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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 25 June 2026 has been entered.
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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ahmadloo et al. (US 2021/0351499).
In regard to Claim 1:
Ahmadloo discloses, in Figure 6, a waveguide segment for a microwave antenna (¶ 0003), wherein the waveguide segment is embodied as an injection-molded part that is metallized with a solderable metal surface (¶ 0004),
wherein the waveguide segment (645) is configured to be electrically and mechanically coupled to a first side of a printed circuit board (PCB) (640 top side), and
wherein a monolithic microwave integrated circuit (MMIC) (642, ¶ 0006) is configured to be electrically and mechanically coupled to a second side of the PCB (640 bottom side) that is opposite the first side (640 top side).
In regard to Claim 2:
Ahmadloo discloses, in Figure 6, the waveguide segment according to claim 1, wherein the waveguide segment includes an open channel for assembly on the metal structure on the printed circuit board (640, ¶ 0005).
In regard to Claim 8:
Ahmadloo discloses, in Figure 6, a method for producing at least one waveguide segment for a microwave antenna, the method comprising the following steps:
producing the at least one waveguide segment (645) using injection molding (¶ 0004);
metallizing the at least one waveguide segment (645) with a solderable metal surface (¶ 0005), wherein the waveguide segment (645) is configured to be electrically and mechanically coupled to a first side of a printed circuit board (PCB) (640 top side), and
wherein a monolithic microwave integrated circuit (MMIC) (642, ¶ 0006) is configured to be electrically and mechanically coupled to a second side of the PCB (640 bottom side) that is opposite the first side (640 top side).
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.
Claim(s) 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmadloo et al. (US 2021/0351499), in view of Simms (US 2004/0120632).
In regard to Claim 3:
All of the claim limitations have been discussed with respect to Claim 1 above, except for wherein the waveguide segment comprises connections for SMD assembly.
Simms discloses wherein the waveguide segment comprises connections for SMD assembly (¶ 0006, where SMT is the process for mounting SMD components onto a PCB).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the SMD assembly taught by Simms with the waveguide taught by Ahmadloo, since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
In regard to Claim 4:
All of the claim limitations have been discussed with respect to Claim 1 above, except for wherein the waveguide segment is configured to be handled by an automated assembly system.
Simms discloses wherein the waveguide segment is configured to be handled by an automated assembly system (¶ 0022).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the automated assembly system taught by Simms with the waveguide taught by Ahmadloo, since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
In regard to Claim 5:
All of the claim limitations have been discussed with respect to Claims 1 and 4 above, except for wherein the waveguide segment is configured to be handled by an SMD assembly system.
Simms further discloses wherein the waveguide segment is configured to be handled by an SMD assembly system (¶ 0006, where SMT is the process for mounting SMD components onto a PCB).
In regard to Claim 6:
All of the claim limitations have been discussed with respect to Claims 1 and 4 above, except for wherein the waveguide segment is configured in such a way that it is optically recognized in the automated assembly system to be precisely positioned in an automated assembly process.
Simms further discloses wherein the waveguide segment is configured in such a way that it is optically recognized in the automated assembly system (¶ 0010) to be precisely positioned in an automated assembly process (¶ 0009).
In regard to Claim 7:
All of the claim limitations have been discussed with respect to Claims 1, 4, and 6 above, except for wherein the automated assembly process is an SMD assembly process.
Simms further discloses wherein the automated assembly process is an SMD assembly process (¶ 0009-0010).
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmadloo et al. (US 2021/0351499), in view of Ice (US 2006/0032665).
In regard to Claim 10:
All of the claim limitations have been discussed with respect to Claim 8 above, except for wherein a plurality of waveguide segments is produced in one panel.
Ice discloses, in Figure 4, wherein a plurality of waveguide segments is produced in one panel (12a is one panel for the waveguide segment)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the automated assembly system taught by Simms with the waveguide taught by Ahmadloo, since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
In regard to Claim 11:
All of the claim limitations have been discussed with respect to Claims 8 and 10 above, except for wherein the waveguide segments are packaged, after being separated, in packaging that is compatible with an automated assembly process.
Ice further discloses wherein the waveguide segments are packaged, after being separated, in packaging that is compatible with an automated assembly process (¶ 0088).
In regard to Claim 12:
All of the claim limitations have been discussed with respect to Claims 8 and 10-11 above, except for wherein the packaging that is compatible with the automated assembly process is a tape and reel packaging.
Ice further discloses wherein the packaging that is compatible with the automated assembly process is a tape and reel packaging (¶ 0095).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 13-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regard to Claim 9:
None of the prior art or combination thereof teaches or fairly suggests the following features in combination with the other limitations of the claims:
wherein the at least one waveguide segment is produced using digital injection molding (DIM) technology.
In regard to Claim 13:
None of the prior art or combination thereof teaches or fairly suggests the following features in combination with the other limitations of the claims:
wherein the waveguide segment at least partially defines one or more channels and one or more waveguide openings, and wherein the one or more waveguide openings are laterally offset from the one or more channels in a direction perpendicular to the PCB.
In regard to Claim 14:
None of the prior art or combination thereof teaches or fairly suggests the following features in combination with the other limitations of the claims:
wherein the waveguide segment cooperates with the PCB to define a channel extending between the MMIC and one or more waveguide openings.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John W Poos whose telephone number is (571)270-5077. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-5.
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, Jessica Han can be reached at 571-272-2078. 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.
/JOHN W POOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights