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 1, in paragraph [0002], note that the recitation of “relates to a radio frequency (RF) field” appears to be incomplete and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Page 1, in the heading immediately preceding paragraph [0004] and page 3, in the heading therein, note that --OF THE INVENTION-- should be inserted after “SUMMARY” (i.e. page 1) and inserted after “DETAIL DESCRIPTION” (i.e. page 3), respectively for consistency with PTO guidelines. Page 3, in paragraphs [0014] & [0015], for the brief description of FIGS. 9 & 10, note that it is unclear whether the “is assembled” limitation is consistent with the apparent --exploded-- views as depicted in these drawings and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Page 3, in paragraph [0020], second line therein and in paragraph [0022], second line therein, note that --the-- should be inserted prior to “drawings” (i.e. in paragraph [0020]) and inserted prior to “claims” (i.e. in paragraph [0022]) respectively at these instances for idiomatic clarity. Page 3, in paragraph [0020], third line therein, note that --throughout the detail description of the drawings-- should be inserted after “elements” for an appropriate characterization. Page 4, in paragraph [0024], last line therein, note that the recitation of “is also defined as a top-down direction” should be rewritten as --is also defined as a “top-down direction”-- for an appropriate characterization. Page 4, in paragraph [0025], 4th & 5th lines therein, note that the recitation of “adjust its installation depth relative to the top cover relying” should be rewritten as --adjust the installation depth thereof relative to the top cover by relying-- for an appropriate characterization. Page 5, in paragraph [0027], third line therein, note that the recitation of “is also defined as a left-right direction” should be rewritten as --is also defined as a “left-right direction”-- for an appropriate characterization; 6th line therein, note that the recitation of “a so-called bottle cap” should be rewritten as --a so-called “bottle cap”-- for an appropriate characterization. Page 5, in paragraph [0028], 6th line therein, note that the recitation of “partially stretching out of …” is vague in meaning and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Page 5, in paragraph [0029], second line therein, note that the term “its” should be rewritten as --it is-- for an appropriate characterization; 5th line therein, note that the recitation of “adjusting its installation depth” should be rewritten as --adjusting the installation depth thereof-- for an appropriate characterization. Page 6, in paragraph [0034], second line therein, note that label “123” is vague in meaning, especially since no such label appears in any drawing and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Page 7, in paragraph [0035], 11th line therein, note that the pronoun “it” should be rewritten to indicate the intended feature for clarity and completeness of description. Page 7, in paragraph [0037], note that the description in this paragraph should make reference to the corresponding drawing to which such description is associated with for clarity and completeness of description. Throughout the detail description, it is noted that at numerous instances, multiple drawings are reference. However, it should be noted that not all the labels appear in all of the multiple drawings and thus for the individual labels should specifically reference those drawings in which the labeled features appear for clarity and completeness of description. Appropriate correction is required.
The drawings are objected to because of the following: In FIG. 7, note that reference label --123-- needs to be provided herein such as to be commensurate with the FIG. 7 description in paragraph [0034].
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 2-9; 12-20 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 claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19, at all appropriate instances, note that it is unclear as, to what characterizes an/the “eave portion” and thus such terminology is vague in meaning, respectively at these instances. Appropriate clarification is needed.
In claims 7, 17, line 4 in each claim, note that it is unclear as to what characterizes “head edges”, “tail edges” and “connected one-by-one” and thus such terminologies are respectively vague in meaning, at these instances. Appropriate clarification is needed.
In claims 8, 18, lines 3, 4 in each claim, note that it is unclear as to what characterizes the terminology “etching height”, respectively at these instances, especially since no prior recitation of any etching has been previously established. Appropriate clarification is needed.
In claim 9, lines 2 & 3 and in claim 19, line 3, note that it is unclear as to what characterizes the terminology “a mouth portion” and thus such terminology is vague in meaning, respectively at these instances. Appropriate clarification is needed.
The following claims have been found to be objectionable for reasons set forth below:
In claim 1, lines 9 & 10 and in claim 11, line 11, note that the recitation of “the internal threads and the external threads” should be rewritten as --the internal threads of the cap portion and the external threads of the cylinder portion--, respectively at these instances for an appropriate characterization.
In claims 11-20, in view of the plural nature of features as set forth in these claims, note that use of the terms --respective-- and --corresponding--with respect to the appropriate plural features set forth in these claims would be proper for appropriate characterizations.
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 1-5, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Regan et al.
Regan et al (i.e. FIGS. 2, 3) discloses a radio frequency adjustment structure (i.e. adjustable assembly 54), comprising: a cavity (i.e. main cavity 52) characterized by a conductive wall defining a top cover with a base portion including a through hole (i.e. aperture 52) formed through the top cover; a cylinder portion (i.e. conductive tube 56) protruding from the base portion along a first direction, where the cylinder portion (56) has a plurality of external threads (i.e. best seen in FIG. 2); a cap portion (i.e. comprised by conductive tube (58) and conductive elements (72, 74) in FIG. 3) having a rod portion (i.e. coupling probe 66) positioned along the first direction and extending into the cavity (52) and where the conductive tube (58) of the cap portion includes a plurality of internal threads, as best seen in FIG. 3. During operation, the internal threads on the conductive tube (58) of the cap portion engage with the external threads of the cylinder portion (56), such that rotation of the cap portion relative to the cylinder portion moves the rod portion into and out of the cavity to provide tuning of, for example, impedance characteristics. Regarding claim 2, for the cap portion, note that the conductive tube (58) having the internal threads facing the rod portion and thus can be characterized as an “eave portion”, as far as such terminology can be understood. Regarding claim 3, as evident from FIG. 3, the base portion extends in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction and note that the conductive elements (72, 74) can characterize a “plate portion” that are integrally connected between the eave portion (58) and the rod portion (66). Regarding claim 4, as evident from FIG. 3, the height of the eave portion (58) is necessarily shorter than the height of the rod portion (66), which extends into the cavity. Regarding claim 5, as evident from FIG. 3, an annular space (i.e. a channel) is formed between the rod portion (66), the eave portion (58), the plate portion (72, 74) of the cap portion and the cylinder portion (56). Regarding claim 10, as evident from FIG. 3, the main cavity (52) further includes a conductive wall defining a “bottom base” located below and opposite to the conductive wall defining the base and through hole (53).
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 11-15, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enokihara et al in view of Regan et al.
Enokihara et al (i.e. FIG. 7) discloses a filter (i.e. 30A) formed by a conductive case (i.e. 31) forming a cavity therein. Note that a plurality of coupling structures (i.e. coupling probes (37, 38) in FIG. 7) are attached to the casing (31) and configured to protrude a distance (e.g. distance P1) into the cavity. However, the coupling probes do not have the adjusting feature as set forth by the remainder of these claims.
As described in the preceding rejection, Regan et al discloses in part a coupling probe assembly that is adjustable and includes the details set forth in these claims.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious in view of these references, taken as a whole, to have modified the coupling probes in Enokihara et al to have taken the form of adjustable coupling probes, such as taught by Regan et al. Such a modification provides the advantageous benefit of having coupling probes that can be physically movable or adjustable, which provides for the benefit of tuning or adjusting impedance within the cavity (e.g. see column 4, lines 44-46 in Regan et al), thereby suggesting the obviousness of such a modification. Accordingly, with respect to claims 11-15 & 20, as an obvious consequence of the modification, the resultant combination necessarily would have included plural coupling probes, consistent with the teaching in Enokihara et al, having specific details of the adjustable coupling probes, consistent with the teachings in Regan et al.
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
