DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed 10/27/2025, have been entered into the record. Applicant’s amendments overcome the claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 set out in the previous office action. Claims 1, 4-6, 8-15, and 17-21 stand rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 4-6, 8-15, and 17-21 have been considered but are moot because a new grounds of rejection that relies on a new combination of references than those applied in the prior rejection of record is used to reject the claims, as necessitated by applicant’s amendment.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to for the following informality: claim 1 recites “from an RF generator an antenna” but should recite, “from an RF generator to an antenna.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 11 states, “A waveguide assembly, comprising: a temperature intermediate piece including the dielectric waveguide according to claim 1 in an internal cavity.” The claim as written could be understood to mean either,
The temperature intermediate piece including the waveguide is in an internal cavity of the waveguide assembly, or
The waveguide is in an internal cavity of the temperature intermediate piece
Thus, the metes and bounds of claim 11 are unclear, rendering claim 11 indefinite. Claims 12 and 20 are rejected due to their dependency on indefinite claim 11.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 11, 13-15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (CN 11290602 A) in view of Baer et al. (DE 102014118867 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Han et al. teaches (note; what Han et al. does not teach is struck through),
A waveguide for propagating high frequency waves (p. 1, para. 3, “The invention belongs to the field of electromagnetic and material science, especially relates to a THz guided wave control device based on multi-layer structure.”) (p. 3, para. 3, “The specific materials involved are: the material of the slab dielectric waveguide is high-density polyethylene”); and a second waveguide section including a second material (p. 3, para. 3, “the filled multilayer structure is composed of periodically arranged high-resistance silicon wafers”) having a higher temperature stability than the first waveguide section (p. 3, para. 3. The examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “temperature stability” in light of the specification includes any material-specific characteristic describing the extent to which temperature affects the material, such as melting point, latent heat of fusion, and specific heat. The melting point of silicon is higher than that of HDPE, thus indicating that it has higher temperature stability), wherein the first waveguide section and the second waveguide section are each configured as a dielectric waveguide (p. 3, para. 3, “Among them, the relative dielectric constant of high-density polyethylene is 2.34, and the relative dielectric constant of high-resistance silicon is 11.9.”).
Baer et al. teaches,
A waveguide for propagating high frequency waves from an RF generator to an antenna (fig. 1, waveguide 16 connects RF generator 20 to antenna 26. The examiner notes that microwaves are high frequency RF waves), the waveguide comprising: a first waveguide section including a first material; and a second waveguide section including a second material, being oriented towards a process side and having a higher temperature stability than the first waveguide section (p. 4, para. 14-p. 5, para. 1, “The bridging of a larger distance between the transmitting and evaluating unit and the antenna 4 is of particular interest in high-temperature applications in order not to have to expose the transmitter and evaluation unit high process temperatures.” See also fig. 3 and p. 2, para. 6)…
Han et al. and Baer et al. are both analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the waveguide of Han et al. in the configuration of Baer et al. The waveguide of Han et al. is for propagating high frequency waves, but Han et al. is silent as to its particular placement in relation to the RF generator, antenna, and measurement environment. The setup of Baer et al. would be a logical use of the waveguide of Han et al. because it uses a standard configuration for a waveguide in relation to the RF generator and antenna(s). Furthermore, the waveguide of Han et al. is a logical choice in a processing tank because the higher temperature stability of the silicon portion of the waveguide would be appropriate for use in high-temperature processing, which Baer et al. teaches is an important consideration in determining waveguide design for chemical processing structures.
Regarding claim 4, Han et al. in view of Baer et al. teaches the waveguide according to claim 1. Han et al. further teaches,
…wherein the first waveguide section has a lower attenuation than the second waveguide section (p. 3, para .3. The examiner notes that HDPE has a lower attenuation than silicon. Note, e.g., the lower dielectric constant).
Regarding claim 5, Han et al. in view of Baer et al. teaches the waveguide according to claim 1. Han et al. further teaches,
…wherein first waveguide section includes a plastic material (p. 3, para .3. The examiner notes that HDPE is a plastic material).
Regarding claim 6, Han et al. in view of Baer teaches the waveguide according to claim 1. Han et al. as previously combined with Baer does not teach,
…wherein the second waveguide section includes a ceramic or a plastic (fig. 1, the second waveguide section of Han et al. is silicon chips)
Baer teaches,
…wherein the second waveguide section, when designed as a dielectric waveguide, includes a ceramic or a plastic (p. 2, para. 7, “In a preferred embodiment, it is provided that the dielectric fixed conductor is designed to be flexible, the dielectric solid conductor is in particular made of polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP) or polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE).”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second waveguide section of Han et al. to be made of a plastic like that of Baer because the plastic section of Baer increases the flexibility of the conductor, making it easier to achieve the bent geometries of Han et al.
Regarding claim 11, the previous combination of Han et al. in view of Baer teaches (note: what Han et al. as previously combined with Baer does not teach is struck through),
A waveguide assembly (Technical Field, “The invention belongs to the field of electromagnetic and material science, especially relates to a THz guided wave control device based on multi-layer structure.”), comprising: (see claim 1, above)
Baer teaches,
…a (fig. 7, thermal insulation layer 8 is internal to the waveguide protective tube 10).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Han et. al. with the temperature insulation layer of Baer with a reasonable expectation of success. because the thermal insulation layer of Baer “ensures a high temperature gradient,” thus protecting delicate RF generator from high temperatures without requiring an overly-long waveguide.
Regarding claim 13, Han et al. in view of Baer et al. teaches the waveguide according to claim 1. Han et al. further teaches that the waveguide of claim 1 is intended for use with THz waves, indicating that it is appropriate for use with a radar apparatus. However, Han et al. does not explicitly teach,
A radar apparatus having the waveguide according to claim 1.
Baer et al. teaches,
A radar apparatus having the waveguide according to claim 1 (abs., “Described and illustrated is a working according to the radar level measuring device with an electronic transmission and evaluation”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the waveguide of Han et al. in a radar apparatus because the waveguide of Han et al. is for use with THz-frequency waves, a common frequency for use in radar apparatuses. Thus, implementing the waveguide of Han et al. in the radar apparatus of Baer et al. would be an obvious substitution of one waveguide for another with the predictable result of transmitting radar waves into the measurement environment.
Regarding claim 14, Han et al. in view of Baer et al. teaches the waveguide according to claim 1. Han et al. further teaches,
…wherein first waveguide section includes a material from a group consisting of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), perfluoroalkoxy (PFA), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), polypropylene (PP), polyoxymethylene (POM), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polybutylene terephthalate (PBT) and hard polyethylene (HDPE) (p. 3, para. 3, “The specific materials involved are: the material of the slab dielectric waveguide is high-density polyethylene”).
Regarding claim 15, Han et al. in view of Baer teaches the waveguide according to claim 1. Han et al. as previously combined with Baer does not teach,
…wherein the second waveguide section includes a material selected from a group consisting of polyetheretherketone (PEEK), polyetherketones (PEK), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), perfluoroalkoxy (PFA) and polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF).
Han et al. does, however, teach a high-density polyethylene conductor for the first section of the waveguide, indicating that plastic is an acceptable material for construction.
Baer teaches,
…wherein the second waveguide section includes a material selected from a group consisting of polyetheretherketone (PEEK), polyetherketones (PEK), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), perfluoroalkoxy (PFA) and polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) (p. 2, para. 7, “In a preferred embodiment, it is provided that the dielectric fixed conductor is designed to be flexible, the dielectric solid conductor is in particular made of polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP) or polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE).”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the silicon chips of Han et al. with the PTFE of Baer. As Baer teaches, polyethylene and PTFE have similar advantages in the art of dielectric waveguides: they are flexible and have a consistent conductivity. Since Han et al. is particularly interested in a flexible waveguide, PTFE offer similar advantages to the silicon chips of Han et al. and thus could be exchanged for one another with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success for a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 19, Han et al. in view of Baer et al. teaches the waveguide according to claim 1. Han et al. does not teach,
A radar fill level meter comprising: the waveguide according to claim 1
Baer et al. teaches,
A radar fill level meter comprising: the waveguide according to claim 1 (abs., “Described and illustrated is a working according to the radar level measuring device with an electronic transmission and evaluation”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the waveguide of Han et al. in a radar apparatus because the waveguide of Han et al. is for use with THz-frequency waves, a common frequency for use in radar apparatuses. Thus, implementing the waveguide of Han et al. in the radar apparatus of Baer et al. would be an obvious substitution of one waveguide for another with the predictable result of transmitting radar waves into the measurement environment.
Regarding claim 20, Han et al. further discloses,
A radar apparatus comprising: the waveguide assembly according to claim 11 (Contents of the Invention, para. 3, “The invention claims a THz guided wave control device based on multi-layer structure, wherein comprising two same flat dielectric waveguide transmitting THz wave, and a conversion structure set between them.”).
Claims 8-10, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. in view of Baer et al. and further in view of Hitzler et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0341568 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Han et al. discloses (note: what Han et al. does not disclose is struck through),
(p. 1, para. 3, “The invention belongs to the field of electromagnetic and material science, especially relates to a THz guided wave control device based on multi-layer structure.”) (p. 3, para. 3, “The specific materials involved are: the material of the slab dielectric waveguide is high-density polyethylene”); and a second waveguide section including a second material (p. 3, para. 3, “the filled multilayer structure is composed of periodically arranged high-resistance silicon wafers”) having a higher temperature stability than the first waveguide section (p. 3, para. 3. The examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “temperature stability” in light of the specification includes any material-specific characteristic describing the extent to which temperature affects the material, such as melting point, latent heat of fusion, and specific heat. The melting point of silicon is higher than that of HDPE, thus indicating that it has higher temperature stability), wherein the first waveguide section and the second waveguide section are each configured as a dielectric waveguide (p. 3, para. 3, “Among them, the relative dielectric constant of high-density polyethylene is 2.34, and the relative dielectric constant of high-resistance silicon is 11.9.”), comprising: providing the first waveguide section having the first material (fig. 3, waveguide adaptor 48, specified in col. 4, lines 50-52 as being the RA42-SMA-F-1A-A model waveguide, which, per the attached product sheet, can be made of either copper or aluminum); providing the second waveguide section having the second material (fig. 3, waveguide section 22 is made of stainless steel. See col. 6, lines 1-2), the second material having the higher temperature stability than the first waveguide section (fig. 3, waveguide sections 48 and 22. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “temperature stability” in light of the specification is any material-specific characteristic that describes the extent to which temperature affects the material, including characteristics like melting point, latent heat of fusion, and specific heat. The melting point of aluminum is 660.3 oC, the melting point of copper is 1084.6 oC, and the melting point of stainless steel ranges from 1425-1450 oC. Therefore, by the metric of melting point, second waveguide section 22 is of higher temperature stability than first waveguide section 48);
Baer et al. teaches,
A waveguide for propagating high frequency waves from an RF generator to an antenna (fig. 1, waveguide 16 connects RF generator 20 to antenna 26. The examiner notes that microwaves are high frequency RF waves), the waveguide comprising: a first waveguide section including a first material; and a second waveguide section including a second material, being oriented towards a process side and having a higher temperature stability than the first waveguide section (p/ 4. Para. 14-p. 5, para. 1, “The bridging of a larger distance between the transmitting and evaluating unit and the antenna 4 is of particular interest in high-temperature applications in order not to have to expose the transmitter and evaluation unit high process temperatures.” See also fig. 3 and para. 8)…
Baer et al. does not teach,
…connecting the first waveguide section to the second waveguide section by way of a form-fit, force-fit, or material-fit connection
Hitzler discloses,
A method of manufacturing a waveguide for propagating high frequency waves (para. 0041, “In this way, the need for adjusting in the manufacturing is significantly reduced.”)…comprising…connecting the first waveguide section to the second waveguide section by way of a form-fit, force-fit, or material-fit connection (para. 0013, “In such case, the coupling element and the waveguide of the invention are so formed that they form a plug contact.” The examiner notes that a plug contact is a type of force-fit).
Han et al. and Baer et al. are both analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the waveguide of Han et al. in the configuration of Baer et al. The waveguide of Han et al. is for propagating high frequency waves, but Han et al. is silent as to its particular placement in relation to the RF generator, antenna, and measurement environment. The setup of Baer et al. would be a logical use of the waveguide of Han et al. because it uses a standard configuration for a waveguide in relation to the RF generator and antenna(s). Furthermore, the waveguide of Han et al. is a logical choice in a processing tank because the higher temperature stability of the silicon portion of the waveguide would be appropriate for use in high-temperature processing, which Baer et al. teaches is an important consideration in determining waveguide design for chemical processing structures.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the manufacturing technique of Hitzler to create the waveguide of Han et al. in view of Baer et al. because the manufacturing technique of Hitzler reduces the need for adjusting during the manufacturing process (see Hitzler, para. 0041).
Regarding claim 9, Han et al. in view of Baer et al. and further in view of Hitzler teaches the method of claim 8. Han et al. does not teach,
…wherein a matching region is arranged between the first waveguide section and the second waveguide section.
Baer et al. teaches,
…wherein a matching region is arranged between the first waveguide section and the second waveguide section (p. 5, para. 3, “The dielectric solid conductor 3 is at its ends - as seen from most figures - designed in each case to a matching stage to the high-frequency signals optimally, especially in the dielectric solid conductor 3 couple.”).
Regarding claim 10, Han et al. in view of Baer et al. and further in view of Hitzler teach the method of claim 8. The previous combination of Han et al. with Baer et al. and Hitzler does not teach,
…wherein the first waveguide section and the second waveguide section have different cross-sectional areas.
Baer et al. further teaches,
…wherein the first waveguide section and the second waveguide section have different cross-sectional areas (fig. 3, waveguide section in region 5 and waveguide section in region 3 have different cross-sectional areas).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the waveguide of Han et al. with the different cross-sectional areas of Baer et al. because the cross-sectional taper of Baer et al. enables a sound connection between the dielectric conductor and the decoupling element 5 (see Baer et al., para ____).
Regarding claim 17, Han et al. in view of Baer et al. and further in view of Hitzler discloses the method of claim 8. Han et al. does not disclose,
…wherein the form-fit, the force-fit and the material-fit connection is an adhesive connection or an ultrasonic welding
Hitzler discloses,
…wherein the form-fit, the force-fit and the material-fit connection is an adhesive connection and/or an ultrasonic welding (para. 0042, “Likewise shown in FIGS. 2 and 3 is that adhesive can be interposed in the plug contact between waveguide 12 and coupling element 11.”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the manufacturing technique of Hitzler to create the waveguide of Han et al. because the manufacturing technique of Hitzler prevents the plug from loosening after manufacturing (see Hitzler, para. 0042).
Regarding claim 18, Han et al. in view of Baer et al. and further in view of Hitzler teach the method of claim 9. The previous combination of Han et al. with Baer et al. and Hitzler does not teach,
…wherein the first waveguide section and the second waveguide section have different cross-sectional areas.
Baer et al. further teaches,
…wherein the first waveguide section and the second waveguide section have different cross-sectional areas (fig. 3, waveguide section in region 5 and waveguide section in region 3 have different cross-sectional areas).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the waveguide of Han et al. with the different cross-sectional areas of Baer et al. because the cross-sectional taper of Baer et al. enables a sound connection between the dielectric conductor and the decoupling element 5 (see Baer et al., p. 5, para 6). Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al in view of Baer et al. and further in view of Palan (U.S. Pat. No. 5851083 A).
Regarding claim 12, Han et al. in view of Baer teaches the waveguide according to claim 11. Han et al. as previously combined with Baer does not teach.
…wherein the intermediate temperature piece has cooling fins on an outer side.
Palan teaches
…wherein the intermediate temperature piece has cooling fins on an outer side (fig. 5, heat dissipating fins 104 a-104c are mounted on the outer edges of hub 100 of waveguide section 22).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Han et al. with the cooling fins of Palan because the cooling fins of Palan ensure less heat enters the delicate RF generator, further enabling a shorter, more efficient waveguide.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. in view of Baer et al., further in view of Hitzler et al., and further in view of Palan.
Regarding claim 21, Han et al. in view of Baer et al. and further in view of Hitzler teaches the method of claim 8. Han et al. in view of Baer et al. and further in view of Hitzler et al. does not teach,
…wherein a matching region is designed as a wedge or as a cone
Palan teaches
…wherein a matching region is designed as a wedge or as a cone (fig. 3, impedance-matching section 74 within aperture 52 is shaped like a wedge).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Han et al. in view of Baer et al. and further in view of Hitzler with the matching region of Palan. The wedge-shaped matching region of Palan is beneficial because it reduces undesired reflections and losses (see Palan, col. 1, lines 64-68). The inclusion of the matching region to the invention of Han et al. would have a reasonable expectation of success for a person of ordinary skill in the art because wedge-shaped matching regions are a known technique in the art for improving connections between varying elements.
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 Anna K Gosling whose telephone number is (571)272-0401. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:30-4:30 Eastern, Friday, 10:00-2:00 Eastern.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571) 270-5144. 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.
/Anna K. Gosling/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights