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 03/30/2026, have been entered into the record. Claims 1-2, 7, 9-13, and 16-18 stand rejected. Claims 3-6, 8, 14-15, and 19-22 have been canceled by the applicant.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments, filed 03/30/2026, have been carefully considered by the examiner but are not convincing.
Regarding claim 1, the applicant argues that Uchimura does not teach or disclose a stepped impedance filter, but rather teaches a resonating filter. The examiner disagrees with this characterization of Uchimura. First, a stepped impedance filter is a type of resonating filter. In para. 0059, Uchimura describes the base structure of the design as a stepped impedance filter, stating that, “Provided between the input port 2 and the output port 3 is the resonator 4, the width w2 of which is smaller than the width w1 of the dielectric waveguide 1. By thus reducing the width of the waveguide than the waveguide width w1 capable of transmitting signals, that is, setting the same to be less than a half of a signal wavelength, electromagnetic waves having a wavelength larger than the signal wavelength is transmitted with loss at this narrowed portion. Therefore, this narrowed portion is called cutoff waveguide pass d.” Uchimura further notes in para. 0060 that, “By thus providing the abovementioned dielectric vias 5 in the cutoff waveguide path d, the effective dielectric constant of a part of the cutoff waveguide path can be raised. Thereby, the resonator 4 is formed.”
In other words, the base structure of the waveguide is a stepped impedance filter, i.e., a low-pass filter built by modifying the impedance characteristics of the dielectric waveguide by decreasing the width of the passage and increasing the dielectric constant (note that both changes increase the impedance of the filter). Although the phrase “stepped impedance filter” is not explicitly used, the filter Uchimura describes is definitionally a stepped impedance filter because it filters out certain wavelengths based on alternating areas of high and low impedance.
The applicant further argues that Uchimura does not teach a width adapted to block the first frequency when the first frequency is smaller than the second frequency. However, para. 0059 of Uchimura teaches that reducing the width of the waveguide w1 to the width w2 (see fig. 2) results in a low-pass filter due to the loss of waves with a wavelength larger than the desired wavelength. Wavelength is inversely proportional to frequency. Ergo, the width adjustment of para. 0059 results in waves of a desired frequency (i.e., the claimed second frequency) passing through while higher wavelength, lower frequency waves (i.e., the claimed first frequency) are attenuated. Although the dielectric vias of Uchimura further support the attenuation of unwanted frequencies, Uchimura clearly states that the width of the waveguide also does its part in attenuating unwanted frequencies.
Regarding the applicant’s arguments involving the combination of Uchimura and Youree, the examiner agrees that the amendment of claim 1 to necessitate a narrow guide section renders the combination of Uchimura and Youree non-obvious. However, as necessitated by said amendment, a new piece of art is used to reject claim 1, rendering the applicant’s arguments moot.
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 1-2, 7, 9, 11, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchimura et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0041663 A1), hereinafter Uchimura, in view of Liu et al. (CN 109524749 A), hereinafter Liu.
Regarding claim 1, Uchimura teaches (note: what Uchimura does not teach is struck through)
A transmission line network for a radar antenna system, the transmission line network comprising (para. 0054, “As a result, the dielectric waveguide 1 can be of a size usable as…a transmitting line of an inter-vehicle radar.”):
a guiding section (fig. 11, waveguide 16. See also fig. 2, input section 2),
a branching section (fig. 11, channel 16 branches in three directions around filter section 20. See circled area in fig. 11, reproduced below. The examiner notes that numbers 161, 162, and 163 have been added for ease of reference to unnumbered portions of waveguide 16. The examiner further notes that “a branching section” is being understood to refer to a portion of the guide section that branches in more than one direction),
a port (fig. 11, waveguides 17 and 18, noting that para. 0078 states that the waveguides 17 and 18 can connect the signal to outer circuits. See also fig. 2, output port 3),
an additional port (fig. 11, port 18),
a filter section coupled between the guiding section and the port (fig. 11, bandpass filters 20 and 21. See also fig. 2, resonator 4), and
a feed section; wherein:
the guiding section is configured to guide electromagnetic energy having a first frequency and to guide electromagnetic energy having a second frequency that is higher than the first frequency (para. 0076, “If a radio wave incident on the common dielectric waveguide 16 has a frequency f far from the frequency f1, the shortcut conductors 22 of the dielectric waveguide type filter 20 do not transmit energy and therefore the signal is reflected. On the other hand, a radio wave having a frequency near f1 resonates in the region enclosed by the shortcut conductors 22.” The examiner notes that para. 0076 refers to the behavior of the embodiment of fig. 8, but that para. 83 indicates that the embodiment of fig. 11 operates in a similar manner to that of fig. 8. See also para. 0059, "Provided between the input port 2 and the output port 3 is the resonator 4, the width w2 of which is smaller than the width w1 of the dielectric waveguide 1. By thus reducing the width of the waveguide than the waveguide width w1 capable of transmitting signals, that is, setting the same to be less than a half of a signal wavelength, electromagnetic waves having a wavelength larger than the signal wavelength is transmitted with loss at this narrowed portion." The examiner notes that radio waves with a larger wavelength have a lower frequency because the speed of light is equal to the product of frequency and wavelength, i.e., c = fλ);
a transverse width of the guiding section is at most 1.5 times a wavelength of the electromagnetic energy at the second frequency (para. 0050, “Further, the width w1 between the columns of the conductive via group 1c is usually set to be 0.65 to 0.95 times of a signal wavelength.” The examiner notes that the width is less than 1.5 times the wavelength of desired central frequency f2);
the branching section is coupled between the guiding section and the filter section (fig. 11, first branching section leads from waveguide 16 to filter 20);
the branching section comprises a first end, a second end, and a third end (fig. 11, reproduced below, 161-163);
the guiding section is coupled to the branching section via the first end (fig. 11, below, portion 161 connects waveguide 16 to branching section);
the filter section is coupled to the branching section via the second end and the second end connects the filter section to a guiding segment at a right angle (fig. 11, reproduced below. Second end 162 connects the branching section and the filter 20);
the additional port is coupled to the branching section via the third end (fig. 11, below. Additional port 18 is coupled to the branching section via third end 163);
the branching section comprises the guiding segment that connects the first end with the third end, the guiding segment having a transverse width that is equal to the transverse width of the guiding section (fig. 11, reproduced below. Circled branching section comprises waveguide 16 that connects first end 161 and third end 163. Waveguide 16 has a consistent width throughout the guiding and branching sections. See also fig. 10);
the guiding segment of the branching section is a straight segment (fig. 11, reproduced below);
a transverse width of the filter section is smaller than a transverse width of the guiding section (fig. 11, width of filter sections 20 and 21 is narrower than that of section 16. See also fig. 2, w2 of the filter section 4 is smaller than w1 of guiding section 2);
the transverse width of the filter section is adapted to block electromagnetic energy having the first frequency and to pass electromagnetic energy having the second frequency (para. 0059, "Provided between the input port 2 and the output port 3 is the resonator 4, the width w2 of which is smaller than the width w1 of the dielectric waveguide 1. By thus reducing the width of the waveguide than the waveguide width w1 capable of transmitting signals, that is, setting the same to be less than a half of a signal wavelength, electromagnetic waves having a wavelength larger than the signal wavelength is transmitted with loss at this narrowed portion." The examiner notes that radio waves with a larger wavelength have a lower frequency because the speed of light is equal to the product of frequency and wavelength. Therefore, the frequency that is passed is higher frequency than the frequency that is blocked, i.e., f2 > f1);
the filter section is configured as a stepped impedance filter (fig. 2, para. 59, "Provided between the input port 2 and the output port 3 is the resonator 4, the width w2 of which is smaller than the width w1 of the dielectric waveguide 1. By thus reducing the width of the waveguide than the waveguide width w1 capable of transmitting signals, that is, setting the same to be less than a half of a signal wavelength, electromagnetic waves having a wavelength larger than the signal wavelength is transmitted with loss at this narrowed portion." The examiner notes that using a change in width to filter out unwanted frequencies is definitionally a stepped impedance filter);
the feed section is coupled between the filter section and the port (fig. 2, waveguide 1 connecting filter 4 and output port 3);
the feed section has a transverse width that is larger than the transverse width of the filter section (fig. 2, w1 of filter 4 is smaller than w1 of waveguide 1); and
PNG
media_image1.png
396
429
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Liu teaches,
the filter section is configured as a stepped impedance filter (p. 2, para. 5, “The passband filter comprises symmetrically arranged first-step impedance resonator and the second-step impedance resonator”)…the filter section comprises a bent section (fig. 1, bent sections of stepped impedance filters 130, 140).
Uchimura and Liu 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 modify the transmission line network of Uchimura with the bent section of Liu because the filter of Liu effectively separates to enable only a desired band to pass through while reducing the size of the filter system (see Liu, p. 3, para. 6).
Regarding claim 2, Uchimura in view of Liu teaches the transmission line network of claim 1. Uchimura further teaches,
…wherein the transmission line network is configured as a waveguide network, including at least one of a substrate integrated waveguide network or an air-filled waveguide (para. 0020, “Further, according to the conventional method of manufacturing a multi-layered wiring substrate, the resonator and the filter can be easily contained in various kinds of multi-layered substrates”).
Regarding claim 7, Uchimura in view of Liu teaches the transmission line network of claim 1. Uchimura further teaches,
…wherein the filter section directly connects to the guiding segment so that the second end is located at the guiding segment and has a transverse width that corresponds to the transverse width of the filter section (fig. 11, reproduced above with respect to claim 5. Filter section 20 directly connects to the guiding section 16 via circled branching section).
Regarding claim 9, Uchimura in view of Liu teaches the transmission line network of claim 1. Uchimura further teaches,
…an additional branching section (fig. 11, reproduced below with additional numbering for clarity. See section highlighted with a rectangle, below), wherein:
the additional branching section has a first end, a second end and a third end (fig. 11, below, added numerals 164-166);
the first end couples the additional branching section to the third end of the branching section (fig. 11, first end 164 of the additional branching section connects to third end 163 of the branching section);
the second end couples the additional branching section to an additional filter section (fig. 11, second end 165 couples the additional branching section to filter section 21); and
the third end couples the additional branching section to the additional port (fig. 11, reproduced below. Third end 166 couples to port 167 connecting waveguide 16 to shortcut wall 19).
PNG
media_image2.png
396
429
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Uchimura teaches in view of Liu teaches the transmission line network of claim 9. Uchimura further teaches,
…wherein one of the filter section and the additional filter section couples the guiding section to a standing wave termination of the transmission line network (fig. 11, guiding section 16 is coupled to shortcut wall 19 via filter sections 20 and 21, coupled at points 162 and 165).
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons and using the same citations as claim 1, with the note that Uchimura teaches a radar antenna system for a vehicle (para. 0054, “As a result, the dielectric waveguide 1 can be of a size usable as…a transmitting line of an inter-vehicle radar.”).
Regarding claim 17, Uchimura as previously combined with Liu teaches,
A vehicle comprising the radar antenna system of claim 16 (para. 0054, “As a result, the dielectric waveguide 1 can be of a size usable as…a transmitting line of an inter-vehicle radar.”).
Claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons and using the same citations as claim 2.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchimura in view Liu and further in view of of Rosenberg (DE 19632366 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Uchimura in view of Liu teaches the transmission line network of claim 9. Uchimura as combined with Liu does not teach,
…wherein the second end of the branching section and the second end of the additional branching section are located at opposite sides from a longitudinal path connecting the first end of the branching section to the third end of the additional branching section.
Rosenberg teaches,
…wherein the second end of the branching section and the second end of the additional branching section are located at opposite sides from a longitudinal path connecting the first end of the branching section to the third end of the additional branching section (fig. 2, bandpass filters 8 and 9 are on the opposite side of guiding section 7 from bandpass filters 10 and 11).
Uchimura and Rosenberg 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 modify the transmission line network of Uchimura with the opposite branching directions of Rosenberg because the branching of Rosenberg increase the number of potential filters that can be placed on the same length of waveguide.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchimura in view of Liu and further in view of Vollbracht et al. (EP 3862771 A1), hereinafter Vollbracht.
Regarding claim 12, Uchimura in view of Liu teaches the transmission line network of claim 9. Uchimura in combination with Liu does not teach,
…wherein both the filter section and the additional filter section are configured to connect the same antenna to the guiding section.
Vollbracht teaches,
…wherein both the filter section and the additional filter section are configured to connect the same antenna to the guiding section (fig. 24, filter sections 310, 311 both connect to antenna 229 to waveguide 130).
Uchimura and Vollbracht 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 modify the transmission line network of Uchimura with the antenna of Vollbracht because the transmission line network of Uchimura is intended to be used with an antenna. Using a common antenna with the transmission line network of Uchimura, as in Vollbracht, reduces the size of the radar device by reducing the number of radiating elements needed.
Regarding claim 13, Uchimura in view of Liu and further in view of Vollbracht teaches the transmission line network of claim 12. Uchimura in view of Liu as previously combined with Vollbracht does not teach,
…wherein: the additional filter section couples a further port to the guiding section; and both the port and the further port are configured to connect to the same antenna of the radar antenna system
Vollbracht teaches,
…wherein: the additional filter section couples a further port to the guiding section (fig. 24, filter section 310 connects port on the right-hand side of the filter connecting the filter section to the antenna 229 to guiding section 130); and
both the port and the further port are configured to connect to the same antenna of the radar antenna system (fig. 24, ports for filter sections 310 and 311 both connect to antenna 229).
Uchimura and Vollbracht 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 modify the transmission line network of Uchimura with the antenna of Vollbracht because the transmission line network of Uchimura is intended to be used with an antenna. Using a common antenna with the transmission line network of Uchimura, as in Vollbracht, reduces the size of the radar device by reducing the number of radiating elements needed.
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