DETAILED ACTION
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 .
The amendment filed 5/18/26 has been considered and entered. Claims 9,11,19 and 21 have been canceled. Claim 22 has been added. Claims 1-8,10,12-18,20 and 22 remain in the application.
Considering the amendment filed 5/18/26, the 35 USC 112 and 103 rejections have been withdrawn, however, the following rejections have been necessitated by the amendment.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1,3-8,10,12-18,20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panat et al. (10,086,432) in combination with Manivannan et al. (2018/0032851) further in combination with CN 106356607 further in combination with Fuse (2012/0104611) still further in combination with Bregman et al. (2018/0301820) still further in combination with Cai et al. (6,270,850) and JP 2014-185358.
Panat et al. (10/086,432) teaches a three-dimensional sub-mm wavelength sub-thz frequency antenna on flexible and UV curable dielectrics using printed electronic metal traces. Panat et al. (10,086,432) teaches forming a 3D base body and printing a metal nanoparticle solution on the dielectric 3D structure to create conductive traces and sintering the nanoparticle to form the conductive traces (abstract).
Panat et al. (10,086,432) fails to teach forming the conductive traces by dipping or pouring the nanoparticulate inks.
Manivannan et al. (2018/0032851) teaches forming transponder fabrication methods whereby forming antenna components including horn antennas by dipping or pouring the conductive traces (abstract, [0014],[0015]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Panat et al. (10,086,432) process to include forming the conductive traces by dipping or pouring as evidenced by Manivannan et al. (2018/0032851) with the expectation of achieving similar success.
Panat et al. (10,086,432) in combination with Manivannan et al. (2018/0032851) fails to teach the incorporation of apertures in the functional shape structure.
CN 106356607 teaches a method of manufacturing a radio frequency device with a composite structure and using a conductive process to form selective conductive layer structure on the surface of the substate (abstract). CN 106356607 teaches the structure is a layered structure composed of multiple grids as an open structure to ensure easy electroplating or immersion of the conductive treatment solutions [0040].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Panat et al. (10,086,432) in combination with Manivannan et al. (2018/0032851) process to include coating of the walls of the waveguide with conductive material as evidenced by CN 106356607 with the expectation of success, i.e. conductive grides which aid in conductive coating applied thereto.
Panat et al. (10,086,432) in combination with Manivannan et al. (2018/0032851) further in combination with CN 106356607 fail to teach calibrating the viscosity of the conductive dispersion based on smallest aperture.
Fuse (2012/0104611) teaches when coating through hole vias the viscosity of the coating solution and the aspect ratio of the via can determine the filling/lining of the via with the coating solution. Fuse (2012/0104611) teaches calculating the desired viscosity based on the aspect ratio of the through hole via [0081],[0096].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Panat et al. (10,086,432) in combination with Manivannan et al. (2018/0032851) further in combination with CN 106356607 process of coating vias by calculating the viscosity based upon the aspect ratio of the vias as evidenced by Fuse (2012/0104611) with the expectation of complete coating of the vias by controlling the viscosity of the solution based thereupon. Regarding the smallest vias this would be inherently done as this would control the filling of all vias having different aspect ratios upon a single substrate.
Panat et al. (10,086,432) in combination with Manivannan et al. (2018/0032851) further in combination with CN 106356607 further in combination with Fuse (2012/0104611) fails to teach the claimed base body to have a rectangular cross-section and one or more walls comprise apertured to extend there through.
Bregman et al. (2018/0301820) teaches a waveguide element whereby slots (17) are formed in walls of a waveguide having a rectangular cross section (abstract, [0018],[0020] and Fig 7C,7D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Panat et al. (10,086,432) in combination with Manivannan et al. (2018/0032851) further in combination with CN 106356607 further in combination with Fuse (2012/0104611) waveguide to include a rectangular cross section and slots therein as evidenced by Bregman et al. (2018/0301820) with the expectation of producing the desired waveguide shape.
Panat et al. (10,086,432) in combination with Manivannan et al. (2018/0032851) further in combination with CN 106356607 further in combination with Fuse (2012/0104611) still further in combination with Bregman et al. (2018/0301820) fail to teach calibrating the surface energy of the plastic substrate resulting in sufficient wetting and calibrating sintering temperature based upon glass transition temperature f the substrate to avoid damaging of the substrate.
Cai et al. (6,270,850) teaches method to improve dipping whereby viscosity and surface tension (claimed surface energy) is determined (claimed calibrated) to improve quality of coating (claimed wetting) (abstract).
JP 2014-185358 teaches glass temperature of the glass/epoxy substrate (glass/epoxy) to be lower than the sintering temperature to avoid damaging the subs rate (example 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Panat et al. (10,086,432) in combination with Manivannan et al. (2018/0032851) further in combination with CN 106356607 further in combination with Fuse (2012/0104611) still further in combination with Bregman et al. (2018/0301820) process to control sintering temperature based upon glass transition temperature of the substrate and to control surface energy of the coating to improve quality of coating (wetting) as evidenced by Cai et al. (6,270,850) and JP 2014-185358 with the expectation of producing an improved coating without damaging the substrate.
Regarding claim 1, the base body is provided and determined by forming the base body using 3D printing and the wetting is met by applying the conductive nanoparticles solution to the 3D base body. The functional structure is met by forming antennas such as horn antennas and waveguides (col. 4, line 63 – col. 5 line 10). Panat et al. (10,086,432) teaches forming a base body where a conductive surface is necessary to ensure radio frequency function as it forms the antennas and waveguides. Both Manivannan et al. (2018/0032851) and CN 106356607 teach coating conductive material for waveguides/antennas by dipping or immersion while CN 106356607 teaches a grid structure, (claimed lattices). Bregman et al. (2018/0301820) teaches a waveguide element whereby slots (17) are formed in walls of a waveguide having a rectangular cross section (abstract, [0018],[0020] and Fig 7C,7D). The references collectively teach waveguides as the functional structure while Panat et al. (10,086,432) teaches the base body can include dielectrics on any other non-conductive material including plastics and ceramics (col. 4, lines 18-41 and col. 8, lines 29-38). Cai et al. (6,270,850) teaches method to improve dipping whereby viscosity and surface tension (claimed surface energy) is determined (claimed calibrated) to improve quality of coating (claimed wetting) (abstract). JP 2014-185358 teaches glass temperature of the glass/epoxy substrate (glass/epoxy) to be lower than the sintering temperature to avoid damaging the subs rate (example 5).
Regarding claim 4, Manivannan et al. (2018/0032851) teaches forming transponder fabrication methods whereby forming antenna components including horn antennas by pouring the conductive traces (abstract,[0014],[0015]).
Regarding claims 3 and 5, Panat et al. (10,086,432) teaches spraying the nanoparticle solution and using an atomizer and hence would produce a mist (claimed aerosol (col. 9, lines 3-35 and col. 11, lines 22-39).
Regarding claim 6, Panat et al. (10,086,432) teaches the nanoparticles include metals such as silver, gold, copper and aluminum (col. 4, lines 42-60).
Regarding claim 7, Panat et al. (10,086,432) teaches a post-treatment of sintering using heat or UV (abstract and col. 12, lines 23-25).
Regarding claim 8, Panat et al. (10,086,432) teaches other RF structures which would include lines (col. 4, lines 30-35)
Regarding claim 10, Panat et al. (10,086,432) teaches the conductive ink to include solvents (col. 4, lines 40-45).
Regarding claim 12, Panat et al. (10,086,432) teaches forming the base body using 3D printing (col. 5, line 30 – col. 6, line 50 and col. 8, lines 29-38).
Regarding claim 13, Panat et al. (10/086,432) teaches cleaning the base prior to coating with conductive ink as a pretreatment (col. 10, lines 60-65).
Regarding claim 14, Panat et al. (10,086,432) teaches the nanoparticles include metals such as silver, gold, copper and aluminum (col. 4, lines 42-60) and Panat et al. (10,086,432) teaches a post-treatment of sintering using heat or UV (abstract and col. 12, lines 23-25).
Regarding claim 15, Panat et al. (10,086,432) teaches other RF structures which would include lines (col. 4, lines 30-35) and Panat et al. (10,086,432) teaches forming a base body where a conductive surface is necessary to ensure radio frequency function as it form the antennas and waveguides.
Regarding claim 16, Panat et al. (10,086,432) teaches the conductive ink to include solvents (col. 4, lines 40-45) and Panat et al. (10,086,432) teaches the base body can include dielectrics or any other non-conductive material including plastics and ceramics (col. 4, lines 18-41 and col. 8, lines 29-38).
Regarding claim 17, Panat et al. (10,086,432) teaches forming the base body using 3D printing (col. 5, line 30 – col. 6, line 50 and col. 8, lines 29-38) and Panat et al. (10/086,432) teaches cleaning the base prior to coating with conductive ink as a pretreatment (col. 10, lines 60-65).
Regarding claim 18, Panat et al. (10,086,432) teaches a post-treatment of sintering using heat or UV (abstract and col. 12, lines 23-25) and Panat et al. (10,086,432) teaches other RF structures which include horn antennas and waveguides (col. 4, line 63 – col. 5, line 10).
Regarding claim 20, Panat et al. (10,086,432) teaches forming the base body using 3D printing (col. 5, line 30 – col. 6, line 50 and col. 8, lines 29-38) and Panat et al. (10/086,432) teaches cleaning the base prior to coating with conductive ink as a pretreatment (col. 10, lines 60-65) and Panat et al. (10,086,432) teaches the base body can include dielectrics an any other non-conductive material including plastics and ceramics (col. 4, lines 18-41 and col. 8, lines 29-38).
Regarding claim 22, CN 106356607 teaches a grid structure, (claimed lattices) which would have walls oppose to one another as a waveguide structure.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panat et al. (10,086,432) in combination with Manivannan et al. (2018/0032851) further in combination with CN 106356607 further in combination with Fuse (2012/0104611) still further in combination with Bregman et al. (2018/0301820) still further in combination with Cai et al. (6,270,850) and JP 2014-185358 further in combination with Garlough et al. (6,037,020).
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Panat et al. (10,086,432) in combination with Manivannan et al. (2018/0032851) further in combination with CN 106356607 further in combination with Fuse (2012/0104611) still further in combination with Bregman et al. (2018/0301820) still further in combination with Cai et al. (6,270,850) and JP 2014-185358.
Panat et al. (10,086,432) in combination with Manivannan et al. (2018/0032851) further in combination with CN 106356607 further in combination with Fuse (2012/0104611) still further in combination with Bregman et al. (2018/0301820) still further in combination with Cai et al. (6,270,850) and JP 2014-185358 fails to teach dipping bath to by an ultrasound bath.
Garlough et al. (6,037,020) teaches an ultrasonic mixing of through hole treating compositions whereby a conductive composition (graphite) is coated on interior of the holes with the aid of ultrasound (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Panat et al. (10,086,432) in combination with Manivannan et al. (2018/0032851) further in combination with CN 106356607 further in combination with Fuse (2012/0104611) still further in combination with Bregman et al. (2018/0301820) still further in combination with Cai et al. (6,270,850) and JP 2014-185358 with the expectation of improving the coating within the holes.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8,10,12-18,20 and 22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argued by pointing out the differences between the reference and each individual reference is not sufficient to overcome a rejection based on a combination of the references. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The reference must be taken collectively and the test of obviousness is not express suggestion of the claimed invention in any or all references but rather what the references taken collectively would suggest to those of ordinary skill in the art presumed to be familiar with them. In re Rosselet, 347 F.2d 847, 146 USPQ 183 (CCPA 1965); In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038.
The Examiner has combined the references and has provided reasoning given in the rejection as expectation of success as well as controlling viscosity of the dispersion to promote complete coating of the surfaces in producing a waveguide structure.
Applicant argued the Examiner uses hindsight reconstruction when formulating the rejection.
The Examiner disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
As detailed in the rejection, Manivannan et al. (2018/0032851) is utilized to teach convention coating by dipping or pouring in forming conductive traces, Bregman et al. (2018/0301820) teaches coating the inner sidewalls of a slotted waveguide, while Fuse (2012/0104611) teaches controlling viscosity of the dispersion by calibration and the combination would teach the claims are recited. The fact that Garlough et al. (6,037,020) is utilized for printed circuit board does not take away from teaching the advantages associated with using an ultrasound bath for improvement in coating interior of holes which would be applicable to coatings outside printed wiring boards as the ultrasound is not limited to printed wiring boards as argued by Applicant.
Applicant argued the prior art fails to teach newly added limitation of sintering temperature calibrated based on glass transition temperature of plastic used for the base body to prevent damaged thereto as well as calibrating surface energy of the plastic base to provide sufficient wetting of the surfaces with the dispersion.
Cai et al. (6,270,850) and JP 2014-185358 teach importance of sintering temperature being less than glass transition temperature of substrate to avoid damaging the substrate and controlling surface tension/energy of the dispersion to improve coating of the substrate (wetting) as detailed above.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN K TALBOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7-4PM.
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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/BRIAN K TALBOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights