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 .
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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 25 FEB 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed on 25 FEB 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 14 and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are still pending in this application, with claims 1, 14 and 20 being independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 25 FEB 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim(s) 1, 14 and 20 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 “Hong, Yoon and Sakr fail to teach at least “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 directions.”” (Applicant’s remarks p. 10)
Newly cited reference, Alexanian et al. (US 11,378,683) is relied upon to the argued features, where “each of the waveguide grooves comprises a portion that oscillates back and forth” (Alexanian et al. Col 10, lines 59-60) and “the sidewalls may meander/oscillate back and forth in a non-smooth manner, such as a stepwise manner and/or to define a square-wave pattern, if desired.” (Alexanian et al. Col. 5, lines 19-22). Therefore, applicant’s argument on this issue is moot.
Regarding dependent claim 7, applicant argues that Haridas fails to teach “a first switch device disposed between the first phase shifter and the signal distributor, and transmitting the first signal to the first phase shifter or blocking transmission of the first signal; a second switch device disposed between the second phase shifter and the signal distributor, and transmitting the second signal to the second phase shifter or blocking transmission of the second signal; a third switch device disposed between the third phase shifter and the signal distributor, and transmitting the third signal to the third phase shifter or blocking transmission of the third signal; and a fourth switch device disposed between the fourth phase shifter and the signal distributor, and transmitting the fourth signal to the fourth phase shifter or blocking transmission of the fourth signal.” (Applicant’s remarks p. 10-12)
Applicant argues that Haridas teaches ““A transmission/reception selection switch 103 is provided between the phase shifters 102/attenuators 104 and the amplifiers 105a, 105b”. Haridas, Paragraph [0239]. Amplifiers are not reasonably equivalent to a signal distributor.” (Applicant’s remarks p. 11)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the transitional term "comprising", which is synonymous with "including," "containing," or "characterized by," is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. See, e.g., Mars Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 377 F.3d 1369, 1376, 71 USPQ2d 1837, 1843 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Therefore, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim as written does not preclude other components being disposed on the path between the signal distributor and the phase shifter. Therefore, applicant’s argument on this issue is not persuasive.
Examiner also notes that upon further consideration, the interpretation of Haridas et al. has been clarified, such that, referring to figure 7, the interface 112 is considered to be the signal distributor, the TX/RX switches 103 are the switch devices, and the MEMS phase shifters 102 are the phase shifters. The TX/RX switches 103 are positioned between the MEMS phase shifters 102 and the interface 112. As discussed above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language does not preclude other components being disposed on the path between the signal distributor and the phase shifter.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim(s) 11 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 “Sai describes the shape as a serpentine slow-wave structure distribution as shown in Fig. 1”, Sai, para [0029]. A serpentine slow wave-structure distribution is not reasonably equivalent to a “zigzag” shape as recited by claim 11.” (Applicant’s remarks p. 13)
Newly cited reference, Alexanian et al. (US 11,378,683) is relied upon to the argued features, where “each of the waveguide grooves comprises a portion that oscillates back and forth” (Alexanian et al. Col 10, lines 59-60) and “the sidewalls may meander/oscillate back and forth in a non-smooth manner, such as a stepwise manner and/or to define a square-wave pattern, if desired.” (Alexanian et al. Col. 5, lines 19-22). Therefore, applicant’s argument on this issue is moot.
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.
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) 1-4, 6, 9-14 and 20 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 Sakr et al. (US 10,670,810 B2, previously relied upon by the examiner) and Alexanian et al. (US 11,378,683 B2, newly cited by the examiner).
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), Hong et al. discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Hong et al. has been struck-through]
An electromagnetic phased array (EPA) (Hong et al. antenna structure, Fig. 3) comprising:
a signal distributor (Hong et al. power divider of the feed network 7, Fig. 3) configured to divide an input signal (Hong et al. via input port shown at 12, Fig. 4) into a plurality of output signals, the plurality of output signals comprising a first signal, a second signal, a third signal, and a fourth signal (Hong et al. “The number of output paths is an even number, and the number selected for the verification antenna structure given here is 8.” - ¶ [0065]);
a first phase shifter configured to change a phase of the first signal and output a first phase shifted signal (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]; the embodiment of Fig.3 comprises 8 phase shifters);
a second phase shifter configured to change a phase of the second signal and output a second phase shifted signal (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]; the embodiment of Fig.3 comprises 8 phase shifters);
a third phase shifter configured to change a phase of the third signal and output a third phase shifted signal (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]; the embodiment of Fig.3 comprises 8 phase shifters);
a fourth phase shifter configured to change a phase of the fourth signal and output a fourth phase shifted signal (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]; the embodiment of Fig.3 comprises 8 phase shifters);
a first antenna (Hong et al. antenna structure has eight radiation subarrays 8, Fig. 3) configured to generate electromagnetic waves on the basis of the first phase shifted signal (Hong et al. signals are passed through each branch of the feed network 7 and phase shifter to a radiation subarray 8, Fig. 3);
a second antenna (Hong et al. antenna structure has eight radiation subarrays 8, Fig. 3) configured to generate electromagnetic waves on the basis of the second phase shifted signal (Hong et al. signals are passed through each branch of the feed network 7 and phase shifter to a radiation subarray 8, Fig. 3);
a third antenna (Hong et al. antenna structure has eight radiation subarrays 8, Fig. 3) configured to generate electromagnetic waves on the basis of the third phase shifted signal (Hong et al. signals are passed through each branch of the feed network 7 and phase shifter to a radiation subarray 8, Fig. 3);
a fourth antenna (Hong et al. antenna structure has eight radiation subarrays 8, Fig. 3) configured to generate electromagnetic waves on the basis of the fourth phase shifted signal (Hong et al. signals are passed through each branch of the feed network 7 and phase shifter to a radiation subarray 8, Fig. 3);
wherein the first phase shifter comprises a first (Hong et al. dielectric substrate ¶ [0005]) and first and second waveguide side walls formed in the first glass substrate and defining a first waveguide that is a path of the first signal (Hong et al. signals are passed through each branch of the feed network 7 and phase shifter to a radiation subarray 8, Fig. 3),
the second phase shifter comprises a second (Hong et al. dielectric substrate ¶ [0005]) and third and fourth waveguide side walls formed in the second glass substrate and defining a second waveguide that is a path of the second signal (Hong et al. signals are passed through each branch of the feed network 7 and phase shifter to a radiation subarray 8, Fig. 3),
the third phase shifter comprises a third (Hong et al. dielectric substrate ¶ [0005]) and fifth and sixth waveguide side walls formed in the third glass substrate and defining a third waveguide that is a path of the third signal (Hong et al. signals are passed through each branch of the feed network 7 and phase shifter to a radiation subarray 8, Fig. 3),
the fourth phase shifter comprises a fourth (Hong et al. dielectric substrate ¶ [0005]) and seventh and eighth waveguide side walls formed in the fourth glass substrate and defining a fourth waveguide that is a path of the fourth signal (Hong et al. signals are passed through each branch of the feed network 7 and phase shifter to a radiation subarray 8, Fig. 3),
and
wherein the first phase shifter, the second phase shifter, the third phase shifter, and the fourth phase shifter are substrate integrated waveguides (SIW) (Hong et al. “The passive phase shifter connected to each output port adopts a hybrid substrate integrated waveguide and microstrip line structure.” - ¶ [0068]), and wherein at least one of the first waveguide, the second waveguide, the third waveguide, or the fourth 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]), .
Sakr et al. discloses:
wherein the phase delay portion defines a curve (Sakr et al. “the first waveguide section feeds a first delay line curved waveguide section configured to phase shift signals passing therethrough and the second waveguide feeds a second delay line curved waveguide section configured to phase shift signals passing therethrough.” – Col. 2, lines 62-67; shorter path phase shifter 702, longer path phase shifter 704, Fig. 7B)
Alexanian et al. discloses:
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 directions (Alexanian et al. “each of the waveguide grooves comprises a portion that oscillates back and forth” – Col 10, lines 59-60; “the sidewalls may meander/oscillate back and forth in a non-smooth manner, such as a stepwise manner and/or to define a square-wave pattern, if desired.” – Col. 5, lines 19-22; radar sensor assembly 700 comprises four waveguide grooves 720, Fig. 8).
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 Sakr et al. and Alexanian et al. into the invention of Hong et al. to yield the invention of claim 1 above. Hong et al., Sakr et al. and Alexanian et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose a plurality of waveguides for directing radio frequency waves. Hong et al. discloses the limitations of claim 1 outlined above. However, Hong et al. fails to explicitly disclose 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 directions. These features is disclosed by Sakr et al. where curved delay line waveguide sections are used to apply a desired phase shift (Sakr et al. Col. 2, lines 62-67; Col. 16, lines 3-13), and Alexanian et al. where each waveguide grooves of the plurality of waveguide comprises opposing sidewalls that oscillates back and forth, and may be provided in a stepwise manner (Alexanian et al. Col. 5, lines 19-22). The combination of Hong et al., Sakr et al. and Alexanian et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a longer path to cause a phase shift in one of the waveguides relative to the other (Sakr et al. Col. 16, lines 3-7) and “confine and/or prevent or at least reduce unwanted leakage of electromagnetic energy and/or signals within the various waveguides” (Alexanian et al. Col. 8, lines 62-64).
Regarding claim 2 (Original), Hong et al. as modified above discloses:
The EPA of claim 1, wherein a thickness of each of the first glass substrate, the second glass substrate, the third glass substrate, and the fourth glass substrate ranges from 0.1 mm to 0.6 mm (Hong et al. “an example of an array antenna was designed, processed and tested based on a Rogers RO3003 substrate with a thickness of 0.254 mm.” - ¶ [0085]).
Regarding claim 3 (Previously Presented), Hong et al. as modified above discloses:
The EPA of claim 1, wherein a length of the second waveguide is (Hong et al. eight waveguides of various lengths of the feeder network 7, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4 (Original), Hong et al. as modified above discloses:
The EPA of claim 1, 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 (Hong et al. “The one-way multi-way T-type substrate integrated waveguide power distribution structure is an axisymmetric structure with the central axis as the symmetry axis.” - ¶ [0068]; the plurality of waveguides of the feeder network 7 are shown as being part of the same substrate, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6 (Original), Hong et al. as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Hong et al. has been struck-through]
The EPA of claim 1
Sakr et al. discloses:
wherein an average radius of curvature of the first waveguide is less than an average radius of curvature of the second waveguide (Sakr et al. an average radius of curvature of second waveguide 92 is less than an average radius of curvature of first waveguide 90, Fig. 6B).
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 Sakr et al. and Alexanian et al. into the invention of Hong et al. as modified above to yield the invention of claim 6 above. Hong et al., Sakr et al. and Alexanian et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose a plurality of waveguides for directing radio frequency waves. Hong et al. as modified above discloses the invention of claim 1. However, Hong et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein an average radius of curvature of the first waveguide is less than an average radius of curvature of the second waveguide. This feature is disclosed by Sakr et al. where an average radius of curvature of second waveguide 92 is less than an average radius of curvature of first waveguide 90 (Sakr et al. Fig. 6B). The combination of Hong et al., Sakr et al. and Alexanian et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a longer path to cause a phase shift in one of the waveguides relative to the other (Sakr et al. Col. 16, lines 3-7) and “confine and/or prevent or at least reduce unwanted leakage of electromagnetic energy and/or signals within the various waveguides” (Alexanian et al. Col. 8, lines 62-64).
Regarding claim 9 (Original), Hong et al. as modified above discloses:
The EPA of claim 1, wherein each of the first waveguide side wall, the second waveguide side wall, the third waveguide side wall, the fourth waveguide side wall, the fifth waveguide side wall, the sixth waveguide side wall, the seventh waveguide side wall, and the eighth waveguide side wall is disposed and aligned in a first direction in which the first to fourth signals travel, and comprise a plurality of conductive vias extending from upper surfaces to lower surfaces of the first glass substrate, the second glass substrate, the third glass substrate, and the fourth 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).
Regarding claim 10 (Original), Hong et al. as modified above discloses:
The EPA of claim 9, wherein the plurality of conductive vias included in the first waveguide side wall and second waveguide side wall are arranged in a line in the first direction (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).
Regarding claim 11 (Original), Hong et al. as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Hong et al. has been struck-through]
The EPA of claim 9
Alexanian et al. discloses:
wherein the plurality of conductive vias included in the third waveguide side wall, the fourth waveguide side wall, the fifth waveguide side wall, the sixth waveguide side wall, the seventh waveguide side wall, and the eighth side wall are arranged in zigzag in the first direction (Alexanian et al. “each of the waveguide grooves comprises a portion that oscillates back and forth” – Col 10, lines 59-60; “In some embodiments, the dielectric chamber of each of the plurality of periodic signal confinement structures may be defined by a first row of conductive vias extending along a first side of the dielectric chamber and a second row of conductive vias extending along a second side of the dielectric chamber opposite the first side of the dielectric chamber.” – Col. 2, lines 59-64; chambers 734 are disposed on opposing sides of each of the four waveguide grooves 720, Fig. 8).
