SIW INCLUDING GLASS SUBSTRATE AND EPA INCLUDING THE SAME

DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. 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. Priority The pending application 18/270,404, filed on 29 JUN 2023, is a national stage application filed under 35 U.S.C. 371 of PCT/US2021/063212, filed on 14 DEC 2021, and claims priority from foreign application KR10-2020-0188533, filed on 30 DEC 2020 in the Republic of Korea. Response to Amendment Applicant's amendment filed on 15 JUL 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 14, and 20 have been amended. Claims 4-5 and 12-13 have been cancelled. Claims 1-3, 6-11, and 14-20 are still pending in this application, with claims 1, 14, and 20 being independent. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see p. 9-11, filed 15 JUL 2026, with respect to amended claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claims 1-3 and 6-11 are allowed. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 14 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 argues that the formerly relied upon references, Sakr and Alexanian, fail to disclose the curved delay portion and a plurality of zigzag shapes. The current rejection relies upon newly cited references Driscoll et al. (US 10,396,468 B2), and Uemichi (US 10,020,591 B2) to teach the curved delay portions and the plurality of zigzag shapes. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are moot. Applicant’s arguments, see p. 9-11, filed 15 JUL 2026, with respect to amended claim 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claim 20 is allowed. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. (CN 106911011 A, previously relied upon by the examiner) in view of Yoon et al. (US 2017/0186710 A1, cited in IDS dated 14 FEB 2024, previously relied upon by the examiner), Driscoll et al. (US 10,396,468 B2, newly cited by the examiner), and Uemichi (US 10,020,591 B2, newly cited by the examiner). Regarding claim 14 (Currently Amended), Hong et al. discloses: [Note: what is not explicitly taught by Hong et al. has been struck-through] A substrate integrated waveguide (SIW) (Hong et al. “The power divider in the feed network adopts a one-to-multi-way T-type substrate integrated waveguide power distribution structure, and each output port of the power divider is connected to a passive phase shifter.” - ¶ [0065]) comprising: a (Hong et al. the feed network 7, Fig. 3; dielectric substrate ¶ [0005]); and a first waveguide side wall and a second waveguide side wall each defining a waveguide in the glass substrate (Hong et al. metallized through holes forming the sidewalls of the waveguides are arranged in a line in the direction of travel of the signal, Fig. 5), wherein each of the first waveguide side wall and the second waveguide side wall is disposed and aligned in a first direction parallel to an upper surface of the glass substrate and comprises a plurality of conductive vias extending from an upper surface to a lower surface of the glass substrate (Hong et al. “In this structure, multiple metallized through holes are arranged at a certain interval in the dielectric substrate as a substitute for the smooth side walls of the waveguide, thereby forming a quasi-closed waveguide structure with the metal on the upper and lower surfaces, maintaining the low insertion loss and high power capacity characteristics of the metal waveguide.” - ¶ [0005]; Fig. 5), and wherein each of the conductive vias includes conductive material (Hong et al. metallized through holes ¶ [0005]; Fig. 5), and wherein the waveguide comprises a phase delay portion (Hong et al. “when the total length of the substrate integrated waveguide and the microstrip line remains unchanged, different phase shifts are achieved by adjusting the corresponding lengths of the substrate integrated waveguide and the microstrip line” - ¶ [0044]), Yoon et al. discloses: a glass substrate (Yoon et al. glass 106, Fig. 1) Driscoll et al. discloses: wherein the waveguide comprises a phase delay portion (Driscoll et al. “Each output waveguide 146 is designed to provide a respective attenuation and phase shift to an input signal fed to the input port 136.”- Col. 11, lines 62-35; Fig. 11), wherein the phase delay portion defines a curve (Driscoll et al. each output waveguide 146 defines a curve, Fig. 11). Uemichi discloses: wherein the waveguide comprises a plurality of zigzag shapes comprising linear portions of alternating directions (Uemichi “the control walls 12c1 through 12c6 appear to be provided in a zigzag manner.” Col. 4, lines 33-34; the control walls are linear and extend in alternating directions forming the zigzag shape of the waveguide). It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Yoon et al., Driscoll et al. and Uemichi into the invention of Hong et al. to yield the invention of claim 14 above. Hong et al., Yoon et al., Driscoll et al. and Uemichi are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose substrates for antennas in wireless devices. Hong et al. discloses the limitations of claim 14 outlined above. However, Hong et al. fails to explicitly disclose the substrate is a glass substrate, and wherein the phase delay portion defines a curve, and wherein the waveguide comprises a plurality of zigzag shapes comprising linear portions of alternating directions. These features are disclosed by Yoon et al., Driscoll et al. and Uemichi where Yoon et al. discloses a through-glass interposer (Yoon et al. ¶ [0024]), Driscoll et al. discloses curved phase delay portions (Driscoll et al. each output waveguide 146 defines a curve, Fig. 11) and Uemichi discloses control walls disposed in a zigzag manner (Uemichi Col. 4, lines 33-34; Fig. 1). The combination of Hong et al., Yoon et al., Driscoll et al. and Uemichi would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a through-glass interposer for the benefits of “low substrate loss in the RF/microwave range, the mechanical robustness and low material and manufacturing cost.” (Yoon et al. ¶ [0024]), “generate and steer one or more main beams while suppressing the side lobes” (Driscoll et al. Col. 2, lines 53-56) and “provide a slotted waveguide array antenna capable of reducing a reflection coefficient in a desired frequency range and selectively increasing a gain in a desired frequency range, as compared to conventional slotted waveguide array antennas” (Uemichi Col. 1, line 66 – Col. 2, line 4). Regarding claim 15 (Original), Hong et al. as modified above discloses: [Note: what is not explicitly taught by Hong et al. has been struck-through] The SIW of claim 14 Yoon et al. discloses: wherein a plane shape of an upper surface of each of the conductive vias is a circle, and a diameter of the circle of the upper surface of each of the conductive vias ranges from 30 pm to 200 pm (Yoon et al. “The diameter of the TGVs 115 was about 80 μm.” - ¶ [0032]). It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Yoon et al. into the invention of Hong et al. to yield the invention of claim 15. Hong et al., Yoon et al., Driscoll et al. and Uemichi are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose substrates for antennas in wireless devices. Hong et al. as modified above discloses the invention of claim 14. However, Hong et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein a plane shape of an upper surface of each of the conductive vias is a circle, and a diameter of the circle of the upper surface of each of the conductive vias ranges from 30 pm to 200 pm. This feature is disclosed by Yoon et al. where “The diameter of the TGVs 115 was about 80 μm.” (Yoon et al. ¶ [0032]). The combination of Hong et al., Yoon et al., Driscoll et al. and Uemichi would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a through-glass interposer for the benefits of “low substrate loss in the RF/microwave range, the mechanical robustness and low material and manufacturing cost.” (Yoon et al. ¶ [0024]), “generate and steer one or more main beams while suppressing the side lobes” (Driscoll et al. Col. 2, lines 53-56) and “provide a slotted waveguide array antenna capable of reducing a reflection coefficient in a desired frequency range and selectively increasing a gain in a desired frequency range, as compared to conventional slotted waveguide array antennas” (Uemichi Col. 1, line 66 – Col. 2, line 4). Regarding claim 16 (Original), Hong et al. as modified above discloses: [Note: what is not explicitly taught by Hong et al. has been struck-through] The SIW of claim 15 Yoon et al. discloses: wherein a pitch of the conductive vias included in the first waveguide side wall ranges from two times to eight times of the diameter (Yoon et al. “The TGVs 115 forming the side-wall had a diameter of about 80 μm with a center-to-center pitch of s=160 μm.” - ¶ [0034]). It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Yoon et al. into the invention of Hong et al. to yield the invention of claim 16. Hong et al., Yoon et al., Driscoll et al. and Uemichi are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose substrates for antennas in wireless devices. Hong et al. as modified above discloses the invention of claim 15. However, Hong et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein a pitch of the conductive vias included in the first waveguide side wall ranges from two times to eight times of the diameter. This feature is disclosed by Yoon et al. where “The TGVs 115 forming the side-wall had a diameter of about 80 μm with a center-to-center pitch of s=160 μm.” (Yoon et al. ¶ [0034]). The combination of Hong et al., Yoon et al., Driscoll et al. and Uemichi would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a through-glass interposer for the benefits of “low substrate loss in the RF/microwave range, the mechanical robustness and low material and manufacturing cost.” (Yoon et al. ¶ [0024]), “generate and steer one or more main beams while suppressing the side lobes” (Driscoll et al. Col. 2, lines 53-56) and “provide a slotted waveguide array antenna capable of reducing a reflection coefficient in a desired frequency range and selectively increasing a gain in a desired frequency range, as compared to conventional slotted waveguide array antennas” (Uemichi Col. 1, line 66 – Col. 2, line 4). Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. (CN 106911011 A, previously relied upon by the examiner) in view of Yoon et al. (US 2017/0186710 A1, cited in IDS dated 14 FEB 2024, previously relied upon by the examiner), Driscoll et al. (US 10,396,468 B2, newly cited by the examiner), and Uemichi (US 10,020,581, newly cited by the examiner) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Vandemeer et al. (US 2016/0219704 A1, previously relied upon by the examiner). Regarding claim 17 (Original), Hong et al. as modified above discloses: [Note: what is not explicitly taught by Hong et al. has been struck-through] The SIW of claim 14 Vandemeer et al. discloses: an upper conductive via (Vandemeer et al. upper cavity 64, Figs. 2A-2E) having a tapered structure from the upper surface toward the lower surface (Vandemeer et al. upper cavity 64 tapers from the top surface 56 toward the bottom surface 60, Figs. 2A-4E) of the glass substrate (Vandemeer et al. substrate 48, Figs. 2A-4E; “the substrate may be a glass substrate” - ¶ [0034]); and a lower conductive via (Vandemeer et al. lower cavity 66, Figs. 2A-2E) having a tapered structure from the lower surface toward the upper surface (Vandemeer et al. lower cavity 66 tapers from the bottom surface 60 toward the top surface 56, Figs. 2A-4E) of the glass substrate (Vandemeer et al. substrate 48, Figs. 2A-4E; “the substrate may be a glass substrate” - ¶ [0034]). It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Vandemeer et al. into the invention of Hong et al. to yield the invention of claim 17. Hong et al., Yoon et al., Driscoll et al., Uemichi, and Vandemeer et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose substrates for antennas in wireless devices. Hong et al. as modified above discloses the invention of claim 14. However, Hong et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein each of the conductive vias comprises: an upper conductive via having a tapered structure from the upper surface toward the lower surface of the glass substrate; and a lower conductive via having a tapered structure from the lower surface toward the upper surface of the glass substrate. This feature is disclosed by Vandemeer et al. where hourglass shaped through vias are provided in a glass substrate (Vandemeer et al. ¶ [0008]). The combination of Hong et al., Yoon et al., Driscoll et al., Uemichi, and Vandemeer et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a through-glass interposer for the benefits of “low substrate loss in the RF/microwave range, the mechanical robustness and low material and manufacturing cost.” (Yoon et al. ¶ [0024]), “generate and steer one or more main beams while suppressing the side lobes” (Driscoll et al. Col. 2, lines 53-56), “provide a slotted waveguide array antenna capable of reducing a reflection coefficient in a desired frequency range and selectively increasing a gain in a desired frequency range, as compared to conventional slotted waveguide array antennas” (Uemichi Col. 1, line 66 – Col. 2, line 4) and lower costs, shorten plating and processing times, and increase production throughput (Vandemeer et al. ¶ [0008]). Regarding claim 18 (Original), Hong et al. as modified above discloses: [Note: what is not explicitly taught by Hong et al. has been struck-through] The SIW of claim 17 Vandemeer et al. discloses: wherein a second direction length of the upper conductive via perpendicular to the upper surface of the glass substrate is the same as a second direction length of the lower conductive via (Vandemeer et al. “The waist opening 62 has a vertical distance D1 from the upper opening 64 and a vertical distance D2 from the lower opening 58. D1 may be greater than D2, less than D2, or substantially equal to D2 regardless of whether W1 is greater than W2, less than W2, or equal to W2.” - ¶ [0041]). It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Vandemeer et al. into the invention of Hong et al. to yield the invention of claim 18. Hong et al., Yoon et al., Driscoll et al., Uemichi, and Vandemeer et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose substrates for antennas in wireless devices. Hong et al. as modified above discloses the invention of claim 17. However, Hong et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein a second direction length of the upper conductive via perpendicular to the upper surface of the glass substrate is the same as a second direction length of the lower conductive via. This feature is disclosed by Vandemeer et al. where “The waist opening 62 has a vertical distance D1 from the upper opening 64 and a vertical distance D2 from the lower opening 58. D1 may be greater than D2, less than D2, or substantially equal to D2 regardless of whether W1 is greater than W2, less than W2, or equal to W2.” (Vandemeer et al. ¶ [0041]). The combination of Hong et al., Yoon et al., Driscoll et al., Uemichi, and Vandemeer et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a through-glass interposer for the benefits of “low substrate loss in the RF/microwave range, the mechanical robustness and low material and manufacturing cost.” (Yoon et al. ¶ [0024]), “generate and steer one or more main beams while suppressing the side lobes” (Driscoll et al. Col. 2, lines 53-56), “provide a slotted waveguide array antenna capable of reducing a reflection coefficient in a desired frequency range and selectively increasing a gain in a desired frequency range, as compared to conventional slotted waveguide array antennas” (Uemichi Col. 1, line 66 – Col. 2, line 4) and lower costs, shorten plating and processing times, and increase production throughput (Vandemeer et al. ¶ [0008]). Regarding claim 19 (Original), Hong et al. as modified above discloses: [Note: what is not explicitly taught by Hong et al. has been struck-through] The SIW of claim 17 Vandemeer et al. discloses: wherein a second direction length of the upper conductive via perpendicular to the upper surface of the glass substrate is different from a second direction length of the lower conductive via (Vandemeer et al. “The waist opening 62 has a vertical distance D1 from the upper opening 64 and a vertical distance D2 from the lower opening 58. D1 may be greater than D2, less than D2, or substantially equal to D2 regardless of whether W1 is greater than W2, less than W2, or equal to W2.” - ¶ [0041]). It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Vandemeer et al. into the invention of Hong et al. to yield the invention of claim 18. Hong et al., Yoon et al., Driscoll et al., Uemichi, and Vandemeer et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose substrates for antennas in wireless devices. Hong et al. as modified above discloses the invention of claim 17. However, Hong et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein a second direction length of the upper conductive via perpendicular to the upper surface of the glass substrate is different from a second direction length of the lower conductive via. This feature is disclosed by Vandemeer et al. where “The waist opening 62 has a vertical distance D1 from the upper opening 64 and a vertical distance D2 from the lower opening 58. D1 may be greater than D2, less than D2, or substantially equal to D2 regardless of whether W1 is greater than W2, less than W2, or equal to W2.” (Vandemeer et al. ¶ [0041]). The combination of Hong et al., Yoon et al., Driscoll et al., Uemichi, and Vandemeer et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a through-glass interposer for the benefits of “low substrate loss in the RF/microwave range, the mechanical robustness and low material and manufacturing cost.” (Yoon et al. ¶ [0024]), “generate and steer one or more main beams while suppressing the side lobes” (Driscoll et al. Col. 2, lines 53-56), “provide a slotted waveguide array antenna capable of reducing a reflection coefficient in a desired frequency range and selectively increasing a gain in a desired frequency range, as compared to conventional slotted waveguide array antennas” (Uemichi Col. 1, line 66 – Col. 2, line 4) and lower costs, shorten plating and processing times, and increase production throughput (Vandemeer et al. ¶ [0008]). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-3, 6-11 and 20 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding independent claim 1, the prior art of record fails to explicitly teach or render obvious, either alone or in combination, an electromagnetic phased array (EPA) comprising… wherein the phase delay portion defines a curve, and wherein at least one of the first waveguide, the second waveguide, the third waveguide, or the fourth waveguide comprises a plurality of zigzag shapes comprising linear portions of alternating direction, wherein each of the first glass substrate, the second glass substrate, the third glass substrate, and the fourth glass substrate are portions of the same glass substrate, the signal distributor is implemented by an SIW, and the signal distributor is continuously formed with the first phase shifter, the second phase shifter, the third phase shifter, and the fourth phase shifter via the same glass substrate. Dependent claims 2-3 and 6-11 are allowed as depending from allowed claim 1. Regarding independent claim 20, the prior art of record fails to explicitly teach or render obvious, either alone or in combination, an electromagnetic phased array (EPA) comprising… wherein each of the signal distributor, the first waveguide, the second waveguide, the third waveguide, and the fourth waveguide comprise a substrate integrated waveguide (SIW) based on a glass substrate, at least one of the first waveguide, the second waveguide, the third waveguide, or the fourth waveguide comprises a phase delay portion, he phase delay portion defines a curve, at least one of the first waveguide, the second waveguide, the third waveguide, or the fourth waveguide comprises a plurality of zigzag shapes comprising linear portions of alternating directions, and the signal distributor, the first waveguide, the second waveguide, the third waveguide, and the fourth waveguide are continuously formed via the same glass substrate. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” 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 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 NAOMI M WOLFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-3929. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 4:30 pm EST. 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, Resha Desai can be reached at (571)270-7792. 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. NAOMI M. WOLFORD Examiner Art Unit 3648 /N.M.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 3648 17 SEP 2026 /RESHA DESAI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648