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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/17/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-12, 14-18 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are moot because the new ground of rejection applied herein after the Request for Continued Examination submission does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claims 16-18 are objected to as being method claims depending from an apparatus claim(Independent claim 1).
This is construed as mixing different statutory classes of inventions.
Applicants may rewrite the method claims separately so as not to cross statutory classes.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ratkevich et al (U.S. Patent US 3363253 A hereby referred as Ratkevich) in view of Hirokawa et al (Publication JP 2014170989 A hereby referred as Hirokawa) in view of Achour (U.S. Publication US 20200335873 A1 hereby referred as Achour) and in further view of Lannon et al (US 11764482 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Ratkevich discloses:
Slot antenna array (Fig. 1-9 array) comprising: a plurality of juxtaposed elementary antennas (10) (Fig. 1), each elementary antenna (10) comprising a waveguide (12 or 12A) (they are waveguide radiating elements, Col. 2 lines 4-5), one face of which is provided with radiating slots (slots 30 and 32) (Fig. 7) in order to radiate outside the waveguide at least part of the electromagnetic energy in said waveguide (12 or 12A)- a coupling waveguide (feeder element 14 or 14A) (Fig. 1) for individually feeding each said elementary antenna (10) feeds from a face opposite to said face (col. 2 lines 12-14) provided with radiating slots (30 and 32) (Fig. 7) wherein said antenna array (Fig. 1-9 array), a cross-section of said radiating slots (cross-section of 30 and 32) (Fig. 7) is either non-rectangular (see Fig. 7, the shape of the slot is non-rectangular with curved edges)
Ratkevich does not disclose “said antenna array is a monolithic component resulting from additive manufacturing, wherein a cross-section of said radiating slots is made by additive manufacturing without need for machining”.
However, Hirokawa teaches said antenna array (2a) (Fig. 1) is a monolithic component resulting from additive manufacturing wherein a cross-section of said radiating slots is made by additive manufacturing without a need for machining (in general you could use diffusion bonding and etching to create the slotted waveguide array, or you could use 3D printing “Manufacturing method of a slot array antenna 1 using diffusion bonding and etching process
described above is an example. That as another manufacturing method, cutting, punching, to produce a layer of the conductor by the plating or the like on the surface of the molded product press, casting, such as a resin to produce a slot array antenna 1 and using 3D printing, etc.”, page 10).
Examiner’s Note: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have said antenna array being a component resulting from additive manufacturing as taught by Hirokawa with the slot antenna array of Ratkevich in order to have all the elements integrally formed.
Ratkevich does not disclose “and the coupling waveguide has irises and/or steps on its inner face so as to control the phase and/or amplitude of the signals in the different coupling slots.”
However, Achour teaches the coupling waveguide has irises (190) (Fig. 4) on its inner face (see Fig. 5) so as to control the phase and/or amplitude of the signals (“act to contain the radiation pattern”, para. 0071)in the different coupling slots (152 coupled to 160)
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 coupling waveguide having irises on its inner face so as to control the phase and/or amplitude of the signals in the different coupling slots as taught by Achour with the slot antenna array of Ratkevich in order to contain the radiation pattern to improve the strength of the radiated signal through the slots (para. 0071, Achour).
The modified combination of Ratkevich, Hirokawa and Achour does not teach wherein said coupling waveguide comprises a signal introduction slot.
Lannon et al teaches wherein a coupling waveguide comprises a signal introduction slot(206, Figs 2A-2C, column 4, lines 30-38).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a signal introduction slot as taught by Lannon et al in the modified combination of Ratkevich, Hirokawa and Achour for the purpose of providing for electromagnetic radiation to propagate therein(Lannon et al, column 4, lines 30-38).
Regarding claim 2, Ratkevich further discloses:
wherein said cross-section (cross section of 30 and 32) is non-rectangular and is elliptical (see Fig. 7)
Regarding claim 3, the modified Ratkevich does not disclose “wherein said cross-section is hexagonal.”
However, Achour teaches wherein said cross-section is hexagonal (slots 202 can be
hexagonal, see para. 0078)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have said cross-section being hexagonal as taught by Achour with the slot antenna array of Ratkevich so as to optimize a signal having a desired frequency range (para. 0078, Achour).
Regarding claim 4, Ratkevich further discloses:
wherein the largest dimension of said radiating slots (30 and 32) extends parallel to the longitudinal direction of said waveguides (see col. 2 lines 44 -45).
Regarding claim 5, Ratkevich further discloses:
wherein the coupling waveguide (14A) (Fig. 3) is connected to each elementary antenna
(12A) through a coupling slot (28).
Regarding claim 6, Ratkevich further discloses:
wherein the cross-section of the coupling slots (cross-section of 28) is either non-rectangular (not rectangular, see Fig. 5)
Regarding claim 7, Ratkevich further discloses:
wherein the cross-section of the coupling slots (cross-section of 28) elliptical (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 8, Ratkevich further discloses:
wherein the largest dimension of said coupling slots (28) extends obliquely (oblique angles for 28, see Fig. 5) to the longitudinal direction of said waveguides (longitudinal direction of 12A).
Regarding claim 9, Ratkevich further discloses:
wherein the coupling slots (28) are oblique and alternately oriented at a positive and negative angle (alternating oblique angles for 28, see Fig. 5) to the longitudinal direction of said waveguides (longitudinal direction of 12A).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Ratkevich
does not disclose “wherein said irises and/or steps are oriented parallel to the longitudinal axis of said elementary antennas.”
However, Achour teaches said irises and/or steps (190) are oriented parallel (they are parallel to the axis of the 160, see Fig. 4) to the longitudinal axis of said elementary antennas (slot 160).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have said irises and/or steps are oriented parallel to the longitudinal axis of said elementary antennas as taught by Achour with the slot antenna array of Ratkevich in order to contain the radiation pattern to improve the strength of the radiated signal through the slots (para. 0071, Achour).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Ratkevich does not disclose “wherein said irises have a non-rectangular cross-section.”
However, Achour teaches said irises have a non-rectangular cross-section (they are circular, see Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to have said irises having a non-rectangular cross-section as taught by Achour with the slot antenna array of Ratkevich in order to achieve desired results and radiation patterns (para. 0071, Achour).
Regarding claim 17, Ratkevich discloses:
a plurality of juxtaposed elementary antennas (10) (Fig. 1), each elementary antenna (10) comprising a waveguide (12 or 12A) (they are waveguide radiating elements, Col. 2 lines 4 -5), one face of which is provided with radiating slots (slots 30 and 32) (Fig. 7) in order to radiate outside the waveguide at least part of the electromagnetic energy in said waveguide (12 or 12A)- a coupling waveguide (feeder element 14 or 14A) (Fig. 1) for individually feeding each said elementary antenna (10) feeds from a face opposite to said face (col. 2 lines 12 -14) provided with radiating slots (30 and 32) (Fig. 7) wherein said antenna array (Fig. 1-9 array), a cross-section of said radiating slots (cross-section of 30 and 32) (Fig. 7) is either non-rectangular (see Fig. 7, the shape of the slot is non-rectangular with curved edges)
Ratkevich does not disclose “comprising additively manufacturing as a single monolithic element:...said antenna array is a monolithic component resulting from additive manufacturing,
…wherein a cross-section of said radiating slots is made by additive manufacturing without need
for machining”.
Examiner’s Note: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”.
However, Hirokawa teaches said antenna array (2a) (Fig. 1) is a monolithic component resulting from additive manufacturing wherein a cross-section of said radiating slots is made by additive manufacturing without a need for machining (in general you could use diffusion bonding and etching to create the slotted waveguide array, or you could use 3D printing “Manufacturing method of a slot array antenna 1 using diffusion bonding and etching process described above is an example. That as another manufacturing method, cutting, punching, to produce a layer of the conductor by the plating or the like on the surface of the molded product press, casting, such as a resin to produce a slot array antenna 1 and using 3D printing, etc.”, page 10).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have said antenna array being a component resulting from additive manufacturing as taught by Hirokawa with the slot antenna array of Ratkevich in order to have all the elements integrally formed.
Ratkevich does not disclose “and the coupling waveguide has irises and/or steps on its inner face so as to control the phase and/or amplitude of the signals in the different coupling slots.”
However, Achour teaches the coupling waveguide has irises (190) (Fig. 4) on its inner face (see Fig. 5) so as to control the phase and/or amplitude of the signals (“act to contain the radiation pattern”, para. 0071)in the different coupling slots (152 coupled to 160)
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 coupling waveguide having irises on its inner face so as to control the phase and/or amplitude of the signals in the different coupling slots as taught by Achour with the slot antenna array of Ratkevich in order to contain the radiation pattern to improve the strength of the radiated signal through the slots (para. 0071, Achour).
Claims 12, 14, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ratkevich et al (U.S. Patent US 3363253 A hereby referred as Ratkevich) in view of Hirokawa et al (Publication JP 2014170989 A hereby referred as Hirokawa) in view of Achour (U.S. Publication US 20200335873 A1 hereby referred as Achour) inview of Lannon et al (US 11764482 B1) and further in view of Sysouphat (U.S. Publication US 20180366800 A1 hereby referred as Sysouphat).
Regarding claim 12, The modified Ratkevich does not disclose “wherein the cross-section of said coupling waveguide is oval, elliptical, trapezoidal or polygonal with at least 5 sides.”
However, Sysouphat suggests the teaching the cross-section of said coupling waveguide
(36) is oval, elliptical, trapezoidal or polygonal with at least 5 sides (“It has been found that the surface modification process in combination with the additive manufacturing process allows
individual components or combinations of components… are able to be formed into more
effective shapes that offer not just good transmission characteristics, but also superior packaging, power and structural properties”, para. 0194).
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 cross-section of said coupling waveguide being oval, elliptical, trapezoidal or polygonal with at least 5 sides as suggested by the teachings of Sysouphat with the slot antenna array of the modified Ratkevich in order to offer good transmission characteristics, superior packaging, and structural properties (para. 0194, Sysouphat).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Ratkevich teaches the limitations of claim 13.
The modified Ratkevich does not disclose “wherein said signal introduction slot has an oval, elliptical, or polygonal cross-section with at least five sides.”
However, Sysouphat teaches said signal introduction slot (inlet 31) Fig. 4) has an oval, elliptical, or polygonal cross-section with at least five sides (“It will also be appreciated that the inlet or inlets are able to be formed in other shapes, such as rectangular, circular, ridged or arbitrary shapes.”, para. 0132).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have said signal introduction slot having an oval, elliptical, or polygonal cross-section with at least five sides as taught by Sysouphat with the slot antenna array of the modified Ratkevich in order to accommodate the electromagnetic waves to propagate therethrough.
Regarding claim 18, the modified combination of Ratkevich, Hirokawa and Achour does not teach wherein said coupling waveguide comprises a signal introduction slot.
Lannon et al teaches wherein a coupling waveguide comprises a signal introduction slot(206, Figs 2A-2C, column 4, lines 30-38).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a signal introduction slot as taught by Lannon et al in the modified combination of Ratkevich, Hirokawa and Achour for the purpose of providing for electromagnetic radiation to propagate therein(Lannon et al, column 4, lines 30-38).
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ratkevich et al (U.S. Patent US 3363253 A hereby referred as Ratkevich) in view of Hirokawa et al (Publication JP 2014170989 A hereby referred as Hirokawa) in view of Achour (U.S. Publication US 20200335873 A1 hereby referred as Achour) in view of Lannon et al (US 11764482 B1)and further in view of Bregman et al (U.S. Publication US 20180301820 A1 hereby referred as Bregman).
Regarding claim 15, the The modified Ratkevich does not disclose “comprising a core resulting from said additive manufacturing and a coating layer on said core.”
However, Bregman teaches comprising a core resulting from said additive manufacturing and a coating layer on said core (see para. 0017).
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 core resulting from said additive manufacturing and a coating layer on said core as taught by Bregman with the slot antenna array of the modified
Ratkevich in order to plate the core elements with electrically conducting layers (para. 0017, Bregman).
Examiner’s Note: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”.
Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ratkevich et al (U.S. Patent US 3363253 A hereby referred as Ratkevich) in view of Hirokawa et al (Publication JP 2014170989 A hereby referred as Hirokawa) in view of Achour (U.S. Publication US 20200335873 A1 hereby referred as Achour) in view of Lannon et al(US 11764482 B1) in view of Bregman et al (U.S. Publication US 20180301820 A1 hereby referred as Bregman) in view of Chen (U.S. Publication US 20060001586 A1 hereby referred as Chen).
Regarding claim 16,
The modified Ratkevich does not disclose “comprising an additive manufacturing step, said elementary antennas being oriented with their longitudinal axis forming an angle between 0 o and 45o with a vertical printing axis during this step.”
However, Chen suggests the teaching comprising an additive manufacturing step, said elementary antennas being oriented with their longitudinal axis forming an angle between 0 o and 45o with a vertical printing axis during this step (aperture dimensions, including orientation angle relative to longitudinal center), para. 0024, are manufactured according to the desired frequency of operation and “the row of slots is arranged along the longitudinal center line of a resp ective waveguide. The number, aperture dimensions and orientation of slots 410 are determined in the conventional manner according to the desired frequency of operation.”, para. 0024).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an additive manufacturing step, said elementary antennas being oriented with their longitudinal axis forming an angle between 0 o and 45o with a vertical printing axis during this step as suggested by the teachings of Chen with the slot antenna array of the modified Ratkevich in order to cater to the desired frequency of operation (para. 0024, Chen).
Examiner’s Note: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art listed on the PTOL 892 Notice of References Cited attached herein.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAMEON E LEVI whose telephone number is (571)272-2105. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM.
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, Andrea Wellington can be reached at (571) 272-4483. 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
/DAMEON E LEVI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights