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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 8 recites "the third section (4)," which does not correspond to any reference character in the specification. It appears applicant intended "the third section (74)." Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 9 recites "the first material composition and or the second material composition." It appears applicant intended "and/or." Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which they depend.
Claims 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12 each recite dependency from "one of the preceding claims," and claim 15 recites dependency from "one of claims 12 to 14." Because claims 4 and 5–11 are themselves multiple dependent claims, claims 5–15 constitute multiple dependent claims that refer, directly or indirectly, to other multiple dependent claims. This is not permitted. See 35 U.S.C. 112(d) and 37 CFR 1.75(c) ("A multiple dependent claim shall not serve as a basis for any other multiple dependent claim."). See also MPEP 608.01(n).
Further, the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.16(j) for a claim in multiple dependent form has not been paid.
For purposes of examination, and consistent with MPEP 608.01(n)(I)(B)(1), each of claims 4–15 has been treated as depending from the immediately preceding claim. Applicant is required to amend claims 4–15 to depend from a single claim, or from a proper alternative recitation of previously set forth claims, and to pay the fee required by 37 CFR 1.16(j) if any multiple dependent claim is retained.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 102 that forms 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, 2, 4, 5 and 9–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fredriksson et al. (US 2019/0128728 A1, published May 2, 2019) ("Fredriksson").
Regarding claim 1, Fredriksson discloses a method for producing a filling for a horn antenna for a radar measuring device (Fredriksson discloses "dielectric filling members to be arranged in a horn antenna in a radar level gauge," and states that "the dielectric filling member 120, 220, 320 is manufactured by the following process"; see Fig. 4 and §§[0015], [0053]),
wherein the filling has at least one first material composition and a second material composition which differs from the first material composition (Fredriksson teaches that several advantages may be achieved in the field of dielectric filling members arranged in a horn antenna of a radar level gauge "by using sintering to integrate different parts made of different polymer materials"; see §§[0015], [0016]),
wherein the method comprises at least the steps of:
providing at least the first material composition for the formation of a first section of a raw filling (Fredriksson discloses "a microwave transmissive dielectric filling member 20," wherein "a main body 121, 221, 321 is formed of a polymer material having suitable properties, here PTFE"; see §[0038]);
providing at least the second material composition for the formation of at least one second section of the raw filling, which differs from the first section (Fredriksson discloses that "a modified polymer material is obtained by mixing a polymer resin, here PTFE resin, with a filler material, typically in powder form"; see §§[0056], [0057]); and
pressing or sintering the sections of the raw filling (Fredriksson discloses that "pressure is applied by arranging the element 130, 230, 330 in pressurized contact with the main body 121, 221, 321," and that "in step S5 heat is applied such that the microwave absorbing element 130, 230, 330 is sintered with the main body"; see §[0058]).
Fredriksson therefore discloses each and every limitation of claim 1, and claim 1 is anticipated.
Regarding claim 2, Fredriksson further discloses heat treating the raw filling (§§[0058]–[0059], wherein heat is applied during and following the pressing step).
Regarding claim 4, Fredriksson further discloses mechanical processing of the raw filling in order to obtain the filling of the horn antenna (§[0059]).
Regarding claim 5, Fredriksson further discloses that the raw filling is formed integrally, the sintering operation integrating the separately provided sections into a single unitary filling member (§[0062]).
Regarding claim 9, Fredriksson further discloses that the first material composition and/or the second material composition comprise at least two different ones of polytetrafluoroethylene, polyetheretherketone, polyetheretherketone CF 25 and polyetheretherketone CF 30 (§[0017]; see also §[0038], disclosing PTFE, and §§[0056]–[0057], disclosing a PTFE-based modified composition).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Fredriksson further discloses that in the main emission direction the first section has a free surface with a convex shape, and that the first section is formed in a lens-shaped or cone-shaped manner (Figs. 2a–3c; §§[0020], [0039]).
Regarding claim 12, Fredriksson discloses a horn antenna for a radar measuring device having a filling, wherein the first section and the second section are formed along the longitudinal direction of extension and/or along the radial direction of the horn antenna (Figs. 2a–3c; §§[0020], [0039]). Claim 12 is a product-by-process claim. Determination of patentability is based on the product itself; the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698 (Fed. Cir. 1985); MPEP 2113.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Fredriksson further discloses a horn antenna having an antenna horn which radiates in a front-side direction and a rear-side feed device, wherein the filling fills the horn antenna at least partly and closes it on the front side, and wherein the filling completely fills the antenna horn perpendicular to the main emission direction in the radial direction at least in some sections (Figs. 2a–3c; §§[0020], [0039]).
Regarding claim 15, Fredriksson further discloses a radar measuring device with electronics for generating and evaluating high-frequency signals and a feed device for feeding the horn antenna with the high-frequency signals (Figs. 2a–3c; §§[0020], [0039]).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
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 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.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fredriksson.
Fredriksson discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above, and further discloses selecting the dielectric properties of the constituent polymer compositions by controlling the proportion of filler material mixed with the polymer resin (§§[0012]–[0016], [0056]–[0057]). Fredriksson does not expressly state that a material concentration of a first material in the first section is larger than a predetermined first threshold value, or that a material concentration of a second material in the second section is larger than a predetermined second threshold value.
However, the dielectric properties of polymer compositions as a function of constituent concentration were well known to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. It would have been obvious to such a person, proceeding from Fredriksson, to select a suitable material concentration for each section in order to obtain the desired dielectric and mechanical properties taught at §§[0012]–[0016]. Such a selection is a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable and involves only ordinary skill in the art. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II). The claim further fails to recite any particular threshold value, so that any nonzero concentration satisfies the limitation.
Claims 6, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fredriksson.
Fredriksson discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above, including integrating sections of differing polymer composition by sintering under applied heat and pressure (§§[0056]–[0058]).
Regarding claims 6 and 8, Fredriksson does not expressly state that a transition of a local material composition between the sections is smooth. However, sintering adjoining polymer bodies under heat and pressure necessarily produces interdiffusion at the interface and thus a continuous, rather than abrupt, change in local material composition across the transition region — which is precisely the mechanism relied upon in the instant specification (see Specification, p. 3, ll. 35–38: interfaces within the filling are avoided by the pressing or sintering production method). It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at a smooth transition of local material composition as claimed, and such a transition would in any event be an inherent result of the process disclosed by Fredriksson. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 7, Fredriksson does not expressly disclose the formation of a third section. However, Fredriksson expressly contemplates integrating "different parts made of different polymer materials" (§[0015]) without limitation as to the number of parts. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a further material composition to form a third section of the raw filling, in order to tailor further regions of the filling to further design objectives. The mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 671 (CCPA 1960); MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA C KING whose telephone number is (571)270-3429. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, Alexander H. Taningco can be reached at (571) 272-8048. 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.
/MONICA C KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2844
Prosecution Insights