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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 07/05/2025 has been entered. The 112 rejections are withdrawn. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-4, 5-7, 8-9, 10-11, 12, 16-19 and 20 are rejected over Doyle et al (U.S. Publication US 20210028549 A1 hereby referred as Doyle) in view of Alexanian et al (U.S. Patent US 11378683 B2 hereby referred as Alexanian).
Regarding claim 1, Doyle discloses:
An antenna module (100) (Fig. 4) for a vehicle sensor (see para. 0028), comprising: a waveguide (110 includes waveguide ridges 115, 175, 135, and 136) (para. 0028); a waveguide ridge (115) extending within the waveguide, wherein the waveguide ridge (115) comprises an elongated axis along which the waveguide ridge (115) extends; and an antenna slot (142) operably coupled with the waveguide (see para. 0031), the antenna slot (142) comprising an elongated axis along which the antenna slot (the antenna slots 142 are elongated along an axis in the same direction as waveguide ridge 115) extends, wherein the elongated axis of the antenna slot (142) is at least substantially aligned with or at least substantially parallel (see Fig. 4) to the elongated axis of the waveguide ridge (115).
Doyle does not disclose “a single antenna slot operably coupled with the waveguide…”
However, Alexanian teaches a single antenna slot operably coupled with the waveguide… (Col. 1 lines 14-18)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a single antenna slot operably coupled with the waveguide as taught by Alexanian in order to deliver electromagnetic radiation from at least one of the plurality of waveguides therethrough (Col. 1 lines 18-20).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Doyle teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Doyle also discloses:
wherein the waveguide (110) extends along a side of the antenna slot (115 extends along a side of 142).
Doyle does not disclose “the single antenna slot…”
However, Alexanian teaches a single antenna slot operably coupled with the waveguide… (Col. 1 lines 14-18)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a single antenna slot operably coupled with the waveguide as taught by Alexanian in order to deliver electromagnetic radiation from at least one of the plurality of waveguides therethrough (Col. 1 lines 18-20).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Doyle teaches the limitations of claim 2.
Doyle also discloses:
wherein the waveguide (110, ridge 115) extends along both opposing sides of the antenna slot (left side of 142 and right side of 142) defining the elongated axis of the antenna slot (142).
Doyle does not disclose “the single antenna slot…”
However, Alexanian teaches a single antenna slot operably coupled with the waveguide… (Col. 1 lines 14-18)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a single antenna slot operably coupled with the waveguide as taught by Alexanian in order to deliver electromagnetic radiation from at least one of the plurality of waveguides therethrough (Col. 1 lines 18-20).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Doyle teaches the limitations of claim 3.
Doyle also discloses:
wherein the antenna slot (142) is non-centered with respect to opposing sides (see Fig. 4, they are not centered with respect to the sides of the waveguide ridge 115) of the waveguide (110, ridge 115) adjacent to the opposing sides of the antenna slot (142).
Doyle does not disclose “the single antenna slot…”
However, Alexanian teaches a single antenna slot operably coupled with the waveguide… (Col. 1 lines 14-18)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a single antenna slot operably coupled with the waveguide as taught by Alexanian in order to deliver electromagnetic radiation from at least one of the plurality of waveguides therethrough (Col. 1 lines 18-20).
PNG
media_image1.png
452
822
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, the modified Doyle teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Doyle also discloses:
wherein the waveguide (110, ridge 115) is defined in between two or more rows of opposing posts (122).
Regarding claim 9, Doyle discloses:
An antenna module (100) (Fig. 4), comprising: a plurality of waveguides (110 includes waveguide ridges 115, 175, 135, and 136) (para. 0028) (“any number of antennae may be provided and therefore any desired number of corresponding antennae structures—such as a plurality of waveguides, grooves, etc.—may be provided”, para. 0029); a plurality of waveguide ridges (115, “any number of antennae may be provided and therefore any desired number of corresponding antennae structures—such as a plurality of waveguides, grooves, etc.—may be provided”, para. 0029), each waveguide ridge of the plurality of waveguide ridges (115) being positioned and extending within a corresponding waveguide of the plurality of waveguides (extending in the antenna block 100); and a plurality of antenna slots (142), each antenna slot of the plurality of antenna slots (142) being positioned within a terminal end (terminal ends shown in Fig. 4, annotated below) of a corresponding waveguide of the plurality of waveguides, wherein each antenna slot of at least a subset of the plurality of antenna slots (142) is positioned in a non-centered configuration within the terminal end of its corresponding waveguide (the terminal ends of the slots are not centered, see Fig. 4 annotated below).
PNG
media_image1.png
452
822
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Doyle does not disclose “each waveguide of the plurality of waveguides and each waveguide ridge of the plurality of waveguide ridges being operably coupled with a single antenna slot of the plurality of antenna slots,”
However, Alexanian teaches each waveguide of the plurality of waveguides and each waveguide ridge of the plurality of waveguide ridges being operably coupled with a single antenna slot of the plurality of antenna slots (Col. 1 lines 14-18).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have each waveguide of the plurality of waveguides and each waveguide ridge of the plurality of waveguide ridges being operably coupled with a single antenna slot of the plurality of antenna slots in order to deliver electromagnetic radiation from at least one of the plurality of waveguides therethrough (Col. 1 lines 18-20).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Doyle teaches the limitations of claim 9.
Doyle also discloses:
wherein each antenna slot of the at least a subset of the plurality of antenna slots (142) is elongated so as to define a longitudinal axis (see the axis of 142 in Fig. 4) that is at least substantially aligned or at least substantially parallel to an elongated axis of its corresponding waveguide ridge (parallel and aligned with 115).
Regarding claim 16, Doyle discloses:
An antenna module (100) (Fig. 4), comprising: a plurality of waveguides (110 includes waveguide ridges 115, 175, 135, and 136) (para. 0028) (“any number of antennae may be provided and therefore any desired number of corresponding antennae structures—such as a plurality of waveguides, grooves, etc.—may be provided”, para. 0029); and a plurality of antenna slots (142), each waveguide ridge (115) extending towards and terminating adjacent to a corresponding antenna slot (142, see Fig.4 annotated below), wherein each antenna slot of the plurality of antenna slots (142) defines an elongated axis that is non- perpendicular to the waveguide ridge axis (parallel to 115 axis) of its corresponding waveguide ridge (115).
PNG
media_image1.png
452
822
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Doyle does not disclose “wherein each waveguide corresponds with a single antenna slot of the plurality of antenna slots,”
However, Alexanian teaches wherein each waveguide corresponds with a single antenna slot of the plurality of antenna slots, (Col. 1 lines 14-18).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have each waveguide corresponds with a single antenna slot of the plurality of antenna slots in order to deliver electromagnetic radiation from at least one of the plurality of waveguides therethrough (Col. 1 lines 18-20).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Doyle teaches the limitations of claim 16.
Doyle further discloses:
wherein each waveguide of the plurality of waveguides (110 includes waveguide ridges 115, 175, 135, and 136) (para. 0028) (“any number of antennae may be provided and therefore any desired number of corresponding antennae structures—such as a plurality of waveguides, grooves, etc.—may be provided”, para. 0029) is defined by a plurality of posts (122).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Doyle teaches the limitations of claim 17.
Doyle further discloses:
further comprising a waveguide ridge (115) extending along each waveguide of the plurality of waveguides (110 includes waveguide ridges 115, 175, 135, and 136) (para. 0028) (“any number of antennae may be provided and therefore any desired number of corresponding antennae structures—such as a plurality of waveguides, grooves, etc.—may be provided”, para. 0029), each waveguide ridge (115) defining a waveguide ridge axis (the axis of 115), wherein each waveguide ridge (115) is positioned in between at least two opposing rows of the plurality of posts (122), and wherein each antenna slot of the plurality of antenna slots (142) defines an elongated axis (the axis of all the 142 slots) that is either at least substantially aligned with or at least substantially parallel (parallel and aligned with 115) to the waveguide ridge axis (axis of 115) of its corresponding waveguide ridge (115).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Doyle teaches the limitations of claim 16.
Doyle further discloses:
wherein at least one waveguide of the plurality of waveguides (110 includes waveguide ridges 115, 175, 135, and 136) (para. 0028) (“any number of antennae may be provided and therefore any desired number of corresponding antennae structures—such as a plurality of waveguides, grooves, etc.—may be provided”, para. 0029) at least partially circumscribes an antenna slot (142) such that the antenna slot (142) is non-centered with respect to the at least one waveguide (142 are not centered with 115 and the rest of the waveguide).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Doyle teaches the limitations of claim 4.
Doyle, embodiment of Fig. 4 does not explicitly disclose “further comprising a gap between a first side of the antenna slot and a first side of the waveguide adjacent to the first side of the antenna slot.”
However, Doyle in the embodiment of Fig. 8 teaches comprising a gap between a first side of the antenna slot (742) and a first side of the waveguide (715) adjacent to the first side of the antenna slot (742).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a gap between a first side of the antenna slot and a first side of the waveguide adjacent to the first side of the antenna slot as taught by Doyle in order to allow electric field distribution along the ridge to couple more efficiently with the source of electromagnetic waves and therefore overcome limits to gain (para. 0055-0057, Doyle)
Doyle does not disclose “the single antenna slot…”
However, Alexanian teaches a single antenna slot operably coupled with the waveguide… (Col. 1 lines 14-18)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a single antenna slot operably coupled with the waveguide as taught by Alexanian in order to deliver electromagnetic radiation from at least one of the plurality of waveguides therethrough (Col. 1 lines 18-20).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Doyle teaches the limitations of claim 5.
Doyle, embodiment of Fig. 4 does not explicitly disclose “wherein the gap comprises an average distance of between about 0.6 mm and about 1.3 mm.”
However, Doyle in the embodiment of Fig. 8, suggests the teaching of the gap comprising an average distance of between about 0.6 mm and about 1.3 mm (the gap can be maximized to maximize the benefits of this configuration “as ridge 715 extends along one side of the waveguide groove, the adjacent slot 742 may extend along the opposite side of the groove so that the space in between each slot 742 and its adjacent waveguide ridge portion (in a direction normal to the axis of the waveguide groove) is maximized, or at least substantially maximized.”, para. 0056).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the gap comprising an average distance of between about 0.6 mm and about 1.3 mm as suggested by the teachings of Doyle in order to allow electric field distribution along the ridge to couple more efficiently with the source of electromagnetic waves and therefore overcome limits to gain (para. 0055-0057, Doyle). Furthermore, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Doyle teaches the limitations of claim 5.
Doyle, embodiment of Fig. 4 does not explicitly disclose “wherein the gap comprises an average distance of about one-fourth of a wavelength of RADAR for which the vehicle sensor is configured to operate.”
However, Doyle in the embodiment of Fig. 8, suggests the teaching of the gap comprises an average distance of about one-fourth of a wavelength of RADAR for which the vehicle sensor is configured to operate (the gap can be maximized to maximize the benefits of this configuration “as ridge 715 extends along one side of the waveguide groove, the adjacent slot 742 may extend along the opposite side of the groove so that the space in between each slot 742 and its adjacent waveguide ridge portion (in a direction normal to the axis of the waveguide groove) is maximized, or at least substantially maximized.”, para. 0056).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the gap comprising an average distance of about one-fourth of a wavelength of RADAR for which the vehicle sensor is configured to operate as suggested by the teachings of Doyle in order to allow electric field distribution along the ridge to couple more efficiently with the source of electromagnetic waves and therefore overcome limits to gain (para. 0055-0057, Doyle). Furthermore, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Doyle teaches the limitations of claim 9.
Doyle, embodiment of Fig. 4 does not explicitly disclose “wherein the non-centered configuration is defined, at least in part, by a gap between a first side of each antenna slot of the at least a subset of the plurality of antenna slots and an adjacent side of its corresponding waveguide.”
However, Doyle in the embodiment of Fig. 8 teaches the non-centered configuration is defined, at least in part, by a gap between a first side of each antenna slot (742) of the at least a subset of the plurality of antenna slots (742) and an adjacent side of its corresponding waveguide (715)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the non-centered configuration is defined, at least in part, by a gap between a first side of each antenna slot of the at least a subset of the plurality of antenna slots and an adjacent side of its corresponding waveguide as taught by Doyle in order to allow electric field distribution along the ridge to couple more efficiently with the source of electromagnetic waves and therefore overcome limits to gain (para. 0055-0057, Doyle).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Doyle teaches the limitations of claim 10.
Doyle, embodiment of Fig. 4 does not explicitly disclose “wherein the gap comprises an average distance of between about 0.6 mm and about 1.3 mm.”
However, Doyle in the embodiment of Fig. 8, suggests the teaching of the gap comprising an average distance of between about 0.6 mm and about 1.3 mm (the gap can be maximized to maximize the benefits of this configuration “as ridge 715 extends along one side of the waveguide groove, the adjacent slot 742 may extend along the opposite side of the groove so that the space in between each slot 742 and its adjacent waveguide ridge portion (in a direction normal to the axis of the waveguide groove) is maximized, or at least substantially maximized.”, para. 0056).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the gap comprising an average distance of between about 0.6 mm and about 1.3 mm as suggested by the teachings of Doyle in order to allow electric field distribution along the ridge to couple more efficiently with the source of electromagnetic waves and therefore overcome limits to gain (para. 0055-0057, Doyle). Furthermore, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Doyle teaches the limitations of claim 19.
Doyle further discloses:
wherein the at least one waveguide (the 115 part of the waveguide) is at least substantially aligned with a first side of the antenna slot (aligned with 142),
Doyle, embodiment of Fig. 4 does not explicitly disclose “and wherein a gap is defined on a second side of the antenna slot opposite from the first side between the antenna slot and the at least one waveguide.”
