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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12 have been 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 § 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) 1-3 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seler et al. (US 2021/0225719).
In regard to Claim 1:
Seler discloses, in Figure 1, a waveguide segment (20) for a microwave antenna (16), wherein the waveguide segment (20) is embodied as an injection-molded part (Paragraph 0031) that is metallized with a solderable metal surface (28, Paragraph 0037),
wherein the waveguide segment (20) is configured to be electrically coupled to a monolithic microwave integrated circuit (MMIC) (14) via a solder connection (10) to a metal structure on a printed circuit board (12, Paragraph 0036).
In regard to Claim 2:
Seler discloses, in Figure 1, the waveguide segment according to claim 1, wherein the waveguide segment (20) includes an open channel (22) for assembly on the metal structure on the printed circuit board (12, Paragraph 0036).
In regard to Claim 3:
Seler discloses, in Figure 1, the waveguide segment according to claim 1, wherein the waveguide segment comprises connections for SMD assembly (Paragraph 0005).
In regard to Claim 8:
Seler discloses, in Figure 1, a method for producing at least one waveguide segment (20) for a microwave antenna (16), the method comprising the following steps:
producing the at least one waveguide segment (20) using injection molding (Paragraph 0031);
metallizing the at least one waveguide segment (20) with a solderable metal surface (28, Paragraph 0037),
wherein the waveguide segment (20) is configured to be electrically coupled to a monolithic microwave integrated circuit (MMIC) (14) via a solder connection (10) to a metal structure on a printed circuit board (12, Paragraph 0036).
In regard to Claim 9:
Seler discloses, in Figure 1, the method according to claim 8, wherein the at least one waveguide segment is produced using digital injection molding (DIM) technology (Paragraph 0066).
In regard to Claim 10:
Seler discloses, in Figure 1, the method according to claim 8, wherein a plurality of waveguide segments is produced in one panel (Figure 1 shows two waveguides 22 of waveguide component 20).
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) 4-7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seler et al. (US 2021/0225719), in view of Simms (US 2004/0120632).
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 (Paragraph 0022, "the present invention permits fully automatic SMT (surface mount technology) PCB manufacture").
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 waveguide assembly process taught by Simms with the waveguide taught by Seler, in order to take advantage of SMT processing's automated manufacture and smaller sizes without human intervention (Simms Paragraph 0010).
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 SID assembly system.
Simms further discloses wherein the waveguide segment is configured to be handled by an SMD assembly system (Paragraph 0022, "the present invention permits fully automatic SMT (surface mount technology) PCB manufacture").
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 to be precisely positioned in an automated assembly process (Paragraph 0020).
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 (Paragraph 0022, "the present invention permits fully automatic SMT (surface mount technology) PCB manufacture").
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.
Simms discloses wherein the waveguide segments are packaged, after being separated, in packaging that is compatible with an automated assembly process (Paragraph 0022, "the present invention permits fully automatic SMT (surface mount technology) PCB manufacture").
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 waveguide assembly process taught by Simms with the waveguide taught by Seler, in order to take advantage of SMT processing's automated manufacture and smaller sizes without human intervention (Simms Paragraph 0010).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seler et al. (US 2021/0225719) and Simms (US 2004/0120632) as applied to claims 4-7 and 11 above, and further in view of Ice (US 2006/0032665).
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 discloses wherein the packaging that is compatible with the automated assembly process is a tape and reel packaging (Paragraph 0095).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the tape and reel packaging taught by Ice with the waveguide and waveguide assembly process taught by Seler and Simms, in order to reduce the cost of manufacture and decrease the overall cost to the consumer (Ice Paragraph 0101).
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 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 2896