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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Page 1, line 8, “space-born” should be “space-borne”. Page 9, line 25, “dominate” should be “dominant”. Page 9, line 28, “j2 = -1” should be “j2 = -1”. Page 11, line 24, “coupler 400” should be “coupler 500”. Page 11, lines 26-27, “a first end (e.g., waveguide end) 515” should be “a first end (e.g., waveguide end) 510”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
Figures 1-2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 175 in Figure 4C.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 535 in Figure 5 (see, e.g., page 11, line 27 in the specification). 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. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the article “A Compact 12-Way Slotted Waveguide Power Combiner for Ka-Band Applications” by Perez et al. (Perez).
As to claim 1, Perez discloses a waveguide to transmission line coupler (see
Figures 1, 2, and 4) comprising: a waveguide capable of guiding electromagnetic energy (see the waveguide in Figure 1 or Figure 12); and a plurality of coupling sets along the waveguide (see Figure 2, the 6 microstrip lines), each coupling set including: a non-resonant coupling aperture capable of coupling the electromagnetic energy from the waveguide to at least one output transmission line (see page 136, column 1, lines 2-5 and Figure 2), the output transmission line is the microstrip line, and a tuning element in the waveguide proximate to the non-resonant coupling aperture thereto, capable of tuning out residual shunt susceptance corresponding to the electromagnetic energy coupled by the non-resonant coupling aperture (see page 136, column 1, lines 20-23; the iris in Figure 2 tunes out the susceptance).
As to claim 3, the output transmission line is a microstrip (see page 136, column 1, lines 20-23 and Figure 2).
As to claim 6, the aperture is a slot (see slots in Figure 2).
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez in view of the US patent application publication of Deckman et al. (2016/0276730).
As to claim 2, Perez discloses all of the claimed features, as set forth above,
except for the waveguide having a top side and a bottom side opposite to the top side, and wherein the coupling sets are located on the top and bottom sides of the waveguide. Deckman discloses waveguides having a top side and a bottom side opposite to the top side, and the coupling sets located on the top and bottom sides of the waveguide (see Figures 4a-4c and 8; probes and transmission lines are coupled from the top and bottom sides of the waveguides). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Perez by locating the coupling sets on the top and bottom sides of the waveguide, in order to provide an efficient waveguide system.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez in view of the article “A Ka-Band Waveguide-Based Traveling-Wave Spatial Power Divider/Combiner” by Kang et al. (Kang).
As to claim 4, Perez discloses all of the claimed features, as set forth above,
except for each non-resonant coupling aperture connected to two respective output transmission lines. Kang discloses a non-resonant coupling aperture connected to two respective transmission lines (see Figures 1 and 7, two microstrip lines in each aperture). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Perez by connecting each non-resonant coupling aperture to two respective transmission lines, in order to provide an efficient waveguide system.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez in view of the article “A broadband power-combined amplifier based on multi-stage probe-pair traveling-wave power divider/combiner at Ka-band” by Yin et al (Yin).
As to claim 5, Perez discloses all of the claimed features, as set forth above,
except for the waveguide coupler comprising N coupling sets, wherein each coupling set is capable of coupling a fraction 1/N of the electromagnetic energy in the waveguide. Yin discloses a waveguide coupler comprising N coupling sets, wherein each coupling set is capable of coupling a fraction 1/N of the electromagnetic energy in the waveguide (see page 1058, line 12 and Figure 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Perez by using N coupling sets, each coupling set capable of coupling a fraction 1/N of the electromagnetic energy in the waveguide, in order to provide effective equal power distribution.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez.
As to claims 9-11, Perez discloses all of the claimed features, as set forth above,
except for the radiation loss of electromagnetic energy in the waveguide is less than 10%, 5% or 2%; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed the system with the radiation loss of electromagnetic energy in the waveguide being less than 10%, 5% or 2% because selections of values of components and operational levels for an electronic device are engineering decisions based upon the system’s intended use and the expected requirements of the other systems with which it will interface. See
MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A). In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-24 allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Claims 14-24 are allowed because none of the prior art of record discloses or suggests a receive antenna array to collect at least a portion of the microwave power beam, wherein the receive antenna array comprises a plurality of waveguide to transmission line couplers, in combination with the remaining claimed features.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 7-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 7-8 contain allowable subject matter because none of the prior art of record discloses or suggests the electromagnetic energy having a waveguide wavelength, the waveguide wavelength corresponding to free space wavelength of the electromagnetic energy in free space, and wherein the slot has a slot length less than 0.9 or 0.75 of a half-wavelength of the free space wavelength of the electromagnetic energy, in combination with the remaining claimed features.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAL KAPLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8587. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at 571-272-7492. 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.
/HAL KAPLAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836