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 3, line 13, note that the heading “DISCLOSURE” should be rewritten as --SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION-- for consistency with PTO guidelines. Page 7, line 17, note that the heading “Description of Drawings” should be rewritten as --Detail Description of the Drawings-- for consistency with PTO guidelines. Pages 8 & 9, in the brief description of figures 6, 8, 16, 21, note that the brief description of these drawings should be rewritten to reflect the multiple drawings in these figures for clarity and completeness of description. Page 10, line 20, note that the heading “Best Mode” should be rewritten as --Best Mode for Carrying Out the Invention-- for consistency with PTO guidelines. Page 11, line 1, note that --throughout the detail description of the drawings-- should be inserted after “numeral” for an appropriate characterization. Appropriate correction is required.
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 3-6, 8-11 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 claim 3, line 4; in claim 4, line 5; in claim 5, line 5: note that it is unclear, even in light of the specification, as to what characterizes a “leading end”, respectively at these instances. Appropriate clarification is needed.
In claim 4, 5, line 4 in each claim, note that it is unclear, even in light of the specification, as to what characterizes “an open side”, respectively at these instances. Appropriate clarification is needed.
In claim 6, lines 3, for the base plate, note that it is unclear whether the recitation of “a non-conductive material” for the base plate would be consistent with the recitation in independent claim 1 that the base plate is “a conductive material” Appropriate clarifi8cation is needed.
In claim 8, lines 6 & 7, note that the recitation of “increases a size of the cavity C in a thickness direction” is vague in meaning, especially since no “cavity C” has been positively defines and it is unclear how such a cavity can have a sized increased. Appropriate clarification is needed.
In claim 9, lines 3 & 4, note that it is unclear, even in light of the specification, as to what would characterize “a (first/second) longitudinal end”. Appropriate clarification is needed.
In claim 11, lines 10, 11, note that it is unclear, even in light of the specification, as to what characterizes “an (input/output) pert installation” and thus appropriate clarification is needed; line 13, note that it is unclear, even in light of the specification, as to what would characterize “a boss shape that penetrates …” and thus appropriate clarification is needed; line 16, note that it is unclear, even in light of the specification, as to what would characterize “a stud or serration-like projection shape” and thus appropriate clarification is needed.
Claim 11 contains the trademark/trade name Teflon (i.e. claim 11, line 15). Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a fluoroplastic material and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over West et al in view of Skiebe.
West et al (i.e. FIGS. 1A, 2-6) discloses a filter device, comprising: a base plate (i.e. blank 20) made of a conductive material (i.e. a conductive material sheet) initially configured in an unfolded state (i.e. as evident from FIG. 1), wherein as evident from FIGS. 2-6, the base plate is folded to form the filter, including forming a plurality of resonators (i.e. 60, 62, 64, 66) configured to protrude within an air cavity (i.e. as per claim 7) when the base plate is completely folded. Regarding claim 2, as evident from FIG. 2, at least one of the resonators is configured to be integrally formed with an input terminal pin (i.e. resonator tap 148) and at least another one of the resonators is configured to be integrally formed with an output terminal pin (e.g. resonator tap 149). Regarding claim 8, as a result of the folding of the base plate (20), the resultant filter includes a bottom panel (e.g. unlabeled, but is best seen in FIGS. 2 & 3), first side panel (e.g. housing end 178) and a second side panel (e.g. housing end 179) and a resonator panel (e.g. unlabeled, but is best seen in FIGS. 2 & 3). However, West et al differs from the claimed invention in that West et al does not disclose that the resonators therein include a resonance characteristic end (i.e. a distal end) that is bent, as per independent claim 1.
Skoebe (i.e. Figs. 4B, 4I) exemplarily disclose a plurality of aligned resonators having a distal end having a resonance characteristic end that is bent, such that the resonators have an L-shape (i.e. a bent resonator). As described in paragraph [0064], the L-shape bent resonator is configured to provide for the advantage of increased capacitive coupling between respective resonators.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious in view of the references, taken as a whole, to have modified the generic resonators (60, 62, 64, 66) in West et al to have a specific form such as the L-shape bent resonators, such as taught by Skiebe. Such a modification would have been considered an obvious substitution of art recognized equivalent resonators, where the use of the L-shape bent resonators provides the advantageous benefit of increasing capacitive coupling between respective resonators at the resonance characteristic end, thereby suggesting the obviousness of such a modification. Regarding claims 1 & 3, note that as an obvious consequence of the modification, the resultant combination would have necessarily provided for the L-shape bent resonators, where the resonance characteristic end of each one of the L-shape bent resonators has a greater width than the remainder of each one of the resonators (as per claim 1) and where the resonance characteristic end constitutes a rectangular bent end, as per claim 3.
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