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 Sakr et al. and Alexanian et al. into the invention of Hong et al. as modified above to yield the invention of claim 11 above. Hong et al., Sakr et al. and Alexanian et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose a plurality of waveguides for directing radio frequency waves. Hong et al. as modified above discloses the invention of claim 9. However, Hong et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of conductive vias included in the third waveguide side wall, the fourth waveguide side wall, the fifth waveguide side wall, the sixth waveguide side wall, the seventh waveguide side wall, and the eighth side wall are arranged in zigzag in the first direction. This feature is disclosed by Alexanian et al. where chambers 734 are disposed on opposing sides of each of the four waveguide grooves and each of the chambers may be defined by opposing rows of conductive vias (Alexanian et al. Col 10, lines 59-60; Col. 2, lines 59-64; Fig. 8). The combination of Hong et al., Sakr et al. and Alexanian et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a longer path to cause a phase shift in one of the waveguides relative to the other (Sakr et al. Col. 16, lines 3-7) and “confine and/or prevent or at least reduce unwanted leakage of electromagnetic energy and/or signals within the various waveguides” (Alexanian et al. Col. 8, lines 62-64).
Regarding claim 12 (Original), Hong et al. as modified above discloses:
The EPA of claim 1, wherein the signal distributor is implemented by an SIW (Hong et al. “The power divider in the feed network 7 adopts a one-way-to-multi-way T-type substrate integrated waveguide power distribution structure…” - ¶ [0005]).
Regarding claim 13 (Previously Presented), Hong et al. as modified above discloses:
The EPA of claim 12, wherein the signal distributor is continuously formed with the first phase shifter, second phase shifter, third phase shifter, and fourth phase shifter (Hong et al. “The power divider in the feed network 7 adopts a one-way-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]; the embodiment of Fig. 3 comprises 8 phase shifters continuously formed with the power divider of the feed network 7) via a single glass substrate (Hong et al. a single dielectric substrate is shown in the cross-section of the antenna structure 5, Fig. 2).
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 (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 conductive vias include 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])
Sakr et al. discloses:
wherein the phase delay portion defines a curve (Sakr et al. “the first waveguide section feeds a first delay line curved waveguide section configured to phase shift signals passing therethrough and the second waveguide feeds a second delay line curved waveguide section configured to phase shift signals passing therethrough.” – Col. 2, lines 62-67; shorter path phase shifter 702, longer path phase shifter 704, Fig. 7B)
Alexanian et al. discloses:
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 directions (Alexanian et al. “each of the waveguide grooves comprises a portion that oscillates back and forth” – Col 10, lines 59-60).
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 Sakr et al. and Alexanian et al. into the invention of Hong et al. to yield the invention of claim 14 above. Hong et al., Sakr et al. and Alexanian et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose a plurality of waveguides for directing radio frequency waves. Hong et al. discloses the limitations of claim 14 outlined above. However, Hong et al. fails to explicitly disclose 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 directions. These features is disclosed by Sakr et al. where curved delay line waveguide sections are used to apply a desired phase shift (Sakr et al. Col. 2, lines 62-67; Col. 16, lines 3-13), and Alexanian et al. where each waveguide grooves of the plurality of waveguide comprises opposing sidewalls that oscillates back and forth, and may be provided in a stepwise manner (Alexanian et al. Col. 5, lines 19-22). The combination of Hong et al., Sakr et al. and Alexanian et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a longer path to cause a phase shift in one of the waveguides relative to the other (Sakr et al. Col. 16, lines 3-7) and “confine and/or prevent or at least reduce unwanted leakage of electromagnetic energy and/or signals within the various waveguides” (Alexanian et al. Col. 8, lines 62-64).
Regarding claim 20 (Currently Amended), Hong et al. discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Hong et al. has been struck-through]
An electromagnetic phased array (EPA) comprising:
a signal distributor (Hong et al. power divider of feed network 7, Fig. 3) comprising an input port, a first output port, a second output port, a third output port, and a fourth output port (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]; the embodiment of Fig. 3 comprises 8 output ports) ;
a first waveguide connected to the first output port, a second waveguide connected to the second output port, a third waveguide connected to the third output port, and a fourth waveguide connected to the fourth output port (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... The passive phase shifter connected to each output port adopts a hybrid substrate integrated waveguide and microstrip line structure.” - ¶ [0065]; the embodiment of Fig. 3 comprises 8 output ports), the first waveguide, the second waveguide, the third waveguide and the fourth wave guide having different lengths (Hong et al. “the lengths of the substrate integrated waveguide and the microstrip line in the phase shifter are determined by the phase shift to be achieved…” - ¶ [0020]; the waveguides of the feed network 7 have varying lengths, Figs. 3-4); and
a first antenna connected to the first waveguide, a second antenna connected to the second waveguide, a third antenna connected to the third waveguide, a fourth antenna connected to the fourth waveguide (Hong et al. antenna structure has eight radiation sub arrays 8, each of the radiation sub arrays 8 is connected to a waveguide of the feed network 7, Fig. 3),
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) (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]) based on a (Hong et al. dielectric substrate ¶ [0005]), and wherein at least one of the first waveguide, the second waveguide, the third waveguide, or the fourth 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 corresponding lengths of the substrate integrated waveguide and the microstrip line” - ¶ [0044]).
Sakr et al. discloses:
wherein the phase delay portion defines a curve (Sakr et al. “the first waveguide section feeds a first delay line curved waveguide section configured to phase shift signals passing therethrough and the second waveguide feeds a second delay line curved waveguide section configured to phase shift signals passing therethrough.” – Col. 2, lines 62-67; shorter path phase shifter 702, longer path phase shifter 704, Fig. 7B)
Motivation: to provide a longer path to cause a phase shift in one of the waveguides relative to the other (Sakr et al. Col. 16, lines 3-7)
Alexanian et al. discloses:
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 directions (Alexanian et al. “each of the waveguide grooves comprises a portion that oscillates back and forth” – Col 10, lines 59-60).
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 Sakr et al. and Alexanian et al. into the invention of Hong et al. to yield the invention of claim 20 above. Hong et al., Sakr et al. and Alexanian et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose a plurality of waveguides for directing radio frequency waves. Hong et al. discloses the limitations of claim 20 outlined above. However, Hong et al. fails to explicitly disclose 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 directions. These features is disclosed by Sakr et al. where curved delay line waveguide sections are used to apply a desired phase shift (Sakr et al. Col. 2, lines 62-67; Col. 16, lines 3-13), and Alexanian et al. where each waveguide grooves of the plurality of waveguide comprises opposing sidewalls that oscillates back and forth, and may be provided in a stepwise manner (Alexanian et al. Col. 5, lines 19-22). The combination of Hong et al., Sakr et al. and Alexanian et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a longer path to cause a phase shift in one of the waveguides relative to the other (Sakr et al. Col. 16, lines 3-7) and “confine and/or prevent or at least reduce unwanted leakage of electromagnetic energy and/or signals within the various waveguides” (Alexanian et al. Col. 8, lines 62-64).
Claim(s) 5 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 Sakr et al. (US 10,670,810 B2, previously relied upon by the examiner) and Alexanian et al. (US 11,378,683 B2, newly cited by the examiner) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pucci et al. (US 2018/0108969 A1, previously relied upon by the examiner).
Regarding claim 5 (Original), Hong et al. as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Hong et al. has been struck-through]
The EPA of claim 1
Pucci et al. discloses:
wherein the first glass substrate, the second glass substrate, the third glass substrate, and the fourth glass substrate are separate glass substrates that are separated from one another (Pucci et al. “The adjacent SIW antennas 501, 502, 505, 507 may, as exemplified in Fig. 5, be arranged on a common substrate 502. Other configurations may be such that each SIW antenna 501, 502, 505, 507 is arrange don a substrate of its own.” - ¶ [0040]).
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 Pucci et al. into the invention of Hong et al. as modified above to yield the invention of claim 5. Hong et al., Sakr et al., Alexanian et al. and Pucci et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose a plurality of waveguides for directing radio frequency waves. Hong et al. as modified above discloses the limitations of claim 1. However, Hong et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first glass substrate, the second glass substrate, the third glass substrate, and the fourth glass substrate are separate glass substrates that are separated from one another. This feature is disclosed by Pucci et al. where “The adjacent SIW antennas 501, 502, 505, 507 may, as exemplified in Fig. 5, be arranged on a common substrate 502. Other configurations may be such that each SIW antenna 501, 502, 505, 507 is arrange don a substrate of its own.” (Pucci et al. ¶ [0040]). The combination of Hong et al., Sakr et al., Alexanian et al. and Pucci et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a longer path to cause a phase shift in one of the waveguides relative to the other (Sakr et al. Col. 16, lines 3-7), “confine and/or prevent or at least reduce unwanted leakage of electromagnetic energy and/or signals within the various waveguides” (Alexanian et al. Col. 8, lines 62-64), and provide a design “that may be kept simple and easy to realize without increasing costs and design complexity.” (Pucci et al. ¶ [0009]).
Claim(s) 7 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 Sakr et al. (US 10,670,810 B2, previously relied upon by the examiner) and Alexanian et al. (US 11,378,683 B2, newly cited by the examiner) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Haridas et al. (US 2019/0372199 A1, cited in IDS dated 14 FEB 2024, previously relied upon by the examiner).
Regarding claim 7 (Original), Hong et al. as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Hong et al. has been struck-through]
The EPA of claim 1
Haridas et al. discloses:
a first switch device disposed between the first phase shifter and the signal distributor, and transmitting the first signal to the first phase shifter or blocking transmission of the first signal (Haridas et al. a TX/RX switch 103 is provided between each phase shifter 102 and interface 112, Figs. 5a, 7);
a second switch device disposed between the second phase shifter and the signal distributor, and transmitting the second signal to the second phase shifter or blocking transmission of the second signal (Haridas et al. a TX/RX switch 103 is provided between each phase shifter 102 and interface 112, Figs. 5a, 7);
a third switch device disposed between the third phase shifter and the signal distributor, and transmitting the third signal to the third phase shifter or blocking transmission of the third signal (Haridas et al. a TX/RX switch 103 is provided between each phase shifter 102 and interface 112, Figs. 5a, 7); and
a fourth switch device disposed between the fourth phase shifter and the signal distributor, and transmitting the fourth signal to the fourth phase shifter or blocking transmission of the fourth signal (Haridas et al. a TX/RX switch 103 is provided between each phase shifter 102 and interface 112, Figs. 5a, 7).
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 Haridas et al. into the invention of Hong et al. as modified above to yield the invention of claim 7. Hong et al., Sakr et al., Alexanian et al. and Haridas et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose a plurality of waveguides for directing radio frequency waves. Hong et al. as modified above discloses the limitations of claim 1. However, Hong et al. fails to explicitly disclose a switch device disposed between each phase shifter and the signal distributor, and transmitting the signal to each phase shifter or blocking transmission of the signal. This feature is disclosed by Haridas et al. where a TX/RX switch 103 is provided between each phase shifter 102 and signal divider and/or combiner 70 (Haridas et al. Figs. 5, 7). The combination of Hong et al., Sakr et al. and Alexanian et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a longer path to cause a phase shift in one of the waveguides relative to the other (Sakr et al. Col. 16, lines 3-7), “confine and/or prevent or at least reduce unwanted leakage of electromagnetic energy and/or signals within the various waveguides” (Alexanian et al. Col. 8, lines 62-64), and provide individual control of the antennas for “finer and more accurate control over the directionality of combinations of antennas by beamforming.” (Haridas et al. ¶ [0240]).
Claim(s) 8 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 Sakr et al. (US 10,670,810 B2, previously relied upon by the examiner) and Alexanian et al. (US 11,378,683 B2, newly cited by the examiner) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bily et al. (US 11.552,405 B1, previously relied upon by the examiner).
Regarding claim 8 (Original), Hong et al. as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Hong et al. has been struck-through]
The EPA of claim 1
Bily et al. discloses:
a first switch device disposed between the first phase shifter and the first antenna, and transmitting the first phase shifted signal to the first antenna or blocking transmission of the first phase shifted signal (Bily et al. switches 72 are disposed between each of the phase shifters 62 and the antenna radiators 30, Fig. 5);
a second switch device disposed between the second phase shifter and the second antenna, and transmitting the second phase shifted signal to the second antenna or blocking transmission of the second phase shifted signal (Bily et al. switches 72 are disposed between each of the phase shifters 62 and the antenna radiators 30, Fig. 5);
a third switch device disposed between the third phase shifter and the third antenna, and transmitting the third phase shifted signal to the third antenna or blocking transmission of the third phase shifted signal (Bily et al. switches 72 are disposed between each of the phase shifters 62 and the antenna radiators 30, Fig. 5); and
a fourth switch device disposed between the fourth phase shifter and the fourth antenna, and transmitting the fourth phase shifted signal to the fourth antenna or blocking transmission of the fourth phase shifted signal (Bily et al. switches 72 are disposed between each of the phase shifters 62 and the antenna radiators 30, Fig. 5).
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 Bily et al. into the invention of Hong et al. as modified above to yield the invention of claim 8. Hong et al., Sakr et al., Alexanian et al. and Bily et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose antenna arrays for wireless devices. Hong et al. as modified above discloses the limitations of claim 1. However, Hong et al. fails to explicitly disclose a switch device disposed between each phase shifter and the signal distributor, and transmitting the signal to each phase shifter or blocking transmission of the signal. This feature is disclosed by Bily et al. where switches 72 are disposed between each of the phase shifters 62 and the antenna radiators 30 (Bily et al. Fig. 5). The combination of Hong et al., Sakr et al. and Alexanian et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a longer path to cause a phase shift in one of the waveguides relative to the other (Sakr et al. Col. 16, lines 3-7), “confine and/or prevent or at least reduce unwanted leakage of electromagnetic energy and/or signals within the various waveguides” (Alexanian et al. Col. 8, lines 62-64), and selectively activate the antennas in order to direct radio frequency signals in different directions (Bily et al. Col. 3, lines 49-53).
Claim(s) 15-16 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 Sakr et al. (US 10,670,810 B2, previously relied upon by the examiner) and Alexanian et al. (US 11,378,683 B2, newly cited by the examiner) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Yoon et al. (US 2017/0186710 A1, cited in IDS dated 14 FEB 2024, previously relied upon by the examiner).
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. as modified above to yield the invention of claim 15. Hong et al., Sakr et al., Alexanian et al. and Yoon et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose a plurality of waveguides for directing radio frequency waves. Hong et al. as modified above discloses the limitations 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., Sakr et al. and Alexanian et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a longer path to cause a phase shift in one of the waveguides relative to the other (Sakr et al. Col. 16, lines 3-7), “confine and/or prevent or at least reduce unwanted leakage of electromagnetic energy and/or signals within the various waveguides” (Alexanian et al. Col. 8, lines 62-64), and 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]).
Regarding claim 16 (Original), Hong et al. as modified above discloses:
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. as modified above to yield the invention of claim 16. Hong et al., Sakr et al., Alexanian et al. and Yoon et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose a plurality of waveguides for directing radio frequency waves. Hong et al. as modified above discloses the limitations of claim 15. 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 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., Sakr et al. and Alexanian et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a longer path to cause a phase shift in one of the waveguides relative to the other (Sakr et al. Col. 16, lines 3-7), “confine and/or prevent or at least reduce unwanted leakage of electromagnetic energy and/or signals within the various waveguides” (Alexanian et al. Col. 8, lines 62-64), and 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]).
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 Sakr et al. (US 10,670,810 B2, previously relied upon by the examiner) and Alexanian et al. (US 11,378,683 B2, 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. as modified above to yield the invention of claim 17. Hong et al., Sakr et al., Alexanian et al. 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 limitations 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., Sakr et al. and Alexanian et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a longer path to cause a phase shift in one of the waveguides relative to the other (Sakr et al. Col. 16, lines 3-7), “confine and/or prevent or at least reduce unwanted leakage of electromagnetic energy and/or signals within the various waveguides” (Alexanian et al. Col. 8, lines 62-64), 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.
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. as modified above to yield the invention of claim 18. Hong et al., Sakr et al., Alexanian et al. 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 limitations 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., Sakr et al. and Alexanian et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a longer path to cause a phase shift in one of the waveguides relative to the other (Sakr et al. Col. 16, lines 3-7), “confine and/or prevent or at least reduce unwanted leakage of electromagnetic energy and/or signals within the various waveguides” (Alexanian et al. Col. 8, lines 62-64), 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.
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. as modified above to yield the invention of claim 19. Hong et al., Sakr et al., Alexanian et al. 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 limitations 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., Sakr et al. and Alexanian et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a longer path to cause a phase shift in one of the waveguides relative to the other (Sakr et al. Col. 16, lines 3-7), “confine and/or prevent or at least reduce unwanted leakage of electromagnetic energy and/or signals within the various waveguides” (Alexanian et al. Col. 8, lines 62-64), and lower costs, shorten plating and processing times, and increase production throughput (Vandemeer et al. ¶ [0008]).
Conclusion
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
10 APR 2026
/RESHA DESAI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights