Column 6: lines 6-9 and 13-15, where 106 diameter is between 2 mm and 4 mm and 112 is 0.1 mm2 and 1 mm2, therefore if 106 is 3 mm and 112 is 1 mm2, then the ratio between the two is 33%).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rusch et al. (US 10,749,238), in view of Bennett et al. (US 9,997,819).
In regard to Claim 4:
All of the claim limitations have been discussed with respect to Claim 1 above, except for wherein the core comprises a hollow dielectric waveguide tube in which the cavity is formed and a plurality of dielectric waveguide wires arranged around the dielectric waveguide tube, and wherein the plurality of dielectric waveguide wires are spirally twisted around a circumference of the dielectric waveguide tube.
Bennett discloses, in Figure 18G, wherein the core comprises a hollow dielectric waveguide tube (1844) in which the cavity (1842) is formed and a plurality of dielectric waveguide wires (1846) arranged around the dielectric waveguide tube (1844), and wherein the plurality of dielectric waveguide wires (1846) are spirally twisted around a circumference of the dielectric waveguide tube (Column 42: lines 53-55).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the dielectric waveguide wires taught by Bennett with the waveguide tube and cavity taught by Rusch, in order to have an operating frequency of the guided electromagnetic waves be chosen such that a field intensity profile of a propagating mode of the guided electromagnetic waves extends nominally (or not at all) outside of the shell jacket, resulting in lower loss and greater propagation distances (Bennett Column 43: lines 55-60).
In regard to Claim 5:
All of the claim limitations have been discussed with respect to Claims 1 and 4 above, except for wherein a binder tape is wound around a circumference of the plurality of dielectric waveguide wires, and wherein the binder tape is covered by a sheath.
Rusch further discloses, in Figure 1, wherein a binder tape (114, Column 7: lines 10-14) is wound around a circumference of the plurality of dielectric waveguide wires (1846 of Bennett).
Bennett further discloses, in Figure 18G, wherein the binder tape (114 of Rusch) is covered by a sheath (1847).
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rusch et al. (US 10,749,238), in view of Popa et al. (US 2002/0030632).
In regard to Claim 6:
Popa discloses, in Figure 4a, a terminal structure comprising a dielectric waveguide cable (42) configured to transmit GHz-band electromagnetic waves (¶ 0033: lines 1-3) by means of a core (52) composed of a dielectric material (¶ 0031), wherein a terminal member (54) and a dielectric waveguide cable (42) are arranged in line so that a central axis of the terminal member (54) composed of a dielectric material (¶ 0030: lines 13-17) having a conical portion coincides with a central axis of the dielectric waveguide cable (42, ¶ 0030: lines 17-29), wherein the terminal member (54) includes a shaft hole (72) with a reduced inner diameter that decreases in diameter toward a tip of the conical portion (¶ 0030: lines 26-29), and wherein the cavity (76) of the dielectric waveguide cable (42) and the shaft hole (72) of the terminal member (54) are in communication with each other (¶ 0031).
Popa does not disclose wherein the dielectric waveguide cable includes a cavity extending along a cable longitudinal direction at a center of the core in a cross-section perpendicular to the cable longitudinal direction, wherein the cavity is filled with air,
Rusch discloses, in Figure 1, wherein the dielectric waveguide cable (100) includes a cavity (112) extending along a cable longitudinal direction (Column 4: lines 25-26) at a center of the core (106) in a cross-section perpendicular to the cable longitudinal direction (112 is at the center of 106), wherein the cavity is filled with air (Column 4: lines 42-44).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the dielectric waveguide cable and cavity taught by Rusch with the dielectric waveguide cable taught by Popa, in order to have improved containment provided by air which also allows the overall diameter of the waveguide to be smaller than a reference waveguide having a solid polymer jacket layer (Rusch Column 8: lines 31-33).
In regard to Claim 7:
Popa discloses, in Figure 4a, a terminal structure comprising a dielectric waveguide cable (42) configured to transmit GHz-band electromagnetic waves (¶ 0033: lines 1-3) by means of a core (52) composed of a dielectric material (¶ 0031), wherein a terminal member (54) and a dielectric waveguide cable (42) are arranged in line so that a central axis of the terminal member (54) composed of a dielectric material (¶ 0030: lines 13-17) having a conical portion coincides with a central axis of the dielectric waveguide cable (42, ¶ 0030: lines 17-29), and wherein at least one linear dielectric material (78) having an outer diameter smaller than an inner diameter of the cavity is housed in the cavity (78 is within 76) at an end of a terminal member-side (64) in the core (¶ 0031).
Popa does not disclose wherein the dielectric waveguide cable has a cavity extending along a cable longitudinal direction at a center of the core in a cross-section perpendicular to the cable longitudinal direction, wherein the cavity is filled with air.
Rusch discloses, in Figure 1, wherein the dielectric waveguide cable (100) includes a cavity (112) extending along a cable longitudinal direction (Column 4: lines 25-26) at a center of the core (106) in a cross-section perpendicular to the cable longitudinal direction (112 is at the center of 106), wherein the cavity is filled with air (Column 4: lines 42-44).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the dielectric waveguide cable and cavity taught by Rusch with the dielectric waveguide cable taught by Popa, in order to have improved containment provided by air which also allows the overall diameter of the waveguide to be smaller than a reference waveguide having a solid polymer jacket layer (Rusch Column 8: lines 31-33).
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 John W Poos whose telephone number is (571)270-5077. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-5.
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, Jessica Han can be reached at 571-272-2078. 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.
/JOHN W POOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights