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 § 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, 5-6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vilkaitis (US 3,331,400).
PNG
media_image1.png
368
472
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 5 of Vilkaitis has been reproduced and annotated above and will be referenced in the rejection below.
In regard to Claim 1:
Vilkaitis discloses, in Figure 5, a flexible twistable radiofrequency (“RF”) waveguide device for communicating RF waves between first and second RF system components, the waveguide device comprising:
a first flange (F) for connecting the waveguide device (1) to the first RF system component and a second flange (G) for connecting the waveguide to the second RF system component (Column 1: lines 9-18);
a waveguide body (1) formed as a single piece, the waveguide body for transmitting the RF waves through an interior cavity traversing a length of the waveguide body (Column 1: lines 11-18), the waveguide body comprising:
a first linear section (A), a curved section (C), and a second linear section (B), the first linear section (A) extending from the first flange (F) to a first end (D) of the curved section (C) and the second linear section (B) extending from the second flange (G) to a second end (E) of the curved section (C);
wherein the waveguide body (1) is elastically deformable, in up to six degrees of freedom (D, E), from an undeformed configuration (C) to a deformed configuration (D, E), the deformed configuration being deformed in at least one of the six degrees of freedom (Column 3: lines 41-60).
In regard to Claim 3:
Vilkaitis discloses, in Figure 5, the waveguide device of claim 1 wherein the first flange and the second flange are formed together with the waveguide body as a single piece (Column 3: lines 65-66).
In regard to Claim 5:
Vilkaitis discloses, in Figure 5, the waveguide device of claim 1 wherein the waveguide body comprises a base material (Column 1: lines 19-26).
In regard to Claim 6:
Vilkaitis discloses, in Figure 5, the waveguide device of claim 5 wherein a surface finish is applied to the base material (Column 4: lines 1-4).
In regard to Claim 8:
Vilkaitis discloses, in Figure 5, the waveguide of claim 6, wherein the surface finish is a coating (Column 4: lines 1-4) or paint material.
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) 2, 4, 7, 9-11, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vilkaitis (US 3,331,400), in view of Billod et al. (WO 2021/255660).
In regard to Claim 2:
All of the claim limitations have been discussed with respect to Claim 1 above, except for wherein the waveguide body is composed of a an additively manufacturable material.
Billod discloses wherein the waveguide body is composed of a an additively manufacturable material (¶ 0038-0039).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the additively manufacturable material taught by Billod with the waveguide device taught by Vilkaitis in order to obtain a hollow mandrel with a minimum wall thickness so that the mandral has sufficient mechanical strength for the electrodeposition step while having the advantage of being able to be dissolved quickly (Billod ¶ 0041).
In regard to Claim 4:
All of the claim limitations have been discussed with respect to Claims 1 and 3 above, except for wherein the waveguide body, the first flange, and the second flange are composed of an additively manufacturable material.
Billod further discloses wherein the waveguide body, the first flange, and the second flange are composed of an additively manufacturable material (¶ 0038-0039).
In regard to Claim 7:
All of the claim limitations have been discussed with respect to Claims 1 and 5-6 above, except for wherein the surface finish is a plating material.
Billod further discloses wherein the surface finish is a plating material (metal layer 25, ¶ 0042)
In regard to Claim 9:
All of the claim limitations have been discussed with respect to Claims 1 and 5 above, except for wherein the base material is a good conductor with a loss tangent greater than 100. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the base material be a good conductor with a loss tangent greater than 100, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 716.02(b) III.
In regard to Claim 10:
All of the claim limitations have been discussed with respect to Claims 1 and 5-6 above, except for wherein the base material is plated with a plating material having a loss tangent (i) greater than the loss tangent of the base material and (ii) superior to 100. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the base material be plated with a plating material having a loss tangent (i) greater than the loss tangent of the base material and (ii) superior to 100, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 716.02(b) III.
In regard to Claim 11:
All of the claim limitations have been discussed with respect to Claim 1 and 5-6 above, except for wherein the base material is coated or painted with material having a loss tangent (i) greater than the loss tangent of the base material and (ii) superior to 100. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the base material be coated or painted with material having a loss tangent (i) greater than the loss tangent of the base material and (ii) superior to 100, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 716.02(b) III.
In regard to Claim 13:
All of the claim limitations have been discussed with respect to Claim 1 and 5-7 above, except for wherein the plating material is chosen from a group consisting of silver, gold, and copper.
Billod further discloses wherein the plating material is chosen from a group consisting of silver, gold, and copper (¶ 0043).
In regard to Claim 14:
All of the claim limitations have been discussed with respect to Claims 1 and 5 above, except for wherein the base material is a polymer, and wherein the polymer has a surface finish applied thereto composed of a high conductivity material with a loss tangent greater than 100.
Billod further discloses wherein the base material is a polymer (¶ 0039-0040), but does not disclose wherein the polymer has a surface finish applied thereto composed of a high conductivity material with a loss tangent greater than 100. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the base material be a good conductor with a loss tangent greater than 100, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 716.02(b) III.
Claim(s) 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Billod et al. (WO 2021/255660).
In regard to Claim 15:
Billod discloses, in Figure 1, a method of manufacturing a waveguide device (10) comprising a first flange (18a), a second flange (18b), and a waveguide body (10) including a first linear section (14a connected to 18a), a curved section (20), and a second linear section (14 connected to 18b), the method comprising: additively manufacturing the waveguide device (¶ 0038-0039) as a single piece (10 is a single piece) wherein the first linear section (14a) extends from the first flange (18a) to a first end of the curved section (20) and the second linear section (14a) extends from the second flange (14b) to a second end of the curved section (20), but does not disclose wherein the waveguide device comprises a base material characterized by a loss tangent greater than 100. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the waveguide device comprise a base material characterized by a loss tangent greater than 100, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 716.02(b) III.
In regard to Claim 16:
All of the claim limitations have been discussed with respect to Claim 15, except for wherein the waveguide device comprises a base material having a loss tangent greater than 100. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the waveguide device comprise a base material characterized by a loss tangent greater than 100, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 716.02(b) III.
In regard to Claim 17:
All of the claim limitations have been discussed with respect to Claim 15, except for further comprising applying a surface finish to the waveguide body, the surface finish composed of a material having a loss tangent greater than 100.
Billod discloses applying a surface finish to the waveguide body (¶ 0042-0043), but does not disclose the surface finish composed of a material having a loss tangent greater than 100. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the surface finish be composed of a material having a loss tangent greater than 100, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 716.02(b) III.
In regard to Claim 18:
All of the claim limitations have been discussed with respect to Claims 15 and 17, except for wherein applying the surface finish comprises plating the waveguide body with a metal having a loss tangent greater than 100. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply the surface finish comprises plating the waveguide body with a metal having a loss tangent greater than 100, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 716.02(b) III.
In regard to Claim 19:
All of the claim limitations have been discussed with respect to Claims 15 and 17, except for wherein applying the surface finish comprises coating or painting the waveguide body with a high conductivity paint having a loss tangent greater than 100. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply the surface finish comprises coating or painting the waveguide body with a high conductivity paint having a loss tangent greater than 100, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 716.02(b) III.
In regard to Claim 20:
Billod further discloses, in Figure 1, the product (10) when made by the method of claim 15 (see the rejection of Claim 15 above).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vilkaitis (US 3,331,400), in view of Ayuzawa et al. (US 3,290,762).
In regard to Claim 12:
All of the claim limitations have been discussed with respect to Claims 1 and 5, except for wherein the base material is chosen from a group consisting of: aluminum, copper, and brass.
Ayuzawa discloses wherein the base material is chosen from a group consisting of: aluminum (Column 3: lines 6-9), copper, and brass.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the base material taught by Ayuzawa with the mandrel taught by Vilkaitis, 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. (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
Conclusion
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