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 21, note that the heading “DISCLOSURE” should be rewritten as --SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION-- for consistency with PTO guidelines. Page 9, line 16, note that the heading “Description of Drawings” should be rewritten as --Detail Description of the Drawings-- for consistency with PTO guidelines. Page 10, in the brief description of figure 6, note that the brief description of this drawing should be rewritten to reflect the details of the multiple drawings in this figure for clarity and completeness of description. Page 12, line 3, note that the heading “Best Mode” should be rewritten as --Best Mode for Carrying Out the Invention-- for consistency with PTO guidelines. Page 12, line 16, note that --description of the drawings-- should be inserted after “specification” for an appropriate characterization. Page 15, lines 14, 19 & 20, note that the reference to labels (100A to D) is vague in meaning, especially since it is unclear as to which drawings such labels actually appear in and thus appropriate clarification is needed. 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 antenna elements (i.e. in claim 1) 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 1-17 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 1, lines 3-6, note that the recitation of the various “directions” (i.e. forward, backward, up, down, horizontal) are respectively vague in meaning, especially since the orientation of such directions relative to physical features of the filter do not appear to have been positively established and thus clarification is needed; line 7, note that the recitation of “radiation direction of antenna elements” is vague in meaning, especially since it is unclear in what way such “antenna elements” are operatively connected to the filter and thus appropriate clarification is needed; lines 19 & 20, note that it is unclear, even in light of the specification, as to what characterizes a “notch-forming part” and how such a part would be considered “disposed relative closely compared to a separation distance between portions” and thus appropriate clarification is needed; line 26, note that it is unclear, even in light of the specification, as to what characterizes “sequentially selected” and whether such a limitation accurately characterizes this aspect of the invention and thus appropriate clarification is needed.
In claim 1, line 10 and in claim 2, lines 3, 5 & 6, note that the presence of parenthetical statements in these claims renders these limitations vague and indefinite, especially since it is unclear whether the parenthetical statements are intended to impart positive and further limiting features that impact the scope of the claim, respectively at these instances. Appropriate clarification is needed.
In claim 2, line 5, note that it is unclear, even in light of the specification, as to what size would characterize “a great size” and thus appropriate clarification is needed.
In claims 2, 7, last line in each claim, note that the respective recitation of “the resonance stages”, at these instances does not appear to be consistent with the earlier recitation of a singular “resonance stage” and thus appropriate clarification is needed.
In claim 6, line 3, note that it is unclear how “a width direction”, as recited herein would relate to “a width”, as recited earlier in independent claim 1, from which this claim ultimately depends (i.e. one in the same width, separate and distinct widths, etc.) and thus appropriate clarification is needed.
In claims 8, 9, lines 6 & 7 in each claim, note that it is unclear how “a predetermined notch”, as respectively recited in each claim relates to “a notch-forming part”, as recited in independent claim 1, from which these claims ultimately depend (i.e. the notch is related to the notch-forming part, the notch and the notch-forming part are unrelated features, etc.) and thus appropriate clarification is needed; line 7 in each claim, note that the respective recitation of “a (right/left) stage of a passband” is vague in meaning as to whether a “passband” can be characterized to include a “stage” and thus appropriate clarification is needed.
In claim 10, line 3; in claim 11, line 5; in claim 12, lines 6. 7: note that it is unclear, even in light of the specification, as to what properties are intended by the respective recitation of “properties” in the corresponding claim and thus appropriate clarification is needed.
In claim 10, lines 4 & 5, note that the recitation of “that relatively strongly appear” is vague in meaning and thus appropriate clarification is needed.
In claim 11, lines 2 & 3 and in claim 12, line 3, note that the recitations of “included in different ranges of the cavity” (i.e. in claim 11) and “in an identical range” (i.e. in claim 12), respectively are vague in meaning, especially since it is unclear how a “cavity” can have “different ranges” or “an identical range” associated therewith and thus appropriate clarification is needed.
In claim 13, lines 4-6, note that the recitation of “the resonance stage adjacent to a one-side end resonance stage” is vague in meaning, especially since it is unclear as to which resonators are intended by such a recitation and thus appropriate clarification is needed.
In claim 14, lines 2 & 3, note that it is unclear, even in light of the specification, as to what the recitation of “… port part are included as a coupled resonance element” is intended to convey and thus appropriate clarification is needed.
In claim 15, note that it is unclear whether the recitation of “the cavity forms the single base plate” would be an accurate characterization of that aspect of the invention. Appropriate clarification is ne3ded.
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.
Claims 1, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by West et al.
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 having a hexahedral (i.e. six sided) configuration that is aligned along forward, backward, up, down, length & width directions relative to the hexahedral filter configuration, including forming a plurality of resonators (i.e. 60, 62, 64, 66) configured to protrude within a cavity, when the base plate is completely folded (i.e. as per claim 15). 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). Note that notch forming portions (i.e. flap portions 50) are formed and associated with the corresponding resonators (60, 62, 64, 66). As for the “antenna elements”, in view of the indefinite nature of such a limitation (i.e. as set forth in the above indefiniteness rejection), the examiner gives no patentable weight to this limitation in evaluating the grounds of rejection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Benny Lee at telephone number 571 272 1764.
/BENNY T LEE/PRIMARY EXAMINER
ART UNIT 2843
B. Lee
Prosecution Insights