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 .
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 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.
In addressing the rejection ground, each claim may not have been separately discussed to the extent the claimed features are the same as or similar to the previously-discussed features; the previous discussion is construed to apply for the other claims in the same or similar way.
In the office action, “/” should be read as and/or as generally understood. For example, “A/B” means A and B, or A or B.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of electing group I in the reply filed on 05/27/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Groups I and II are not patentably distinct. The combination of Group I (travelling-wave tube) as claimed expressly requires the particulars of the electron gun subcombination of Group II. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites "an electron gun configured to emit the N electron beams under control of the control circuit," and dependent claim 7 further recites that the electron gun comprises M cathodes, wherein N cathodes in the M cathodes emit the N electron beams under control of the control circuit, and wherein M is greater than or equal to N, which are precisely the limitations forming the basis of Group II as claimed in original claims 12-18. Because the combination as claimed in Group I requires and is defined in terms of the structural and functional particulars of the electron gun subcombination of Group II, the first prong of the combination/subcombination distinctness test under MPEP § 806.05(c) is not satisfied. This is not found persuasive because Inventions I and II are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require an electron gun comprising: a control circuit and M cathodes, wherein N cathodes in the M cathodes are configured to emit the N electron beams under control of the control circuit, wherein each of the N cathodes is configured to emit one of the N electron beams, and/or wherein M is greater than or equal to N, for example. The subcombination has separate utility such as it can be used without: an input apparatus configured to: receive a radio frequency signal; and feed the radio frequency signal, a slow-wave circuit configured to perform beam-wave interaction with the N electron beams in order to amplify a power of the radio frequency signal to obtain an amplified radio frequency signal, and/or an output apparatus configured to output the amplified radio frequency signal, for example.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
The amended claim 12 has eliminated the above reasons for the restriction requirement. Therefore, claims 12-18 have been examined in this office action. Claims 19-20 have been cancelled by the applicant.
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 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Jasper, Ir. (hereinafter Jasper; US 3,760,223) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Abiko et al. (US 2005/0057159).
Regarding claim 1, Jasper discloses a travelling-wave tube [e.g. fig. 2/3] , comprising: an input apparatus [e.g. 40] configured to: receive a radio frequency signal [e.g. RF input]; and feed the radio frequency signal; a control circuit [e.g. 52/50, see at least fig. 2 and “The switch 52 may be connected so as to be operable to connect or disconnect the heater element of each electron beam source or to connect or disconnect cutoff bias to each electron beam source or to otherwise control the beams, between any current levels. Either beam 46, 48 or both beams simultaneously, interact with the wave propagated by the slow-wave means 38 to amplify the RF. One advantage realized by using this arrangement is that the RF can be raised by any one of a plurality of multipower levels depending on the magnitude of the beam currents and the number of beams used or depending upon operational requirements.”] configured to determine a quantity of N electron beams and currents of the N electron beams [e.g. N=2], wherein N is a positive integer greater than or equal to 1; an electron gun [e.g. 34, 36] configured to emit the N electron beams under control of the control circuit; a slow-wave circuit [e.g. 38] configured to: receive the radio frequency signal from the input apparatus; and perform beam-wave interaction with the N electron beams in order to amplify a power of the radio frequency signal to obtain an amplified radio frequency signal; and an output apparatus [e.g. 42] configured to output the amplified radio frequency signal.
Assuming, arguendo, Jasper discloses switch 50 (basically a switch having two sub-switches) is only a manual switch. However, it’s well-known to use a circuit-controlled switch/sub-switch to provide improvement. For example, Abiko discloses to perform a switch action based on a threshold [see abstract, claim 1]. Therefore, it’s obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Jasper in accordance with the teaching of Abiko regarding a switch in order to provide impromovment.
Regarding claim 5, Jasper/the combination discussed above discloses the travelling-wave tube according to claim 1, wherein the control circuit is further configured to determine the quantity of the N electron beams and the currents of the N electron beams by: receiving a control signal indicating a value of N and the currents of the N electron beams; or determining the value of N and the currents of the N electron beams based on input power of the radio frequency signal [see at least figs. 2-3, col. 3 lines 36-43].
Claims 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jasper, Ir. (hereinafter Jasper; US 3,760,223) in view of Tammaru (US 5,162,747); or Jasper, Ir. (hereinafter Jasper; US 3,760,223) in view of Abiko et al. (US 2005/0057159) and Tammaru (US 5,162,747).
Regarding claim 2, Jasper discloses the travelling-wave tube according to claim 1, wherein the slow-wave circuit comprises: a power divider [e.g. the power divider between 50 and 52]; wherein the control circuit is further configured to: control the power divider to decompose the radio frequency signal into N sub- signals [the signal via 34 or 36]; wherein the N switches are in a one-to-one correspondence with the N slow-wave structures, and wherein one of the N sub-signals is input to one of the N slow-wave structures. Jasper does not explicitly disclose multiple slow-wave structures. However, Tammaru discloses a power divider [see at least fig. 1, Col. 3, lines 6-19]; and control a switch [e.g. two switches in SEL 30; one controls on/off of 16a, the other controls on/off of 18a] to select one of slow-wave structures [e.g. 16, 18 fig. 1], such that the combination discloses, wherein a control circuit [the circuit controlling SEL 30, oscillators 24 and 26; see at least Col. 3, lines 20-40] is further configured to: control the power divider to decompose the radio frequency signal into N sub-signals [e.g. 16a, 18a/x-band, Ku-band, see Col. 3, lines 6-19], such that the combination discloses wherein the slow-wave circuit comprises: a power divider [e.g. the power divider between 50 and 52 Jasper; see at least fig. 1, Col. 3, lines 6-19 Tammaru]; M slow-wave structures [e.g. 16, 18 fig. 1 Tammaru]; and M switches [e.g. two switches in SEL 30; one controls on/off of 16a, the other controls on/off of 18a Tammaru; Similarly, two sub-switches in switch 50 Jasper] in a one-to-one correspondence with the M slow-wave structures, wherein M is greater than or equal to N [e.g. M=N=2], and wherein the control circuit is further configured to: control the power divider to decompose the radio frequency signal into N sub- signals [the signal via 34 or 36 Jasper; 16, 18 Tammaru]; turn on N switches in the M switches; and input the N sub-signals to N slow-wave structures in the M slow-wave structures, wherein the N switches are in a one-to-one correspondence with the N slow-wave structures, and wherein one of the N sub-signals is input to one of the N slow-wave structures. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Jasper in accordance with the teaching of Tammaru regarding the multiple slow-wave structure in order to provide different frequency bands [abstract].
Regarding claim 3, the combination discussed above discloses the travelling-wave tube according to claim 2, wherein the slow-wave circuit is configured to perform beam-wave interaction with the N electron beams in order to amplify the power of the radio frequency signal by the N slow-wave structures passing the N electron beams, wherein the N slow-wave structures perform beam-wave interaction with the N slow-wave structures in order to amplify power of the N sub-signals, and wherein one of the N electron beams performs beam-wave interaction with one of the N slow-wave structures through which the electron beam passes in order to amplify power of one sub-signal input to the one of the N slow- wave structures.
Regarding claim 4, the combination discussed above discloses the travelling-wave tube according to claim 2, wherein the slow-wave circuit further comprises a power combiner [see 44 fig. 2/70 fig. 3 of Jasper; Jasper discloses either beam 46, 48 or both beams simultaneously, interact with the wave propagated by the slow-wave means 38 to amplify the RF], and wherein the control circuit is further configured to control the power combiner to combine amplified N sub-signals into the amplified radio frequency signal.
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jasper, Ir. (hereinafter Jasper; US 3,760,223) in view of Abiko et al. (US 2005/0057159).
Regarding claim 6, Jasper discloses the travelling-wave tube according to claim 5, wherein the value of N is 1, or the value of N is greater than 1, a current of at least one electron beam of the N electron beams reaches a current threshold of the at least one electron beam [when N is greater than 1, the current may greater than the maximum current (a current threshold) of N=1], and the value of N is positively correlated with the input power.
Jasper discloses RF can be raised by any one of a plurality of multipower levels depending on the magnitude of the beam currents and the number of beams used, see at least figs. 2-3, col. 3 lines 36-43. Jasper does not explicitly disclose to perform an action based on the threshold. However, it’s well-known to perform an action based on a threshold. For example, Abiko discloses to perform an action based on a threshold [see abstract, claim 1]. Therefore, it’s obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art to have that the input power is less than or equal to a second threshold and the value of N is 1,or wherein the input power is greater than the second threshold, the value of N is greater than 1, in order to control electron beams based on a threshold.
Claims 7and 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jasper, Ir. (hereinafter Jasper; US 3,760,223) in view of Makishima (US 5,680,011); or Jasper, Ir. (hereinafter Jasper; US 3,760,223) in view of Abiko et al. (US 2005/0057159) and Makishima (US 5,680,011).
Regarding claim 7, Jasper discloses the travelling-wave tube according to claim 1, wherein the control circuit is configured to control the electron gun to emit the N electron beams based on a value of N and the currents of the N electron beams [e.g. col. 3 lines 36-43, RF can be raised by any one of a plurality of multipower levels depending on the magnitude of the beam currents and the number of beams used or depending upon operational requirements.]. Jasper does not explicitly disclose controlling N cathodes to emit the N electron beams. However, Makishima discloses controlling N cathodes to emit the N electron beams wherein each of the N cathodes is configured to emit one of the N electron beams, wherein a current of each of the N cathodes is related to a current of an electron beam emitted by a corresponding N cathode [see at least Col. 6, lines 16-30, figs. 4-9], such that the combination discloses the electron gun comprises M cathodes, wherein M is greater than or equal to N [inherent or notorious well-known], and wherein the control circuit is configured to control the electron gun to emit the N electron beams by: adjusting currents of the M cathodes based on a value of N and the currents of the N electron beams [ RF can be raised by any one of a plurality of multipower levels depending on the magnitude of the beam currents and the number of beams used or depending upon operational requirements, Jasper.]; and controlling N cathodes in the M cathodes to emit the N electron beams, wherein each of the N cathodes is configured to emit one of the N electron beams, wherein a current of each of the N cathodes is related to a current of an electron beam emitted by a corresponding N cathode, and wherein the current of each of the N cathodes is greater than 0.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Jasper in accordance with the teaching of Makishima regarding the cathode and anode in order to adjust current by controlling cathode [see at least Col. 6, lines 16-30].
Regarding claim 9, the combination discussed above discloses the travelling-wave tube according to claim 7, wherein the electron gun further comprises M gates connected to the control circuit, wherein the M cathodes are in a one-to-one correspondence with the M gates, and wherein the control circuit is configured to adjust the currents of the M cathodes by adjusting voltages of the M gates [see at least fig. 4A Makishima].
Regarding claim 10, the combination discussed above discloses the travelling-wave tube according to claim 7, wherein the electron gun further comprises M focusing electrodes connected to the control circuit, wherein the M cathodes are in a one-to-one correspondence with the M focusing electrodes [e.g. the electrode connected to the cathode, thus both the electrode and cathode have the same voltage], and wherein the control circuit is further configured to adjust the currents of the M cathodes by adjusting voltages of the M focusing electrodes.
Regarding claim 11, the combination discussed above discloses the travelling-wave tube according to claim 1, except further comprising a magnetic focusing system configured to focus the N electron beams in order to enable the N electron beams to remain in a focused state. However, Makishima discloses a magnetic focusing system [e.g. 27 fig. 9; see at least Col.7 lines 28-45] configured to focus the N electron beams in order to enable the N electron beams to remain in a focused state. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Jasper in accordance with the teaching of Makishima regarding magnets in order to improve the electron beam [see at least Col.7 lines 28-45].
Regarding claim 12, the combination discussed above discloses the travelling-wave tube according to claim 1, wherein the electron gun comprises: M cathodes, wherein N cathodes in the M cathodes are configured to emit the N electron beams under control of the control circuit, wherein each of the N cathodes is configured to emit one of the N electron beams, and wherein M is greater than or equal to N. See rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 13, the combination discussed above discloses the travelling-wave tube according to claim 12, wherein the control circuit is further configured to determine the quantity of the N electron beams and the currents of the N electron beams by: receiving a control signal, wherein the control signal indicates a value of N and the currents of the N electron beams; or determining the value and the currents based on an input power of a to-be-amplified radio frequency signal [see at least figs. 2-3, col. 3 lines 36-43 Jasper].
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jasper, Ir. (hereinafter Jasper; US 3,760,223) in view of Makishima (US 5,680,011) and Horsky et al. (US 8,994,272); or Jasper, Ir. (hereinafter Jasper; US 3,760,223) in view of Abiko et al. (US 2005/0057159), Makishima (US 5,680,011) and Horsky et al. (US 8,994,272).
Regarding claim 8, the combination discussed above discloses the travelling-wave tube according to claim 7, wherein the electron gun further comprises H anodes, wherein each of the M cathodes corresponds to at least one anode of the H anodes, wherein the at least one anode is connected to the control circuit, wherein H is greater than or equal to M, and wherein the control circuit is further configured to adjust the currents of the M cathodes. The combination does not disclose adjusting a voltage of the at least one anode. However, it’s well-known to adjust a voltage of an anode. For example, Horsky discloses to adjust a voltage of an anode [Col. 7 line 65-Col. 8 line 85]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Jasper and Makishima in accordance with the teaching of Horsky regarding the cathode and anode in order to utilize the well-known anode [see at least Col. 7 line 65-Col. 8 line 85].
Claims 14-15 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jasper, Ir. (hereinafter Jasper; US 3,760,223) in view of Makishima (US 5,680,011) and Abiko et al. (US 2005/0057159).
Regarding claim 14, the combination discussed above discloses the travelling-wave tube according to claim 13, wherein the value of N is 1, or the value of N is greater than 1, a current of at least one electron beam of the N electron beams reaches a current threshold of the at least one electron beam, and the value of N is positively correlated with the input power. Jasper discloses RF can be raised by any one of a plurality of multipower levels depending on the magnitude of the beam currents and the number of beams used, see at least figs. 2-3, col. 3 lines 36-43. Jasper does not explicitly disclose to perform an action based on the threshold. However, it’s well-known to perform an action based on a threshold. For example, Abiko discloses to perform an action based on a threshold [see abstract, claim 1]. Therefore, it’s obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art to have that the input power is less than or equal to a second threshold and the value of N is 1, or wherein the input power is greater than the second threshold, the value of N is greater than 1, in order to control electron beams based on a threshold. See also the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 15, the combination discussed above discloses the travelling-wave tube according to claim 12, wherein the control circuit is further configured to control the N cathodes to emit the N electron beams by adjusting currents of the M cathodes based on a value of N and the currents in order to control a current of each of the N cathodes to be greater than 0, and wherein the current of each of the N cathodes is related to a current of an electron beam emitted by the cathode. See the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 17, the combination discussed above discloses the travelling-wave tube according to claim 15, wherein the electron gun further comprises M gates [see at least fig. 4A/4B Makishima], wherein the M cathodes are in a one-to-one correspondence with the M gates, wherein the M gates are connected to the control circuit, and wherein the control circuit is further configured to adjust the currents of the M cathodes by adjusting voltages of the M gates.
Regarding claim 18, the combination discussed above discloses the travelling-wave tube according to claim 15, wherein the electron gun further comprises M focusing electrodes electrodes [e.g. the electrode connected to the cathode, thus both the electrode and cathode have the same voltage], wherein the M cathodes are in a one-to-one correspondence with the M focusing electrodes, and wherein the M focusing electrodes are connected to the control circuit, and wherein the control circuit is further configured to adjust the currents of the M cathodes by adjusting voltages of the M focusing electrodes. See also the rejection of claim 10.
Claim 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jasper, Ir. (hereinafter Jasper; US 3,760,223) in view of Makishima (US 5,680,011), Abiko et al. (US 2005/0057159) and Horsky et al. (US 8,994,272).
Regarding claim 16, the combination discussed above discloses the travelling-wave tube according to claim 15, wherein the electron gun further comprises H anodes, wherein each of the M cathodes corresponds to at least one anode of the H anodes, wherein the at least one anode is connected to the control circuit, wherein H is greater than or equal to M, and wherein the control circuit is further configured to adjust the currents of the M cathodes. The combination does not disclose adjusting a voltage of the at least one anode. However, it’s well-known to adjust a voltage of an anode. For example, Horsky discloses to adjust a voltage of an anode [Col. 7 line 65-Col. 8 line 85]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Jasper , Makishima and Abiko in accordance with the teaching of Horsky regarding the cathode and anode in order to utilize the well-known anode [see at least Col. 7 line 65-Col. 8 line 85].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK C CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7207. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Flexible 8:00-16:00.
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, Regis Betsch can be reached at (571)270-7101. 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.
/PATRICK C CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights