The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Page 1, in paragraph [0001], second line therein, note that updated status information (i.e. patent number, issue date) should be provided for the parent patent application for clarity and completeness of description. Page 2, in paragraph [0004], last two lines therein, note that the recitation of “to name a couple” should be deleted as being unnecessary. Page 3, in paragraph [0005], 10th line therein, it is noted that --losses-- should be inserted after “These” for an appropriate characterization. Page 3, in paragraph [0007], 6th line therein, note that the pronoun “they” should be rewritten to indicate the intended feature for clarity and completeness of description. Page 4, in paragraph [0007], 7th line therein, note that --forming the waveguide joints-- should be inserted after “seams” for an appropriate characterization. Page 4, in paragraph [0008], third, 4th lines therein, note that --the-- should be inserted prior to “waveguide”, respectively at these instances for idiomatic clarity. Page 5, in paragraph [0010], third line therein, note that the recitation of “aka additive manufacturing technique” should be rewritten as --aka “additive manufacturing technique”-- for an appropriate characterization; third, 5th lines therein, note that --a-- should be inserted prior to “coaxial”, respectively at these instances for idiomatic clarity. Page 6, in paragraph [0011], third line therein and page 9, in paragraph [0030], third line therein, note that--detail description of the-- should be inserted prior to “various” (i.e. page 6) and inserted prior to “drawings” (i.e. page 9), respectively at these instances for an appropriate characterization. Page 8, in the heading therein, it is noted that --OF THE INVENTION-- should be inserted prior to “DETAIL DESCRIPTION” for consistency with PTO guidelines. Page 11, in paragraph [0039], first line therein, note that the pronoun “it” should be rewritten to indicate the intended feature for clarity and completeness of description; second, third lines therein, it is noted that the terms (positive z-axis, negative z-axis) should each be placed in quotes for an appropriate characterization. Pages 12 & 13, in paragraph [0042], note that reference labels (102, 126, 114) are respectively vague in meaning, especially since no such corresponding labels actually appear in FIG. 1. Page 20, in paragraph [0062], note that --(FIG. 4)-- should be inserted after “402a” for consistency with the labeling in that drawing. Page 21, in paragraph [0067], second, third, 4th lines therein and page 22, in paragraph [0070], first line therein, note that --(FIG. 6)-- should be associated with the following reference labels (i.e. 602a, 602b, 627b) for consistency with the labeling in that drawing. Page 24, in paragraph [0076], third line therein and page 28, in paragraph [0085], third line therein, note that the reference to “the z-axis” is vague in meaning, respectively at these instances with respect to the description of the corresponding drawings and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Page 24, in paragraph [0077], third line therein, note that --in FIG. 6-- should be inserted after “600” for an appropriate characterization consistent with the labeling in that drawing. Page 25, in paragraph [0079], 4th line therein and page 29, in paragraph [0087], 5th line therein, note that the term “coax” should be rewritten as --coaxial--, respectively at these instances for an appropriate characterization. Page 25, in paragraph [0080], 5th line therein, it is noted that the term “ass” should be rewritten as --as-- for an appropriate spelling. Page 26, in paragraph [0082], 6th line therein, note that the recitation of “the wholistic waveguide” is vague in meaning and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Page 28, in paragraph [0085], 4th line therein, note that recitation of “overhanging angles” is vague in meaning and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Page 28, in paragraph [0086], 6th line therein, note that it is unclear whether the recitation of “not visible in FIG. 11” would be an accurate characterization, especially since the description herein appears to relate to “FIG. 13” and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Page 29, in paragraph [0086], last line therein, it is noted that reference to “waveguide port 1115” should be rewritten as --waveguide port 1110-- for an appropriate characterization consistent with the proper labeling of this feature. Page 29, in paragraph [0087], 8th line therein, note that the reference to “the y-axis” is vague in meaning, respectively at these instances with respect to the description of the corresponding drawing and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Page 29, in paragraph [0088], third line therein, note that reference labels “1402-1402h” should be rewritten as --1402a, 1402b, 1402c, 1402d, 1402e, 1402f, 1402g and 1402h-- for consistency with the labeling in FIG. 14; 4th, 5th lines therein, note that reference labels “1420a-1420h” and “1422-1422h” should be rewritten as --1420a and 1420h-- and --1422a and 1422h--, respectively at these instances for consistency with the labeling in FIG. 14. Page 30, in paragraph [0089], third, 4th, 5th, 6th lines therein, note that each instance of the term “herein” should be rewritten to indicate the corresponding drawings associated with the corresponding reference labels for clarity and completeness of description. Page 31, in paragraph [0091], 5th line therein and page 31, in paragraph [0095], first line therein, note that the reference labels “1506a-1506n” (i.e. in paragraph [0091]) and “1-2” (i.e. in paragraph [0095]) should be rewritten as --1506a and 1506n-- and --1 and 2--, respectively at these instances for clarity and completeness of description. Page 32, in paragraph [0098], third line therein, note that the recitation of “the working frequency” should be rewritten as --a working frequency-- for an appropriate characterization; third & 4th lines therein, , it is noted that it is unclear whether the recitation of “an antenna element to be disposed between the two or more coaxial waveguides” would be an accurate characterization of this aspect of the invention, especially since the drawings and specification description do not appear to provide support for this limitation. Appropriate clarification is needed. Page 32, in paragraph [0100], second, third lines therein, note that the term “the” should be rewritten as --an--, respectively at these instances for an appropriate characterization. Appropriate correction is required.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the hollow waveguide (i.e. claim 5), the outer coaxial conductor having an elliptical cross-section (i.e. claim 9), the orthogonal relationship of the two wires (i.e. claim 14) and a radiating element of an antenna (i.e. claim 18), respectively must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
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 6, 7, 12-14, 16 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.
In claims 6, 7, line 2 in each claim, note that the recitation of “the working frequency” appears to lack strict antecedent basis and thus appropriate clarification is needed.
In claim 6, lines 2 & 3, it is noted that it is unclear whether the recitation of “an antenna element to be disposed between the two or more coaxial waveguides” would be an accurate characterization of this aspect of the invention, especially since the drawings and specification description do not appear to provide support for this limitation. Appropriate clarification is needed.
In claim 12, line 2, note that the recitation of “orthogonal offset relative to one another” is vague in meaning and thus appropriate clarification is needed; line 4, note that it is unclear how the “(first/second) orientation” being “orthogonal” to each other would relate to the earlier recitation of “orthogonal offset” (i.e. one in the same feature, distinctly different features, etc.) and thus appropriate clarification is needed.
In claim 13, line 3, note that it is unclear how the recitations of a “helical twist formation” recited in line 3 would relate to “a helical transition” recited in line 2 (i.e. one in the same feature, distinctly different features, etc.). Appropriate clarification is needed.
In claim 16, line 1, it is noted that it is unclear in what manner the transition “comprises an offset such that …” recited herein would be clear and thus is vague in meaning. Appropriate clarification is needed.
The following claims have been found to be objectionable for reasons set forth below:
In claim 19, should the term --mode-- be inserted after “coaxial waveguide” for an appropriate characterization consistent with the other “modes” recited in this claim?
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 16, 17, 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Daveau (cited by applicants’).
Daveau (i.e. Figs. 1, 2, 14) discloses a device, comprising: a waveguide port (i.e. input (4) of waveguide (1) in Fig. 2); two or more coaxial waveguides (i.e. coaxial conduits (31, 32) in Fig. 1) and a transition (i.e. coupling probes (21, 22) in Fig. 1) disposed between the waveguide port (4) and the coaxial waveguides (31, 32), such as to provide for dividing or combining of electromagnetic energy dependent on the direction of electromagnetic energy propagation. Regarding claim 3, it is noted that the coupling probes (21, 22) are positioned as to optimize impedance match conditions. Regarding claim 4, note that the coupling probes (21, 22) are symmetric about a center line and thus are mirror images. Regarding claims 16, 18, as evident from Fig. 14, note that the coaxial waveguides are operatively connected to horns (i.e. 201 … 20N) of a radar antenna system in either a conventional E-plane or H-plane configuration. Regarding claims 17, 20, note that these claims recite process limitation within the context of apparatus claims and thus no patentable weight is given to the process limitations.
Claims 1-4, 17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Crouch (cited by applicants’).
Crouch (i.e. FIGS. 1a, 5a) discloses a device, comprising: a waveguide port (i.e. port (14) of waveguide (16) in Fig. 1a); two or more coaxial waveguides (i.e. N coaxial ports (12) with inner conductors (20) and outer conductors (24) in Fig. 1a) and a transition (i.e. matching plate (26) in Fig. 1) disposed between the waveguide port (14) and the coaxial waveguides (12), such as to provide for dividing or combining of electromagnetic energy dependent on the direction of electromagnetic energy propagation. Regarding claim 3, it is noted that the matching plate (26) is positioned as to optimize impedance match conditions. Regarding claim 4, note that a plurality of matching plate segments (50) which are circularly symmetric about a center axis and thus opposing segments are mirror images. Regarding claims 17, 20, note that these claims recite process limitation within the context of apparatus claims and thus no patentable weight is given to the process limitations.
Claims 1-4, 17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Baldauf et al (cited by applicants’)
Baldauf et al (i.e. FIGS. 2A, 2B) discloses a device, comprising: a waveguide port (i.e. an unlabeled opening at the top end of waveguide (102) in Fig. 2A); two or more coaxial waveguides (i.e. coaxial line probes (106, 206) in Fig. 2B) and a transition (i.e. half-patch launchers (104, 204) in Fig. 2B) disposed between the waveguide port and the coaxial waveguides (106, 206), such as to provide for dividing or combining of electromagnetic energy dependent on the direction of electromagnetic energy propagation. Regarding claim 3, it is noted that the coaxial waveguides (106, 206) are positioned as to optimize impedance match conditions. Regarding claim 4, note that the coupling probes (106, 206) are symmetric about a center line and thus are considered to be mirror images. Regarding claims 17, 20, note that these claims recite process limitation within the context of apparatus claims and thus no patentable weight is given to the process limitations.
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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either Crouch or Baldauf et al in view of Sims (all references cited by applicants’).
Crouch or Baldauf et al each discloses the claimed invention except for the waveguide port being connectable to a hollow waveguide.
Sims (i.e. FIG. 1) exemplarily discloses a waveguide section (i.e. 11) that has an open end opposite an end closed by a plate (i.e. 18), where the open end of waveguide (11) is configured to couple to an antenna device (i.e. 13) through a hollow waveguide section (i.e. 14).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious in view of the references, taken as a whole, to have modified the waveguide in Crouch or Baldauf et al to have a hollow waveguide attached to the waveguide port of either reference. Such a modification would have been considered obvious, especially such a modification provides for the advantageous benefit of coupling electromagnetic energy to other devices, such as antennas through the attached waveguide, thereby suggesting the obviousness of such a modification.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daveau view of Suzuki et al (both references cited by applicants’).
Daveau discloses the claimed invention except for the coaxial waveguides being twin wire coaxial waveguides.
Suzuki et al (i.e. FIG. 1) exemplarily discloses a waveguide (i.e. 1) having a two-wire line (i.e. 2, 2a) configured to extend through the wall of the waveguide (1) into the interior of the waveguide (1), such as to couple electromagnetic energy to/from the waveguide.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious in view of the references, taken as a whole, to have modified each of the coaxial waveguides in Daveau, such as to have a two-wire inner conductor configuration, such as exemplarily taught by Suzuki et al. Such a modification would have provided the advantageous benefit of balance mode coupling that affords for low coupling loss (e.g. see column 2, lines 38-41), thereby suggesting the obviousness of such a modification.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C, 103 as being unpatentable over the above rejection, as applied to claim 10 and further in view of Archambeault et al (cited by applicants’).
The above obviousness rejection of claim 10 meets the claim except that the twin-wire coaxial waveguide is not in the form of a helical twist.
Archambeault et al (i.e. FIG. 3) discloses a coaxial cable (i.e. 125) including first and second inner conductors (i.e. 130, 134) formed in a helical twist and the first and second inner conductors (130, 134) are surrounded by a conductive shield (126).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to have further modified the resultant combination of claim 10 by forming the twin-wire to be in a helical twist formation, such as exemplarily taught by Archambeault et al. Such a modification would have been considered an obvious substitution of art recognized equivalent twin-wire coaxial waveguides that perform the equivalent function, thereby suggesting the obviousness of such a modification.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over any one of Daveau, Crouch and Baldauf et al in view of Sherrer et al (all references cited by applicants’).
Note that any one of the primary references discloses the claimed invention except that the coaxial waveguides are not of a rectangular cross-section.
Sherrer et al exemplarily discloses a coupling between a coaxial waveguide and a hollow waveguide (e.g. see FIGS. 33A & 33B), where the coaxial waveguide is of the type having a rectangular cross-section (e.g. see FIG. 13).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious in view of the references, taken as a whole, to have replaced the coaxial waveguides of a circular cross-section in the primary references with coaxial waveguides of a rectangular cross-section, such as exemplarily taught by Sherrer et al. Such a modification would have been considered an obvious substitution of art recognized equivalent coaxial waveguides usable with coupling to a hollow waveguide, especially since the nature of the shape of the coaxial waveguide would not have affected the function of the coaxial waveguide (i.e. for coupling to a waveguide), thereby suggesting the obviousness of such a modification.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-5, 7-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 7-17; 18, 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12183963. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the cited patent claims recite subject matter therein which correspond to subject matter recited in corresponding claim of the patent application. Accordingly, the patent claims meet the application under an “anticipation analysis” standard of obviousness double patenting.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to BENNY T LEE at telephone number (571) 272-1764.
/BENNY T LEE/PRIMARY EXAMINER
ART UNIT 2843
B. Lee
Prosecution Insights