DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment October 29, 2025 has been entered. The Applicant amended claims 1 and 18. Claims 1 and 3-21 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed September 4, 2025. The examiner withdraws the 112(b) rejections and the Claims objections in light of the amendments to the Claims.
Applicant's arguments filed October 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, the applicant argues “In rejecting pending claim 1, the Office suggests that a microwave module 1000 as described in Kirino teaches the redirection structure as claimed. Additionally, the Office suggests that the conductive rods 124’ of Kirino teaches the conductive substrate as claimed, the dielectric base 45 of Kirino teaches the dielectric substrate as claimed, and conductive member 120 of Kirino teaches the first conductive element as claimed. See Office Action, p. 4. Applicant respectfully disagrees because the arrangement of the conductive member 120, the conductive rods 124’, and the dielectric substrate 45 in the microwave module 1000 as described in Kirino is different from the arrangement of elements in the redirection structure as claimed. Kirino describes a waveguide device module. In particular, FIG. 11B of Kirino (annotated below) depicts the microwave module 1000 that includes an artificial magnetic conductor 101 and a waveguide device 100. In both the artificial magnetic conductor 101 and the waveguide device 100 the dielectric base 45 is not disposed between the conductive rods 124 (or 124’) and the conductive members 120. In fact, the dielectric base 45 is disposed outside the artificial magnetic conductor 101 and the waveguide device 100. See Kirino, paragraphs [0170]-[0174].”.
This argument is not persuasive, as the dielectric base 45 of Kirino is arranged between the first conductive element 120 and the top conductive substrate 124’. The redirection structure and multilayer structure of Kirino is not limited to one of 100 or 101 but comprises the entirety of Fig. 11A-11D and 1000 which includes the dielectric base 45.
The applicant further argues “In fact, the waveguide device 100 depicted in FIG. 11B of Kirino and described in the cited portion of Kirino describes the conductive rods 124 (e.g., the alleged conductive substrate) being disposed between the dielectric base 45 (e.g., the alleged dielectric substrate) and the conductive member 120 (e.g., the alleged first conductive element). The arrangements of the dielectric base 45, the conductive rods 124 (or 124’), and the conductive members 120 is different from the redirection structure as claimed, where the dielectric substrate is arranged between the first conductive element and the conductive substrate. Therefore, Kirino does not teach at least the aforementioned feature of pending claim 1.”
This argument is not persuasive. As stated above, the redirection structure and multilayer structure of Kirino is not limited to one of the waveguide device 100 but comprises the entirety of Fig. 11A-11D and 1000, of which the dielectric base 45 of Kirino is arranged between the first conductive element 120 and the top conductive substrate 124’ which discloses the claim limitation “the dielectric substrate being arranged between the first conductive element and the conductive substrate” with a broad and reasonable interpretation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6-9, 13-14, 16-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kirino et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0140344 A1), hereinafter known as Kirino.
Regarding claim 1, Kirino discloses (Fig. 9 and 11A-11D) A redirection structure for electromagnetic waves (Fig. 11A-11D), the redirection structure comprising: a multilayer structure (1000) comprising a first conductive element (120), a conductive substrate (124’), and a dielectric substrate (bottom 45), the dielectric substrate (bottom 45) being arranged between the first conductive element (120) and the conductive substrate (124’), and forming a wave guide (100); a second conductive element (64a, 64b) arranged between the dielectric substrate (bottom 45) and the conductive substrate (4); at least one antenna element (40) configured to emit the electromagnetic waves having a wavelength (λ), the at least one antenna element (40) being arranged adjacent to an edge of the multilayer structure at an interface (6), the electromagnetic waves at least partially propagating in the wave guide (100) along a first direction (x direction); and at least one dielectric cavity (30, 34, 36, 66, cavity portions of 1010) arranged at a predefined distance from the interface (6) along the first direction (x direction), the at least one dielectric cavity (30, 34, 36, 66, cavity portions of 1010) extending in a second direction (z direction), wherein the second direction (z direction) extends perpendicular to the first direction (x direction) and away from the dielectric substrate (bottom 45) at least partially through the conductive substrate (124’), and wherein the at least one dielectric cavity (36, 66) extends in the second direction through the second conductive element (64a, 64b).
Regarding claim 3, Kirino further discloses (Fig. 11B) wherein the dielectric substrate (bottom 45) comprises a dielectric material having a dielectric constant (Dk) between 1 and 4 ([0185], polytetrafluoroethylene has a dielectric constant of 2.1).
Regarding claim 6, Kirino further discloses (Fig. 9) wherein the at least one dielectric cavity (34) has a width in the first direction, wherein the width is less than 2λ ([0152]).
Regarding claim 7, Kirino further discloses (Fig. 9) wherein the width is between λ/2 and λ/5 ([0152]).
Regarding claim 8, Kirino further discloses (Fig. 11D) wherein surfaces (top of 45, 110) forming the at least one dielectric cavity (30, 34, cavity portions of 1010) are straight in a plane perpendicular to the second direction (X plane).
Regarding claim 9, Kirino further discloses (Fig. 9) wherein surfaces (left and right surfaces of 6 surrounding 36) forming the at least one dielectric cavity (36) are curved in a plane perpendicular to the second direction (XY plane).
Regarding claim 13, Kirino further discloses (Fig. 9 and 11B) wherein the second conductive element (6a, 6b, 64a, 64b) is an electromagnetic interference layer ([00156]).
Regarding claim 14, Kirino further discloses (Fig. 11B) wherein the conductive substrate (4) is a printed circuit board ([0171]), a liquid crystal polymer printed circuit board, or a further element arranged between the dielectric substrate and one of the printed circuit board and the liquid crystal polymer printed circuit board.
Regarding claim 16, Kirino further discloses (Fig. 9 and 11C) wherein the at least one dielectric cavity (34, 36, 66) is partially formed by a vertical interconnect access (40, S1, G1) extending within the printed circuit board (4) or said liquid crystal polymer printed circuit board.
Regarding claim 17, Kirino further discloses (Fig. 9 and 11C-11D) wherein the at least one dielectric cavity (34, 36, 66) forms an impedance discontinuity, the wave guide has a first impedance (impedance of 64a, 64b) adjacent a section of conductive material of the second conductive element (64a, 64b) or a section of conductive material of the conductive substrate (4), and a second impedance adjacent the at least one dielectric cavity (34, 36, 66), and wherein the second impedance is larger than the first impedance (impedance of air is larger than impedance of conductive material).
Regarding claim 18, Kirino further discloses (Fig. 9 and 11B-11D) the at least one dielectric cavity (30, 34, 36, 66, cavity portions of 1010) comprising a first dielectric cavity (top dielectric cavity of 1010) arranged at a first predefined distance from the interface (6) along the first direction (x direction), and at least a second dielectric cavity (36) arranged at a second predefined distance from the interface (6) along the first direction (x direction), wherein the first dielectric cavity (top dielectric cavity of 1010) and the at least second dielectric cavity (36) are separated by a section of conductive material of the conductive substrate (4).
Regarding claim 19, Kirino further discloses (Fig. 9 and 11B-11D) wherein the first dielectric cavity (top dielectric cavity of 1010) and the at least second dielectric cavity (36) have same or different widths or heights.
Regarding claim 21, Kirino further discloses (Fig. 9 and 11B-11D) wherein the first dielectric cavity (top dielectric cavity of 1010) and the at least second dielectric cavity (36) are separated by a section of conductive material of the second conductive element (64a, 64b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirino in view of Avser et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0280133 A1), hereinafter known as Avser.
Regarding claim 4, Kirino does not specifically teach wherein the predefined distance is less than 2λ.
However, Avser teaches (Fig. 6-7) wherein the predefined distance is less than 2λ ([0077], [0089], [0096]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the redirection structure of Kirino with Avser to include “wherein the predefined distance is less than 2λ,” as taught by Avser, for the purpose of tuning to desired frequencies (see also [0093]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have “wherein the predefined distance is less than 2λ”, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 5, Kamo does not specifically teach wherein the predefined distance is between λ/
D
k
/
3
and λ/
D
k
/
8
.
However, Avser teaches (Fig. 6-7) wherein the predefined distance (114) is between λ/
D
k
/
3
and λ/
D
k
/
8
([0077], [0089], [0096], Dk is dk3, dk3 = 3, λ = 6 mm, λ/
D
k
/
3
= 6mm, λ/
D
k
/
8
is approx.. 9.8 mm, 114 = 6-10 mm).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the redirection structure of Kamo with Avser to include “wherein the predefined distance is between λ/
D
k
/
3
and λ/
D
k
/
8
,” as taught by Avser, for the purpose of tuning to desired frequencies (see also [0093]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have “wherein the predefined distance is between λ/
D
k
/
3
and λ/
D
k
/
8
”, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 10, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirino in view of Ilvonen et al. (WO 2020182311 A1, paragraph references made to corresponding US PGPUB 2022/0149531 A1), hereinafter known as Ilvonen.
Regarding claim 10, Kirino does not specifically teach wherein the first conductive element and the dielectric substrate are part of a display panel.
However, Ilvonen teaches (Fig. 4a) wherein the first conductive element (2a) and the dielectric substrate (1) are part of a display panel (17).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the redirection structure of Kirino with Ilvonen to include “wherein the first conductive element and the dielectric substrate are part of a display panel,” as taught by Ilvonen, for the purpose of allowing for user interface with a display and reducing power loss (see also [0031]-[0033]).
Regarding claim 15, Kirino does not specifically teach wherein the further element is a conductive gasket or foam.
However, Ilvonen teaches (Fig. 7a, 7b) wherein the further element is a conductive gasket (21) or foam ([0063]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the redirection structure of Kirino with Ilvonen to include “wherein the further element is a conductive gasket or foam,” as taught by Ilvonen, for the purpose of enabling additional functionalities (see also [0054]).
Regarding claim 20, Kirino does not specifically teach a display, and a frame, wherein: the first conductive element, the second conductive element and the dielectric substrate of the redirection structure are part of the display, the frame comprises at least a peripheral frame section at least partially surrounding a peripheral edge of the display, and the at least one antenna element of the redirection structure is arranged between the peripheral frame section and the peripheral edge of the display.
However, Ilvonen teaches (Fig. 4c) a display (17), and a frame (18), wherein: the first conductive element (2a), the second conductive element (2b) and the dielectric substrate (1) of the redirection structure are part of the display (17), the frame (18) comprises at least a peripheral frame section (19) at least partially surrounding a peripheral edge of the display (17), and the at least one antenna element (4) of the redirection structure is arranged between the peripheral frame section (19) and the peripheral edge of the display (17).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the redirection structure of Kirino with Ilvonen to include “a display, and a frame, wherein: the first conductive element, the second conductive element and the dielectric substrate of the redirection structure are part of the display, the frame comprises at least a peripheral frame section at least partially surrounding a peripheral edge of the display, and the at least one antenna element of the redirection structure is arranged between the peripheral frame section and the peripheral edge of the display,” as taught by Ilvonen, for the purpose of allowing for user interface with a display and reducing power loss (see also [0031]-[0033]).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirino in view of Cho et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0135378 A1), hereinafter known as Cho.
Regarding claim 11, Kirino does not specifically teach wherein the first conductive element is an OLED layer.
However, Cho teaches wherein the first conductive element is an OLED layer ([0109]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the redirection structure of Kirino with Cho to include “wherein the first conductive element is an OLED layer,” as taught by Cho, for the purpose of forming a screen and displaying (see also [0109]).
Regarding claim 12, Kirino does not specifically teach wherein the first conductive element is a thin film transistor layer.
However, Cho teaches wherein the first conductive element is a thin film transistor layer ([0109]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the redirection structure of Kirino with Cho to include “wherein the first conductive element is a thin film transistor layer,” as taught by Cho, for the purpose of controlling pixels in a display (see also [0109]).
Conclusion
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 YONCHAN J KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-3204. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dimary Lopez can be reached at (571) 270-7893. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/YONCHAN J KIM/ Examiner, Art Unit 2845