The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The specification is replete with grammatical errors too numerous to mention specifically. The specification should be revised carefully. Examples of such errors are: Page 1, in paragraph [0003], first line therein, note that “space power,” should be rewritten as --space, power-- for grammatical clarity. Page 9, in paragraph [0061], first line therein and page 14, in paragraph [0091], second line therein, note that the term “doesn’t” should be rewritten as --does not--, respectively at these instances for idiomatic clarity. Page 10, in paragraph [0064], 4th line therein, note that the term “won’t” should be rewritten as --would not-- for idiomatic clarity. Page 13, in paragraph [0087], 7th line therein, note that the term “don’t” should be rewritten as --do not-- for idiomatic clarity. Page 14, in paragraph [0091], second, third lines therein, note that --the-- should be inserted prior to “bottom”, respectively at these instances for idiomatic clarity.
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) for the cited parent patent application should be provided for clarity and completeness of description. Pages 2, 10, 11, in the respective headings at these instances, note that the recitations of “Summary of invention” (i.e. page 2) should be rewritten as --Summary of the Invention--, note that “Brief description of the drawings” (i.e. page 10) should be rewritten as --Brief Description of the Drawings-- and note that “Description of embodiments” (i.e. page 11) should be rewritten as --Detail Description of the Embodiments--, respectively at these instances for consistency with PTO guidelines. Page 12, in paragraph [0084], 4th & 5th lines therein, note that the recitation of “thick 3a and thin 3b sections” should be rewritten as --thick sections 3a and thin sections 3b--, respectively at these instances for an appropriate characterization. Page 13, in paragraph [0088], last line therein, note that the recitation of “outside said range” should be rewritten as --outside these ranges-- for consistency with the various ranges recited herein. Page 15, in paragraph [0094], third & 4th lines therein, note that the recitation of “but it shall be noted that describes herein is only” is vague in meaning and thus appropriate clarification is needed. 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 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16; 18; 19 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 9, note that it is unclear, even in light of the specification, as to what the claim 9 subject matter is trying to convey and thus appropriate clarification is needed.
In claim 12, note that it is unclear in what manner would the recited “rows” be considered “parallel to the elongated aperture” (e.g. to a --side-- of the elongated aperture?) and thus appropriate clarification is needed.
In claims 13, 14, line 2 in each claim, note that it is unclear how “a first, second and third intermediate layers”, as recited in these claims would relate to the “one or more intermediate layers” as recited in independent claim 1, from which these claims directly depend (i.e. one in the same layers, separate and distinct layers, etc.). Appropriate clarification is needed.
In claims 15, 16, line 2 in each claim; in claim 18, lines 6, 10; in claim 19, lines 7, 11: note that it is unclear how each recitation of “metasurface” would relate to each other (i.e. one in the same metasurface, separate and distinct metasurfaces, etc.). Appropriate clarification is needed
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, 10, 12; 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Kishk et al.
Kishk et al (e.g. Figure 4) discloses a multi-layer waveguide, comprising: at least three physical layers (i.e. upper electrical plane (410); intermediate AMC substrates (420); lower electrical plane (430), as depicted in Figure 4) that are directly stacked with respect to each other, as per claim 10; a waveguide channel (i.e. an air-filled region bounded by the upper & lower electrical planes (410, 430) sandwiching the intermediate AMC substrates (420) there between, as evident from Figure 4), thereby defining an elongated aperture within the multi-layer waveguide; a metasurface is defined on the AMC substrates (420) due to the presence of a top AMC (i.e. a square shape patch (170) defining a thick section on a surface facing the adjoining the upper electrical plane) and a bottom AMC (i.e. a square shape patch (180) defining a thick section) being connected to each other by a metallic via (i.e. 150) defining a thin section, as described with respect to related Figure 2. Note that the AMC substrates (420) are configured to surround the sides of the elongated aperture defining the waveguide channel. Regarding claim 12, as evident from Figure 4, the top AMC patches are arranged in three rows that are oriented parallel to the side of the elongated aperture/waveguide channel.
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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishk et al in view of Ahmadloo.
Kishk et al, as described in the preceding rejection, discloses the claimed invention, but does not disclose a slotted waveguide antenna comprising antenna slots formed on the top layer, as recited in claims 14 & 15.
Ahmadloo (i.e. Fig. 2) exemplarily discloses a structure (i.e. 200) including laminated layers (i.e. layers (202, 204, 206) in Fig. 2) and includes the layer (204) having a cut-out area (210) formed therein that creates an air-filled waveguide cavity. Note that an array of slots (i.e. 230) are formed on a top conductor layer (i.e. 212) associated with layer (206), thereby forming a slotted waveguide antenna.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious in view of the references, taken as a whole to have modified the top layer of the stacked multi-layer air-filled waveguide in Kishk et al to have included antenna slots therein, such as exemplarily taught by Ahmadloo. Such a modification would have been considered obvious for imparting to the analogous air-filled multi-layer waveguide in Kishk et al, the advantageous benefits of forming a slotted waveguide antenna, such as exemplarily taught by Ahmadloo, 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, 3-5, 8-15, 17; 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 14, 7, 11, 12, 2-6, 9, 10, 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12362451. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the above cited patent claims recite substantially the same subject matter as recited in the corresponding application claims. Accordingly, the applications are met by the cited patent claims under an “anticipation analysis” standard of obviousness double patenting.
Claims 2, 6, 7 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 prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Park et al pertains to a surface integrated waveguide having slot radiators and a metasurface associated with the waveguide.
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