However, Doyle in the embodiment of Fig. 8 teaches wherein a gap is defined on a second side of the antenna slot (742) opposite from the first side between the antenna slot (742) and the at least one waveguide (715)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a gap defined on a second side of the antenna slot opposite from the first side between the antenna slot and the at least one waveguide as taught by Doyle in order to allow electric field distribution along the ridge to couple more efficiently with the source of electromagnetic waves and therefore overcome limits to gain (para. 0055-0057, Doyle)
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle et al (U.S. Publication US 20210028549 A1 hereby referred as Doyle) in view of Alexanian et al (U.S. Patent US 11378683 B2 hereby referred as Alexanian) in view of Alexanian et al (U.S. Publication US 20210028528 A1 hereby referred as Alexanian ‘528).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Doyle teaches the limitations of claim 12.
Doyle also discloses:
wherein at least one waveguide ridge (115) terminates at a terminal end (terminal ends, see Fig. 4 annotated below), the terminal end (terminal ends, see Fig. 4 annotated below) being positioned in a region adjacent an antenna slot (adjacent to 142),
Doyle does not disclose “the region being defined, at least in part, by projecting opposing sidewalls of its corresponding antenna slot towards the region, the opposing sidewalls defining an elongated axis of the corresponding antenna slot.”
However, Alexanian teaches the region being defined, at least in part, by projecting opposing sidewalls of its corresponding antenna slot (742) (Fig. 7) towards the region, the opposing sidewalls (see sidewalls of Fig. 7 and para. 0002) defining an elongated axis of the corresponding antenna slot (742).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the region being defined, at least in part, by projecting opposing sidewalls of its corresponding antenna slot towards the region, the opposing sidewalls defining an elongated axis of the corresponding antenna slot as taught by Alexanian with the antenna module of Doyle in order to guide the electromagnetic waves as desired (para. 0036 and 0002, Alexanian).
PNG
media_image1.png
452
822
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, the modified Doyle teaches the limitations of claim 12.
Doyle does not disclose “wherein at least one waveguide ridge terminates adjacent at a terminal end, the terminal end being positioned outside of a region adjacent to an antenna slot, the region being defined, at least in part, by projecting opposing sidewalls of its corresponding antenna slot towards the region, the opposing sidewalls defining an elongated axis of the corresponding antenna slot.”
However, Alexanian teaches at least one waveguide ridge (725) (Fig. 7) terminates adjacent at a terminal end (the end of 725 at the bottom), the terminal end being positioned outside of a region adjacent to an antenna slot (outside of a region adjacent to 742), the region being defined, at least in part, by projecting opposing sidewalls (see sidewalls of Fig. 7 and para. 0002) of its corresponding antenna slot (742) towards the region, the opposing sidewalls defining (see sidewalls of Fig. 7 and para. 0002) an elongated axis of the corresponding antenna slot (742)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least one waveguide ridge terminating at a terminal end, the terminal end being positioned outside of a region adjacent an antenna slot, the region being defined, at least in part, by projecting opposing sidewalls of its corresponding antenna slot towards the region, the opposing sidewalls defining an elongated axis of the corresponding antenna slot as taught by Alexanian with the antenna module of Doyle in order to guide the electromagnetic waves as desired (para. 0036 and 0002, Alexanian).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle et al (U.S. Publication US 20210028549 A1 hereby referred as Doyle) in view of Alexanian et al (U.S. Patent US 11378683 B2 hereby referred as Alexanian) in view of Alexanian et al (U.S. Publication US 20210247512 A1 hereby referred as Alexanian ‘512).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Doyle teaches the limitations of claim 9.
Doyle also discloses:
wherein the non-centered configuration (the terminal ends of the slots are not centered, see Fig. 4 annotated above) is defined, at least in part, by a non-centered location at which a waveguide ridge (115) corresponding with each antenna slot of the at least a subset of the plurality of antenna slots (142)
Doyle does not disclose “…extends into its corresponding antenna slot.”
However, Alexanian ‘512 teaches … extends into its corresponding antenna slot (waveguide ridge 120 extends into slot 110) (Fig. 1A)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a waveguide ridge corresponding with each antenna slot of the at least a subset of the plurality of antenna slots as taught by Alexanian ‘512 with the antenna module of Doyle in order to deliver electromagnetic radiation from the waveguide (para. 0002, Alexanian ‘512) and in order to guide the electromagnetic waves as desired.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALADDIN ABDULBAKI whose telephone number is (571) 270-5990. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30.
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, Dimary Lopez can be reached at (571) 270-7893. 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.
/DAMEON E LEVI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/ALADDIN ABDULBAKI/
Art Unit 2845