DETAILED ACTION
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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicants' arguments filed 04/22/2026 have been fully 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.
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 1-3, 5, 12-14, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li(US11916273B1) in view of EGUCHI(US20190082106A1).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses
A system comprising: a first component (FIG.1A, Part.142A) a shaft extending from a surface of the first component (FIG.1A, Part.102) the shaft defining an axis of rotation (“ rotate along with the shaft 102 about the rotational axis 110.” [Col.10, ll.63-64]) and having a hollow core (“waveguide section 112 is oriented along the rotational axis ” [Col.4, ll.24-25] & “shaft 102 includes end 104A, end 104B, and a cavity 106. Cavity 106 of shaft 102 is defined by an inner surface 108 of the shaft 102. “ [Col.4, ll.10-12]);a second component mounted to the shaft and rotatable about the axis of rotation (FIG.1A, Part.142A);a radio-frequency (RF) transmitter unit disposed in the second component, the RF transmitter unit including a first antenna positioned at a first end of the shaft and oriented to transmit RF signals into the hollow core of the shaft (“ Channel opening 136A of waveguide section 116 corresponds to channel opening 134A of waveguide section 112 to cause an electromagnetic signal transmitted via channel opening 134A “ [Col.5, ll.46-49]); and an RF receiver unit disposed in the first component, the RF receiver unit including a second antenna positioned at a second end of the shaft and oriented to receive the RF signals through the hollow core of the shaft (“received through channel opening 136A,” [Col.5, ll.49-50]),[…]wherein the hollow core of the shaft provides a waveguide for RF data transmissions between the first antenna and the second antenna (“rotary joint 150 is configured to facilitate the transmission of millimeter wave electromagnetic signals “ [Col.8, ll.27-28]).
Li discloses two sets of communication devices configured to transmit singles across hollow core. Although Li does not limit the two sets of communication devices (142A&B) to radar communication, Li does not explicitly disclose that they may specifically operate in optical frequencies. Further, Li does not limit the two sets of communication devices (142A&B) to the same type of device disclosing that either could be of a plurality of sensor units or other electronic devices. EGUCHI discloses, an optical transmitter unit disposed in the first component (FIG.3, Part.59) and oriented to transmit modulated light signals (FIG.3, Part.85) into the hollow core of the shaft (“Transmission module 13 causes hollow portion 63 to be the transmitting path of an optical signal” [0036]); and an optical receiver unit disposed in the second component and oriented to receive the modulated light signals via the hollow core of the shaft (FIG.3, Part.61), […] a line-of-sight transmission path for optical data transmissions between the optical transmitter unit and the optical receiver unit (FIG.2B, parts. 53, 59, 61).
EGUCHI teaches in the same field of Electromagnetic communication sensor systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li with the teachings of EGUCHI to incorporate the features of an optical transmitter and receiver in line of sight so as to gain the advantage of improving reliability [0071, EGUCHI]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 2, Li as modified by EGUCHI discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Li discloses wherein, the RF data transmissions are in a millimeter-wave band (“ In some implementations, rotary joint 150 is configured to facilitate the transmission of millimeter wave electromagnetic signals” [Col.8, ll.26-28]).
Regarding claim 3, Li as modified by EGUCHI discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Li discloses wherein, the first antenna is configured to produce circularly polarized RE waves (“generate a polarized wave of a particular type including […] a circular polarized wave” [Col.8, ll.56-57]).
Regarding claim 5, Li as modified by EGUCHI discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Li discloses wherein, the second component includes one or more sensors to generate data (“In some implementations, an electronic device represents one or more of a discrete antenna, an RF processing device (with or without an integrated antenna), or sensor unit, among other electronic devices.” [Col.7, ll.37-40]).
Regarding claim 12, Li as modified by EGUCHI discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Li discloses wherein, the second component includes: a sensor array (“ Channel opening 136A of waveguide section 116 corresponds to channel opening 134A of waveguide section 112 to cause an electromagnetic signal transmitted via channel opening 134A “ [Col.5, ll.46-49]); and a sensor controller coupled to the sensor array (FIG.1A, Part.142A),wherein the sensor controller is configured to provide data from the sensor array to the RF transmitter unit (“Electronic devices, such as discrete antennas or processing devices with integrated antennas can be coupled to each channel to transceiver electromagnetic signals” [Col.6, ll.1-3])and to receive configuration data for the sensor array from the optical receiver unit (“The LiDAR unit can send LiDAR sensing data to data processing system 530 using rotary joint 525.” [Col.17, ll.49-51]).
Regarding claim 13, Li as modified by EGUCHI discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Li discloses wherein the second end of the shaft is fixedly attached to the first component (“ the LiDAR unit can be coupled to the waveguide section 112 “ [Col.17, ll.47-48]).
Regarding claim 14, Li as modified by EGUCHI discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Li discloses wherein, the second component includes a lidar sensor array configured to produce data (“The LiDAR (including radar, if applicable) sensing data to determine distances to various objects in the environment” [Col.17, ll.65-67]) and wherein the RF transmitter unit is configured to transmit at least some of the data produced by the lidar sensor array (“ Channel opening 136A of waveguide section 116 corresponds to channel opening 134A of waveguide section 112 to cause an electromagnetic signal transmitted via channel opening 134A “ [Col.5, ll.46-49]).
Regarding claim 24, Li as modified by EGUCHI discloses all the limitations of claim 14. Li discloses wherein, the […] transmitter unit is configured to transmit configuration data for the lidar sensor array (The LiDAR (including radar, if applicable) sensing data to determine distances to various objects in the environment” [Col.17, ll.65-67]).
Li discloses an electronic device configured to transmit singles across hollow core. Li does not explicitly disclose wherein the electronic device configured for optical frequencies. EGUCHI discloses the optical transmission and reception of data [0036].
EGUCHI teaches in the same field of Electromagnetic communication sensor systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li with the teachings of EGUCHI to incorporate the features of an optical transmitter and receiver in line of sight so as to gain the advantage of improving reliability [0071, EGUCHI]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 25, Li as modified by EGUCHI discloses all the limitations of claim 14. Li discloses wherein, the RF transmitter (“ Channel opening 136A of waveguide section 116 corresponds to channel opening 134A of waveguide section 112 to cause an electromagnetic signal transmitted via channel opening 134A “ [Col.5, ll.46-49]) unit and the RF receiver unit are configured to provide data transmission from the second component to the first component (“received through channel opening 136A,” [Col.5, ll.49-50]) with a first bandwidth (“ transmission of millimeter waves “ [Col.3, l.39]);
Li discloses an electronic device configured to transmit singles across hollow core. Li does not explicitly disclose wherein the electronic device configured for optical frequencies. EGUCHI discloses, the optical transmitter unit (FIG.3, Part.59) and the optical receiver unit (FIG.3, Part.61) are configured to provide data transmission from the first component to the second component with a second bandwidth (“Transmission module 13 causes hollow portion 63 to be the transmitting path of an optical signal” [0036]); and the first bandwidth exceeds the second bandwidth by at least two orders of magnitude (“Optical transmitter 59 emits imaging signal 91 transmitted from optical modulator
85 to optical receiver 61” [0052]).
EGUCHI teaches in the same field of Electromagnetic communication sensor systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li with the teachings of EGUCHI to incorporate the features of an optical transmitter and receiver in line of sight so as to gain the advantage of improving reliability [0071, EGUCHI]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li(US 11916273 B1) as modified by EGUCHI(US20190082106A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of in view of YAN(CN103956584A).
Regarding claim 6, Li as modified by EGUCHI discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Li fails to set forth the patch antenna of claim 6. YAN teaches in the same field of endeavor of radar systems. YAN discloses the system wherein, each of the first antenna and the second antenna is a patch antenna having (“The radiation patch 32” [0011]).
YAN teaches in the same field of endeavor of radar systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li as modified by EGUCHI with the teachings of Yan to incorporate the features of a patch antenna having a substrate and a printed metallic antenna shape so as to gain the advantage of reducing antenna volume[0028, Yan]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 7, Li as modified by EGUCHI and further modified by YAN discloses all of the limitations of claim 6. Li fails to set forth the difference in substrate thicknesses of claim 7. YAN teaches in the same field of endeavor of radar systems. YAN discloses the system wherein, the substrate of the first antenna has a first thickness and the substrate of the second antenna has a second thickness different from the first thickness (“Three different substrate thicknesses are designed according to the different bandwidths” [0024])
YAN teaches in the same field of endeavor of radar systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li as modified by EGUCHI with the teachings of Yan to incorporate the features of separate substrate thicknesses so as to gain the advantage of reducing antenna volume [0028, Yan]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li(US 11916273 B1) as modified by EGUCHI(US20190082106A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of in view of NIROO(US20190089069A1).
Regarding claim 8, Li as modified by EGUCHI discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Li discloses the system wherein, […] the first antenna is a patch antenna mounted on a second side of the first printed circuit board opposite the first side of the first printed circuit board (Fig.3C, Part 142B); and the second side of the first printed circuit board is oriented toward the shaft (Fig.3C, Part 314).
Li does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein RE transmitter chip is mounted on a different side of the PCB than the antenna. NIROO teaches in the same field of endeavor of radar systems. NIROO discloses the system wherein, the RE transmitter unit includes an RE transmitter chip mounted on a first side of a first printed circuit board (“a radio controller 108, which are mounted using BGA flip-chip assembly methodology on a side opposite to the antenna array 102” [0016]).
NIROO teaches in the same field of endeavor of radar systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li as modified by EGUCHI with the teachings of NIROO to incorporate the features of a chip mounted on a different side of the PCB than the antenna so as to gain the advantage of improving short range communication performance [0030, NIROO]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 9, Li as modified by EGUCHI and further modified by NIROO discloses all of the limitations of claim 8. Li discloses the system wherein, the second antenna is a patch antenna mounted on a second side of the second printed circuit board opposite the first side of the second printed circuit board (Fig.3C, Part 142B); and the second side of the second printed circuit board is oriented toward the shaft (Fig.3C, Part 314).
Li does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein RF transmitter chip is mounted on a different side of the PCB than the antenna. NIROO teaches in the same field of endeavor of radar systems. NIROO discloses the system wherein, the RF receiver unit includes an RF receiver chip mounted on a first side of a second printed circuit board (“a radio controller 108, which are mounted using BGA flip-chip assembly methodology on a side opposite to the antenna array 102” [0016]).
NIROO teaches in the same field of endeavor of radar systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li as modified by EGUCHI with the teachings of NIROO to incorporate the features of a chip mounted on a different side of the PCB than the antenna so as to gain the advantage of improving short range communication performance [0030, NIROO]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Claim 10 is under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li(US 11916273 B1) as modified by EGUCHI(US20190082106A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of in view of Krall(US4274097A).
Regarding claim 10, Li as modified by EGUCHI discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Li discloses the system wherein, the waveguide core of the shaft has a circular cross section (“In some implementations, the shape of the cavities of waveguide section 112 or waveguide section 116 can be the same shape as the cavity 106 of shaft 102“ [Col.6, ll.12-15]).
Li does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein the waveguide diameter is selected to reduce electromagnetic modes. Krall teaches in the same field of endeavor of radar waveguide systems. Krall discloses the system wherein, and a diameter selected to reduce propagation of unwanted electromagnetic modes (“For maximum efficiency of mode excitation[…]requiring a rod diameter of 3.7 centimeters” [Col.7, ll.7-11]).
Krall teaches in the same field of endeavor of radar waveguide systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li as modified by EGUCHI with the teachings of Krall to incorporate the features of waveguide diameter is selected to reduce electromagnetic modes so as to gain the advantage of improving mode excitation efficiency [Col.7, ll.7-11, Krall]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s Disclosure.
Vertikov(US20130107274A1) is considered analogous art to the instant application as it discloses in [0048] “The ORJ 210 can be mechanically connected on the rotor side to the rotary drive 220 via a hollow flexible shaft 205, with the optical fiber 215 of the optical rotary joint contained inside the hollow flexible shaft 205.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAYTON PAUL RIDDER whose telephone number is (571)272-2771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday ET.
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, Jack Keith can be reached on (571) 272-6878. 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.
/C.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights