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 filed 01/08/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 01/08/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (REMARKS pages 8-9) about the objections to claims 16 and 20, the objections have been overcome by the amendment.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (REMARKS pages 9-10) about the rejections of claims 13-15, 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the rejections have been overcome by the amendment.
Applicant’s argument (REMARKS pages 11-14) about amended independent Claims 1, 10, and 16 is moot based on the new ground rejections.
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 1-3, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 11,749,883, hereafter Li) in view of Alexanian et al . (US 2022/0278458, hereafter Alexanian).
Regarding claim 1, Li (‘883) discloses that A vehicle sensor assembly {Fig.1 item 102 (radar system), 104 (vehicle)}, comprising:
one or more waveguides {Fig.3 item 112 (waveguide channel)};
one or more antenna slots each operably coupled with at least one waveguide of the one or more waveguides {Fig.2 items 204 (antenna), 114 (radiation slot) ; Fig.3 item 114 (radiation slot) couple with item 112 (waveguide channel); col.4 lines 63-64 (at least one antenna, including the waveguide 110)}; and
an array of scattering elements arranged in a repeating pattern {Fig.2 item 116 (Parasitic Bump Element); col.5 lines 36-37 (The parasitic bump elements 116 act as radiating elements); col.6 lines 65-67 (electromagnetic radiation that leaks through the radiation slots 114 may excite the parasitic bump elements 116 to generate a radiation pattern); Examiner’s note: “parasitic bump elements 116 act as radiating elements” for “scattering elements” }, the pattern comprising a first set of scattering elements and a second set of scattering elements { Fig.2 item 116 (Parasitic Bump Element) is an array with two sets having vertical offset.}.
However, Li (‘883) does not explicitly disclose (see word with underline) “a second set of scattering elements structurally distinct from the first set of scattering elements”. In the same field of endeavor, Alexanian (‘458) discloses that
a second set of scattering elements structurally distinct from the first set of scattering elements {Fig.7; [0030] lines 1-2 (Fig.7, utilizing projecting members); [0063] lines 7-9 (a waveguide groove 720 that oscillates back and forth by providing a series of obstacles or protruding members 725); [0064] lines 1 (Protruding members 725), 3 (slots 710); Examiner’s note: Fig.7 item 725 on left can be interpreted as “first set of scattering elements” and item 725 on right can be interpreted as “second set of scattering elements”. So Fig.7 item 725 on left and right sides are “structurally distinct”}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li (‘883) with the teachings of Alexanian (‘458) {use a series of obstacles or protruding members 725 with different structures near slots} to use a series of obstacles or protruding members 725 with different structures near slots. Doing so would use oscillating waveguide walls to provide equivalent performance without having multiple antenna slots so as to provide a combine waveguide and antenna assembly (or structure) with high-performance sensing for a vehicle sensor module, as recognized by Alexanian (‘458) {Fig.6; [0004] lines 2-3 (waveguide assembly for a vehicle sensor module); [0029] lines 1-4 (Fig.6, oscillating and/or curved waveguide walls may be used to provide equivalent performance without having multiple antenna slots); [0063] lines 1-2 (Fig.7, a combine waveguide and antenna assembly or structure 700.); [0073] line 13 (high-performance sensing)}.
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Li (‘883) and Alexanian (‘458) discloses that in the vehicle sensor assembly,
each of the one or more waveguides, the one or more antenna slots, and the array of scattering elements is formed in a single-layered structure {see Li (‘883) Fig.1 item 110 (waveguide); Fig.3; col.5 lines 21-22 (The waveguide 110 includes at least one layer that can be any solid material) }.
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claims 1-2, the combination of Li (‘883) and Alexanian (‘458) discloses that in the vehicle sensor assembly,
each of the one or more waveguides is formed on a first surface of the single-layered structure {see Li (‘883) Fig.3 bottom part (2nd and 3rd layer)}, and
wherein the array of scattering elements is formed on a second surface of the single-layered structure on an opposite side of the single-layered structure relative to the first surface {see Li (‘883) Fig.3 top part (2st layer)}.
Regarding claim 16, Li (‘883) discloses that A vehicle sensor module {Fig.1 item 102 (radar system), 104 (vehicle)}, comprising:
a block comprising a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface {Fig.3};
one or more waveguides defined on the first surface {Fig.3 item 112 (waveguide channel)};
one or more antenna slots extending between the first and second surfaces {Fig.3 item 114 (radiation slot) couple with item 112 (waveguide channel)}; and
an array of scattering elements defined on the second surface {Fig.2 item 116; Fig.3 item 116 (Parasitic Bump Element); col.5 lines 36-37 (The parasitic bump elements 116 act as radiating elements); col.6 lines 65-67 (electromagnetic radiation that leaks through the radiation slots 114 may excite the parasitic bump elements 116 to generate a radiation pattern); Examiner’s note: “parasitic bump elements 116 act as radiating elements” for “scattering elements” },
wherein the array is defined by a repeating pattern comprising rows and columns comprising alternating sets of scattering elements {Fig.2 item 116 is array with two sets having vertical offset; Examiner’s note: Fig.2 item 116 having vertical offset to form 2 rows},
wherein one or more scattering elements of a first { Fig.2 item 116 is array with two sets having vertical offset}.
However, Li (‘883) does not explicitly disclose (see word with underline) “one or more scattering elements of a first structural type are positioned in a repeating first set adjacent to one or more scattering elements of a second structural type in a repeating second set along the second surface”. In the same field of endeavor, Alexanian (‘458) discloses that
one or more scattering elements of a first structural type are positioned in a repeating first set adjacent to one or more scattering elements of a second structural type in a repeating second set along the second surface {Fig.7; [0030] lines 1-2 (Fig.7, utilizing projecting members); [0063] lines 7-9 (a waveguide groove 720 that oscillates back and forth by providing a series of obstacles or protruding members 725); [0064] lines 1 (Protruding members 725), 3 (slots 710); Examiner’s note: Fig.7 item 725 on left can be interpreted as “a first structural type” and item 725 on right can be interpreted as “a second structural type”. }.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li (‘883) with the teachings of Alexanian (‘458) {use a series of obstacles or protruding members 725 with different structures near slots} to use a series of obstacles or protruding members 725 with different structures near slots. Doing so would use oscillating waveguide walls to provide equivalent performance without having multiple antenna slots so as to provide a combine waveguide and antenna assembly (or structure) with high-performance sensing for a vehicle sensor module, as recognized by Alexanian (‘458) {Fig.6; [0004] lines 2-3 (waveguide assembly for a vehicle sensor module); [0029] lines 1-3 (Fig.6, oscillating and/or curved waveguide walls may be used to provide equivalent performance without having multiple antenna slots); [0063] lines 1-2 (Fig.7, a combine waveguide and antenna assembly or structure 700.); [0073] line 13 (high-performance sensing)}.
Claims 4-7 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (‘883) and Alexanian (‘458) as applied to claims 1 and 16, respectively, above, and further in view of Kowalewski et al. (US 2024/0243465, hereafter Kowalewski).
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claim 1, Li (‘883) discloses that in the vehicle sensor assembly,
wherein the first set of scattering elements comprises protruding scattering elements { Fig.3 item 116 (Parasitic BumpElement) }.
However, Li (‘883) and Alexanian (‘458) do not disclose “each member of the first set of scattering elements comprises a plurality of scattering elements” and “each member of the second set of scattering elements comprises a plurality of scattering elements”. In the same field of endeavor, Kowalewski (‘465) discloses that
each member of the first set of scattering elements comprises a plurality of scattering elements,
wherein each member of the second set of scattering elements comprises a plurality of scattering elements, and
{Fig.24 item 4 (antenna aperture), 6 (scattering elements) see marks below; [0066] lines 5 (antenna aperture 4), 11 (scattering elements 6)}
PNG
media_image1.png
568
810
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Li (‘883) and Alexanian (‘458) with the teachings of Kowalewski (‘465) {use a plurality of scattering elements pair with one antenna aperture } to use a plurality of scattering elements pair with one antenna aperture. Doing so would create a phase between 0° and 180° so as to achieve good results for canceling interference, as recognized by Kowalewski (‘465) {[0015] lines 1-9 (Adjacent to the at least one antenna aperture the front face of the antenna assembly further comprises scattering elements by which primary rays, impacting in the area of the scattering elements, are at least partially reflected by the scattering elements and thereby separated into first secondary rays and second secondary rays, such that the first secondary rays and the second secondary rays are different such that they cancel out each other at least partially by interference); [0017] lines 1 (Good results can be achieved), 29-34 (Depending on the periodic spacing (p) of the scattering elements and the number of scattering elements at the front face of the antenna assembly, a phase between 0° and 180° is created instead of a uniform phase distribution without the scattering structure.)}.
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claims 1 and 4, the combination of Li (‘883), Alexanian (‘458), and Kowalewski (‘465) discloses that in the vehicle sensor assembly,
the second set of scattering elements comprises recessed scattering elements {see Li (‘883) Fig.7A item 706 (parasitic cavity elements); col.9 line 32 (The parasitic cavity elements 706 are formed as recesses)}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine two embodiments in Li (‘883) in the combination of Li (‘883), Alexanian (‘458), and Kowalewski (‘465). Doing so would precisely control the radiation pattern with asymmetrical coverage so as to improve the application of a radar system, as recognized by Li (‘883) {col.1 lines 22-23 (Precisely controlling the radiation pattern can improve the application of a radar system), 38-39 (a waveguide with radiation slots and parasitic elements for asymmetrical coverage.)}.
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claims 1 and 4-5, the combination of Li (‘883), Alexanian (‘458), and Kowalewski (‘465) discloses that in the vehicle sensor assembly,
the recessed scattering elements are formed in at least substantially a complementary, negative shape relative to the protruding scattering elements {see Li (‘883) Fig.3 item 116 (Parasitic Bump Element); Fig.7A item 706 (parasitic cavity elements)}.
Regarding claim 7, which depends on claim 1, Li (‘883) discloses that in the vehicle sensor assembly,
each member of the first set of scattering elements comprises {Fig.2; Fig.3 item 116 (Parasitic Bump Element)}, and
wherein each member of the second set of scattering elements comprises a single protruding cuboid {Fig.2; Fig.3 item 116 (Parasitic Bump Element)}.
However, Li (‘883) and Alexanian (‘458) do not disclose (see words with underline) “each member of the first set of scattering elements comprises a plurality of protruding cuboids”. In the same field of endeavor, Kowalewski (‘465) discloses that
each member of the first set of scattering elements comprises a plurality of protruding cuboids {Fig.6 item 6; Fig.24 item 6; [0066] lines 20-21 (the scattering elements can also be designed as protrusions 9); Examiner’s note: protrusions in [0066] with rectangular shape in Fig.6 for “protruding cuboids” };
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Li (‘883) and Alexanian (‘458) with the teachings of Kowalewski (‘465) {use a plurality of scattering elements pair with one antenna aperture } to use a plurality of scattering elements pair with one antenna aperture. Doing so would create a phase between 0° and 180° so as to achieve good results for canceling interference, as recognized by Kowalewski (‘465) {[0015] lines 1-9 (Adjacent to the at least one antenna aperture the front face of the antenna assembly further comprises scattering elements by which primary rays, impacting in the area of the scattering elements, are at least partially reflected by the scattering elements and thereby separated into first secondary rays and second secondary rays, such that the first secondary rays and the second secondary rays are different such that they cancel out each other at least partially by interference); [0017] lines 1 (Good results can be achieved), 29-34 (Depending on the periodic spacing (p) of the scattering elements and the number of scattering elements at the front face of the antenna assembly, a phase between 0° and 180° is created instead of a uniform phase distribution without the scattering structure.)}.
Regarding claim 18, which depends on claim 16, Li (‘883) and Alexanian (‘458) do not disclose “each member of the first set comprises a plurality of scattering elements”. In the same field of endeavor, Kowalewski (‘465) discloses that in the vehicle sensor module,
each member of the first set comprises a plurality of scattering elements {Fig.24 item 6 (scattering elements); [0066] line 11 (scattering elements 6) }.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Li (‘883) and Alexanian (‘458) with the teachings of Kowalewski (‘465) {use a plurality of scattering elements pair with one antenna aperture } to use a plurality of scattering elements pair with one antenna aperture. Doing so would create a phase between 0° and 180° so as to achieve good results for canceling interference, as recognized by Kowalewski (‘465) {[0015] lines 1-9 (Adjacent to the at least one antenna aperture the front face of the antenna assembly further comprises scattering elements by which primary rays, impacting in the area of the scattering elements, are at least partially reflected by the scattering elements and thereby separated into first secondary rays and second secondary rays, such that the first secondary rays and the second secondary rays are different such that they cancel out each other at least partially by interference); [0017] lines 1 (Good results can be achieved), 29-34 (Depending on the periodic spacing (p) of the scattering elements and the number of scattering elements at the front face of the antenna assembly, a phase between 0° and 180° is created instead of a uniform phase distribution without the scattering structure.)}.
Regarding claim 19, which depends on claim 16 and 18, Li (‘883) and Alexanian (‘458) do not disclose “each member of the second set comprises a plurality of scattering elements”. In the same field of endeavor, Kowalewski (‘465) discloses that in the vehicle sensor module,
each member of the second set comprises a plurality of scattering elements {Fig.24 item 6 (scattering elements) see marks below; [0066] line 11 (scattering elements 6) }.
PNG
media_image1.png
568
810
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Li (‘883) and Alexanian (‘458) with the teachings of Kowalewski (‘465) {use a plurality of scattering elements pair with one antenna aperture } to use a plurality of scattering elements pair with one antenna aperture. Doing so would create a phase between 0° and 180° so as to achieve good results for canceling interference, as recognized by Kowalewski (‘465) {[0015] lines 1-9 (Adjacent to the at least one antenna aperture the front face of the antenna assembly further comprises scattering elements by which primary rays, impacting in the area of the scattering elements, are at least partially reflected by the scattering elements and thereby separated into first secondary rays and second secondary rays, such that the first secondary rays and the second secondary rays are different such that they cancel out each other at least partially by interference); [0017] lines 1 (Good results can be achieved), 29-34 (Depending on the periodic spacing (p) of the scattering elements and the number of scattering elements at the front face of the antenna assembly, a phase between 0° and 180° is created instead of a uniform phase distribution without the scattering structure.)}.
Claims 10-12, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (‘883) in view of Kowalewski (‘465) and Alexanian (‘458).
Regarding claim 10, Li (‘883) discloses that An antenna module {Fig.2 item 204 (antenna)}, comprising:
one or more waveguides defined on an inner surface {Fig.1; Fig.2 item 112 (waveguide channel); Fig.3 item 112 (waveguide channel); Examiner’s note: dashed lines in Fig.2 indicate “on an inner surface” because radiation slot face outside based on Fig.1};
one or more antenna slots configured to deliver electromagnetic radiation to and/or from a corresponding waveguide therethrough between the inner surface and an outer surface { Fig.2 items 204 (antenna), 114 (radiation slot) ; Fig.3 item 114 (radiation slot) couple with item 112 (waveguide channel); Fig.8 item 806 (Receive or transmit, via the waveguide with radiation slots and parasitic elements, electromagnetic signals); col.4 lines 63-64 (at least one antenna, including the waveguide 110) }; and
a plurality of {Fig.2 item 116 (Parasitic Bump Element); col.5 lines 36-39 (The parasitic bump elements 116 act as radiating elements for the electromagnetic energy dissipating through the radiation slots 114 and effectively concentrate the radiation pattern to an asymmetrical radiation pattern)},
wherein the plurality of{ Fig.2 item 116 (Parasitic Bump Element) is array with two sets having vertical offset.},
.
However, Li (‘883) does not explicitly disclose (see words with underline) “destructive interference elements”, “the destructive interference elements are configured to reduce backscatter radiation by contributing to destructive interference of electromagnetic waves incident upon the destructive interference elements”, and “wherein the at least two distinct types of destructive interference elements are structurally distinct from one another”. In the same field of endeavor, Kowalewski (‘465) discloses that
a plurality of destructive interference elements positioned on the outer surface {Fig.26 item 6 (scattering elements); [0012] lines 1-2 (For the reduction of noise and interference caused by multiple reflected rays between the antenna device and e.g., a bumper mounted in front of the antenna device)},
wherein the destructive interference elements are configured to reduce backscatter radiation by contributing to destructive interference of electromagnetic waves incident upon the destructive interference elements { [0017] lines 29-34 (Depending on the periodic spacing (p) of the scattering elements and the number of scattering elements at the front face of the antenna assembly, a phase between 0° and 180° is created instead of a uniform phase distribution without the scattering structure.); [0019] lines 8-9 (destructive interference of backscattering); [0067] lines 6-9 (change the direction of the currents at the front face 3, cause destructive interferences of backscattering of impinging fields); Examiner’s note: function of scattering elements change the direction of the currents at the front face because of a phase between 0° and 180°. Therefore function of scattering elements also cause destructive interferences of backscattering }, and
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li (‘883) with the teachings of Kowalewski (‘465) {use a plurality of scattering elements pair with one antenna aperture to destructive interferences of backscattering } to use a plurality of scattering elements pair with one antenna aperture to destructive interferences of backscattering. Doing so would create a phase between 0° and 180° so as to achieve good results for canceling interference, as recognized by Kowalewski (‘465) {[0015] lines 1-9 (Adjacent to the at least one antenna aperture the front face of the antenna assembly further comprises scattering elements by which primary rays, impacting in the area of the scattering elements, are at least partially reflected by the scattering elements and thereby separated into first secondary rays and second secondary rays, such that the first secondary rays and the second secondary rays are different such that they cancel out each other at least partially by interference); [0017] lines 1 (Good results can be achieved), 29-34 (Depending on the periodic spacing (p) of the scattering elements and the number of scattering elements at the front face of the antenna assembly, a phase between 0° and 180° is created instead of a uniform phase distribution without the scattering structure.)}.
However, Kowalewski (‘465) does not explicitly disclose (see words with underline) “wherein the at least two distinct types of destructive interference elements are structurally distinct from one another”. In the same field of endeavor, Alexanian (‘458) discloses that
wherein the at least two distinct types of destructive interference elements are structurally distinct from one another {Fig.7; [0030] lines 1-2 (Fig.7, utilizing projecting members); [0063] lines 7-9 (a waveguide groove 720 that oscillates back and forth by providing a series of obstacles or protruding members 725); [0064] lines 1 (Protruding members 725), 3 (slots 710); Examiner’s note: Fig.7 item 725 on left can be interpreted as “first set of scattering elements” and item 725 on right can be interpreted as “second set of scattering elements”. So Fig.7 item 725 on left and right sides are “structurally distinct”. “obstacles or protruding” for “destructive interference”}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Li (‘883) and Kowalewski (‘465) with the teachings of Alexanian (‘458) {use a series of obstacles or protruding members 725 with different structures near slots} to use a series of obstacles or protruding members 725 with different structures near slots. Doing so would use oscillating waveguide walls to provide equivalent performance without having multiple antenna slots so as to provide a combine waveguide and antenna assembly (or structure) with high-performance sensing for a vehicle sensor module, as recognized by Alexanian (‘458) {Fig.6; [0004] lines 2-3 (waveguide assembly for a vehicle sensor module); [0029] lines 1-3 (Fig.6, oscillating and/or curved waveguide walls may be used to provide equivalent performance without having multiple antenna slots); [0063] lines 1-2 (Fig.7, a combine waveguide and antenna assembly or structure 700.); [0073] line 13 (high-performance sensing)}.
Regarding claims 11, which depends on claim 10, the combination of Li (‘883), Kowalewski (‘465), and Alexanian (‘458) discloses that in the antenna module,
the at least two distinct types of destructive interference elements comprise protruding elements and recessed elements {see Li (‘883) Fig.3 item 116 (Parasitic BumpElement); Fig.7A item 706 (parasitic cavity elements); col.9 line 32 (The parasitic cavity elements 706 are formed as recesses); see the rejection of claim 10 for “destructive interference”}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine two embodiments in Li (‘883) in the combination of Li (‘883), Kowalewski (‘465), and Alexanian (‘458). Doing so would precisely controlling the radiation pattern with asymmetrical coverage so as to improve the application of a radar system, as recognized by Li (‘883) {col.1 lines 22-23 (Precisely controlling the radiation pattern can improve the application of a radar system), 38-39 (a waveguide with radiation slots and parasitic elements for asymmetrical coverage.)}.
Regarding claim 12, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claim 6. Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 6, shown above.
Regarding claim 15, which depends on claim 10, Li (‘883) discloses that in the antenna module,
the antenna module comprises a{col.11 line 35 (the waveguide comprises plastic)}, and
wherein each of the plurality of {Fig.3 items 116 (Parasitic Bump Element) and 206 (first layer) have same material; col.7 lines 12-13 (The first layer 206, the second layer 302, and the third layer 304 can be metal or metal-plated material)};
However, Li (‘883) and Kowalewski (‘465) do not explicitly disclose “thermoplastic material”. In the same field of endeavor, Alexanian (‘458) discloses that
the antenna module comprises a thermoplastic material { [0057] lines 1-2 (openings/slots may extend into a widened dielectric chamber), 9-12 (these chambers may be made up of, thermoplastic material) }, and
wherein each of the plurality of destructive interference elements is defined by an electrically conductive coating applied to the thermoplastic material {Fig.7; [0055] lines 9-10 (the substrate/PCB may comprise one or more metallic/conductive layers and/or coatings); [0057] lines 1-3 (openings/slots may extend into a widened dielectric chamber. one surface of the substrate/PCB may comprise, cavities or chambers,), 9-12 (these chambers may be made up of, thermoplastic material); [0063] lines 1-2 (a combine waveguide and antenna assembly or structure 700.), 7-9 (a waveguide groove 720 that oscillates back and forth by providing a series of obstacles or protruding members 725)}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Li (‘883) and Kowalewski (‘465) with the teachings of Alexanian (‘458) {use a series of obstacles or protruding members with different structures near slots and use thermoplastic material with coating for making a waveguide} to use a series of obstacles or protruding members with different structures near slots and use thermoplastic material with coating for making a waveguide. Doing so would use oscillating waveguide walls to provide equivalent performance without having multiple antenna slots so as to provide a combine waveguide and antenna assembly (or structure) with high-performance sensing for a vehicle sensor module, as recognized by Alexanian (‘458) {Fig.6; [0004] lines 2-3 (waveguide assembly for a vehicle sensor module); [0029] lines 1-3 (Fig.6, oscillating and/or curved waveguide walls may be used to provide equivalent performance without having multiple antenna slots); [0063] lines 1-2 (Fig.7, a combine waveguide and antenna assembly or structure 700.); [0073] line 13 (high-performance sensing)}.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (‘883), Kowalewski (‘465), and Alexanian (‘458) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Shi et al. (US 10,944,184, hereafter Shi).
Regarding claim 13, which depends on claim 10, Li (‘883) discloses that in the antenna module,
, and
wherein the at least two distinct types of destructive elements are arranged in an array defined by a repeating pattern {Fig.2}
However, Li (‘883) does not disclose (see words with underlines) “the at least two distinct types of destructive interference elements comprise protruding elements of two distinct sizes” and “the at least two distinct types of destructive elements are arranged in an array defined by a repeating pattern in which a plurality of protruding elements of a first, smaller size, are positioned adjacent to a single protruding element of a second, larger size relative to each of the plurality of protruding elements of the first size”. In the same field of endeavor, Kowalewski (‘465) discloses that
the at least two distinct types of destructive interference elements comprise protruding elements of two distinct sizes {Fig.6 (on right) }, and
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Li (‘883) and Alexanian (‘458) with the teachings of Kowalewski (‘465) {use a plurality of scattering elements with difference sizes pair with one antenna aperture to destructive interferences of backscattering } to use a plurality of scattering elements with difference sizes pair with one antenna aperture to destructive interferences of backscattering. Doing so would create a phase between 0° and 180° so as to achieve good results for canceling interference, as recognized by Kowalewski (‘465) {[0015] lines 1-9 (Adjacent to the at least one antenna aperture the front face of the antenna assembly further comprises scattering elements by which primary rays, impacting in the area of the scattering elements, are at least partially reflected by the scattering elements and thereby separated into first secondary rays and second secondary rays, such that the first secondary rays and the second secondary rays are different such that they cancel out each other at least partially by interference); [0017] lines 1 (Good results can be achieved), 29-34 (Depending on the periodic spacing (p) of the scattering elements and the number of scattering elements at the front face of the antenna assembly, a phase between 0° and 180° is created instead of a uniform phase distribution without the scattering structure.)}.
However, Kowalewski (‘465) and Alexanian (‘458) do not explicitly disclose that (see words with underline) “the at least two distinct types of destructive elements are arranged in an array defined by a repeating pattern in which a plurality of protruding elements of a first, smaller size, are positioned adjacent to a single protruding element of a second, larger size relative to each of the plurality of protruding elements of the first size”. In the same field of endeavor, Shi (‘184) discloses that
wherein the at least two distinct types of destructive elements are arranged in an array defined by a repeating pattern in which a plurality of protruding elements of a first, smaller size, are positioned adjacent to a single protruding element of a second, larger size relative to each of the plurality of protruding elements of the first size {Fig.1 items 52, 54 (slot), 70 (parasitic interruptions) see marks below; col.3 line 58 (substrate integrated waveguides (SIWs)); col.4 lines 14-15 (Each SIW with its slots 52 and 54 operates as an antenna.), 62-64 (a plurality of parasitic interruptions 70 that minimize or eliminate interference), 67 (The parasitic interruptions 70 include slots 72); Examiner’s note: slots 72 is parasitic element, which is not antenna slots.}.
PNG
media_image2.png
487
366
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Li (‘883), Kowalewski (‘465), and Alexanian (‘458) with the teachings of Shi (‘184) {use different sizes of parasitic interruptions around antenna slots} to use different sizes of parasitic interruptions around antenna slots. Doing so would provide a waveguide slot antenna capable of reducing ripple effects caused by adjacent antennas, radiation scattering from nearby antennas, electronic components, as well as other metal or dielectric materials in close proximity to the antennas so as to obtain a designed radiation patterns (e.g. uniformity of the radiation patterns) for a certain application (e.g. angle finding in radar system), as recognized by Shi (‘184) {abstract lines 11-12 (parasitic interruptions reduce ripple effects otherwise introduced by adjacent antennas.); col.1 lines 28-31 (ripples resulting from radiation scattering from nearby antennas, electronic components on the vehicle, and other metal or dielectric materials in close proximity to the antennas.), 33-36 (uniformity of the radiation patterns of all the antennas used for radar. A non-uniform radiation pattern significantly lowers the angle finding accuracy of the radar system.)}.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (‘883) and Alexanian (‘458) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Kamo et al . (US 2018 / 0301815, hereafter Kamo).
Regarding claim 17, which depends on claim 16, Li (‘883) discloses that in the vehicle sensor module,
the first type comprises { Figs. 2-3 item 116 (Parasitic Bump Element); col.5 lines 36-38 (The parasitic bump elements 116 act as radiating elements); col.6 lines 65-67 (electromagnetic radiation that leaks through the radiation slots 114 may excite the parasitic bump elements 116 to generate a radiation pattern); Examiner’s note: “radiating elements” for “magnetic conductors”}, and
wherein the second type comprises {Fig.7A item 706 (Parasitic Cavity Element); col.1 lines 44-45 (parasitic bump, patch, or cavity elements); col.5 lines 36-37 (The parasitic bump elements 116 act as radiating elements); col.6 lines 65-67 (electromagnetic radiation that leaks through the radiation slots 114 may excite the parasitic bump elements 116 to generate a radiation pattern); Examiner’s note: parasitic cavity elements perform the same function as parasitic bump elements.}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine two embodiments in Li (‘883). Doing so would precisely controlling the radiation pattern with asymmetrical coverage so as to improve the application of a radar system, as recognized by Li (‘883) {col.1 lines 22-23 (Precisely controlling the radiation pattern can improve the application of a radar system), 38-39 (a waveguide with radiation slots and parasitic elements for asymmetrical coverage.)}.
However, Li (‘883) and Alexanian (‘458) do not disclose (see word with underline) “artificial magnetic conductors”. In the same field of endeavor, Kamo (‘815) discloses that
the first type comprises artificial magnetic conductors { Fig.8A item 124; [0083] lines 1-5 (a ridge - like wave guide member 122 is provided among the plurality of conductive rods 124 . More specifically , stretches of an artificial magnetic conductor are present on both sides of the waveguide member 122)}, and
wherein the second type comprises artificial magnetic conductors having a distinct shape relative to the first type of artificial magnetic conductors { Fig.8A item 124; [0083] lines 1-5 (a ridge - like wave guide member 122 is provided among the plurality of conductive rods 124 . More specifically , stretches of an artificial magnetic conductor are present on both sides of the waveguide member 122)}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Li (‘883) and Alexanian (‘458) with the teachings of Kamo (‘815) {use artificial magnetic conductors ( AMC )} to use artificial magnetic conductors ( AMC ). Doing so would provide a perfect magnetic conductor in a specific frequency band which is defined by its structure so as to guide electromagnetic waves by utilizing an artificial magnetic conductor ( AMC ) with less loss in antenna detection, as recognized by Kamo (‘815) {[0003] line 6 (incur a large dielectric loss); [0004] lines 3-5 (guide electromagnetic waves by utilizing an artificial magnetic conductor ( AMC )); [0075] lines 11-13 (An artificial magnetic conductor functions as a perfect magnetic conductor in a specific frequency band which is defined by its structure .)}.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claims 1 and 7 but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 9 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 1 but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 14 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claims 10 and 13 but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claims 16 and 18 but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Please see the Office Action filed on 10/10/2025 for details regarding the allowability of the objected claims 8-9, 14, and 20 above over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2020/0212594 discloses that “a second set of scattering elements structurally distinct from the first set of scattering elements”{Fig.2A items 170, 160}, which further support the rejections of claims 1, 10, and 16.
US2023/0194703 discloses that “a second set of scattering elements structurally distinct from the first set of scattering elements”{Fig.2 items 230A, 230B}, which also further support the rejections of claims 1, 10, and 16.
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 YONGHONG LI whose telephone number is (571)272-5946. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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.
/YONGHONG LI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3648