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 04/24/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-15, 18-34 are currently pending. Claims 16-17 have been cancelled. Amendments to the claims have overcome the objections and most of the 112(b) rejections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 11/28/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-15, 18-34 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: “wherein the phase-adjustment elements” (line 10) should read “wherein the at least one phase-adjustment element” for consistency.
Claim 19: “for example” should be deleted.
Claims 2-15, 18, 20-34 are objected to due to their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 8 and 9 recite “the phase shifts produced by the array of waveguides being adjusted, at least partially, for some or each of the waveguides, by means of said phase-adjustment elements”. It is not clear what is meant by “phase shifts … being adjusted, at least partially. Clarification is required. Claims 8 and 9 are interpreted by the Examiner as best understood.
Claim 10 (dependent on claim 1) recites the limitation “the different waveguides”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 is rejected due to dependency.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomez et al. (WO 2019/229515A1 – of record; “Gomez”) in view Zanichkowsky (US 3,218,580; “Zanichkowsky” or “Z”).
Claim 1: Gomez discloses (figs. 1 & 3A shown below) A radiofrequency module (¶1, “Radio frequency module”), comprising:
a first layer (3) comprising an array of radiating elements (30) (¶67, “the first layer 3 comprises a two-dimensional array of N radiating elements 30 (antennas)”), each radiating element (30) having a cross section supporting at least one wave propagation mode (¶14, “a first layer comprising a network of radiating elements, each radiating element having a cross-section capable of supporting at least one wave propagation mode,”);
and a second layer (4) forming an array of waveguides (40) (¶68, “The second layer 4 contains a network of 40 waveguides.”), each waveguide being connected to one radiating element of the first layer (3) (see fig. 3A),
the waveguides (40) being of different lengths (¶37, “the different waveguides have different lengths) (shown in fig. 3A).”
PNG
media_image1.png
405
368
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
239
286
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Gomez does not disclose “wherein one or more of the waveguides of the array of waveguides comprises at least one phase-adjustment element designed to adjust the phase shift of the waveguides with respect to each other at a nominal frequency of the waveguide without modifying their space requirement or the shape or dimensions of their external surface cross section, wherein the phase-adjustment elements make it possible to adjust the phase shifts of the waveguides with respect to each other so that all of the waveguides are isophasic at the wavelength in question, or to adjust the phase shifts of the waveguides so as to produce a controlled phase shift with respect to each other”.
Zanichkowsky teaches (fig. 1 below) a waveguide for microwave transmission, for channeling a signal to a plurality of antennas (col. 1, lines 8-18). Z teaches “wherein one or more of the waveguides (channels 36-50) of the array of waveguides comprises at least one phase-adjustment element designed to adjust the phase shift of the waveguides with respect to each other at a nominal frequency of the waveguide (col. 1, lines 45-, “The arrangement is further characterized in that each waveguide channel at the output end of the element is provided with a dielectric vane 51 which can be adjustably positioned to select a desired phase shift in the em wave carried by that channel) without modifying their space requirement or the shape or dimensions of their external surface cross section (dielectric vanes 51 are positioned within the channels), wherein the phase-adjustment elements (51) make it possible to adjust the phase shifts of the waveguides with respect to each other so that all of the waveguides are isophasic at the wavelength in question, or to adjust the phase shifts of the waveguides so as to produce a controlled phase shift with respect to each other (col. 3, lines 14-, “A dielectric vane 51 is adjustably mounted to effect a phase shift in the output power of the channel, the degree of shift depending on the position of the vane. A similar vane may be placed in each of the output channels and the degree of phase shift in each channel individually determined. Of course, if a phase shift is not desired in a particular channel, no vane would be provided therein”)”.
PNG
media_image3.png
365
426
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Z to the RF module of Gomez, wherein one or more of the waveguides of the array of waveguides comprises at least one phase-adjustment element designed to adjust the phase shift of the waveguides with respect to each other at a nominal frequency of the waveguide without modifying their space requirement or the shape or dimensions of their external surface cross section, wherein the phase-adjustment elements make it possible to adjust the phase shifts of the waveguides with respect to each other so that all of the waveguides are isophasic at the wavelength in question, or to adjust the phase shifts of the waveguides so as to produce a controlled phase shift with respect to each other. The motivation to do so is to provide a compact, relatively cheap system with a low insertion loss (col. 1 of Z).
Claim 2: The modified Gomez teaches the radiofrequency module as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one phase-adjustment element (51) is arranged protruding from the inner surface of said waveguides (35-50) (col. 3, lines 14-, “A dielectric vane 51 is adjustably mounted on a pin 52” – see fig. 3 of Z below)”.
PNG
media_image4.png
158
544
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Z to the RF module of Gomez in view of Z, wherein the at least one phase-adjustment element is arranged protruding from the inner surface of said waveguides. The motivation to do so is to provide a compact, relatively cheap system with a low insertion loss (col. 1 of Z).
Claim 3: The modified Gomez teaches the radiofrequency module as claimed in claim 1, wherein said at least one phase-adjustment element (51) is arranged on the inner surface of said waveguide (35-50) in such a way as to vary the inner diameter of the waveguide between a maximum diameter value and a minimum diameter value over the length of the waveguide or a portion of its length (fig. 3 of Z, dielectric vanes 51 vary inner diameter of waveguides 35-50 over a portion of their lengths).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Z to the RF module of Gomez in view of Z, wherein said at least one phase-adjustment element is arranged on the inner surface of said waveguide in such a way as to vary the inner diameter of the waveguide between a maximum diameter value and a minimum diameter value over the length of the waveguide or a portion of its length. The motivation to do so is to provide a compact, relatively cheap system with a low insertion loss (col. 1 of Z).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomez in view of Zanichkowsky, and further in view of Lange (US 2011/0133863 – of record).
Claim 4: the modified Gomez teaches the radiofrequency module as claimed in claim 1.
Gomez does not disclose “wherein said one or more waveguides comprises more than one phase-adjustment elements, arranged on the same section of the waveguide or offset along the waveguide”.
Lange teaches (fig. 4A below) phase-adjustment elements (431, 432) in a waveguide (400) (abstract, “The length of the projections may be selected to induce about a 90-degree phase delay”). The phase-adjustment elements (431, 432) are arranged on the same section of the waveguide (400).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Lange to the RF module of Gomez in view of Z, wherein said one or more waveguides comprises more than one phase-adjustment elements, arranged on the same section of the waveguide or offset along the waveguide. Doing so allows for better control of the phase shift in the waveguide (abstract of Lange).
PNG
media_image5.png
399
285
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 5: the modified Gomez teaches the radiofrequency module as claimed in claim 1.
Gomez does not disclose “wherein said at least one phase-adjustment element is oriented along an axis different from the longitudinal axis of the corresponding waveguide, forming an angle of between approximately 10 degrees and 40 degrees with the longitudinal axis”.
Lange teaches (fig. 6A below and ¶57) phase-adjustment elements (serrated portions 630) oriented along an axis different from the longitudinal axis (652) of the corresponding waveguide (600). The phase-adjustment elements shown in fig. 6A form an angle of around 45 degrees. However, Lange also teaches (¶57) that the projections (630) may vary in height and/or width, thereby changing the angle formed between the phase-adjustment elements (630) and the longitudinal axis of the waveguide.
PNG
media_image6.png
392
315
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Lange to the RF module of Gomez in view of Z, wherein said at least one phase-adjustment element is oriented along an axis different from the longitudinal axis of the corresponding waveguide, forming an angle of between approximately 10 degrees and 40 degrees with the longitudinal axis. Doing so may enhance the bandwidth of the waveguide (¶57 of Lange).
Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 6 and 8-15, 18-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomez et al. (WO 2019/229515A1 – of record; “Gomez”) in view Zanichkowsky (US 3,218,580; “Zanichkowsky” or “Z”), and further in view of Delgado (US 2013/0120086 – of record; “Delgado”).
Claim 6: the modified Gomez teaches the radiofrequency module as claimed in claim 1.
Gomez does not explicitly disclose “wherein the shape of a transverse section of said at least one phase-adjustment element is selected from a rounded concave shape, a rounded convex shape, a polygonal shape, or a combination of these shapes”.
Delgado teaches (fig. 1 below) a phase-adjustment element (septum 3) to adjust a phase shift in a waveguide (¶13 “the phase shift induced by the septum”) without modifying a waveguide’s space requirement or the shape or dimensions of its cross section (the septum is located inside the waveguide and is a separate portion, so does not modify the waveguide’s cross section or increase the space occupied by the waveguide).
Delgado teaches (fig. 1) “wherein the shape of a transverse section of said at least one phase-adjustment element (3) is a polygonal shape”.
PNG
media_image7.png
279
393
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Delgado to the RF module of Gomez in view of Z, wherein the shape of a transverse section of said at least one phase-adjustment element is selected from a rounded concave shape, a rounded convex shape, a polygonal shape, or a combination of these shapes. Changing the shape of the phase-adjustment element allows for the phase shift to be controlled (¶20 of Delgado).
Claim 8: the modified Gomez teaches the radiofrequency module as claimed in claim 1.
As best understood, the modified Gomez teaches “wherein the waveguides (40) of the array of waveguides comprise longitudinal inner structures (¶72 of Gomez, “the waveguides 40 have a square section with four symmetrically arranged grooves on the inner sides”) that do not allow the phase shift to be adjusted, the phase shifts produced by the array of waveguides being adjusted, at least partially, for some or each of the waveguides, by means of said phase-adjustment elements (Z teaches phase-adjustment elements 51 which may not be used in a waveguide – see col. 3, lines 20-21)”.
Claim 9: the modified Gomez teaches the radiofrequency module as claimed in claim 1.
The modified Gomez teaches, as best understood, (fig. 3A) “wherein the different waveguides have different lengths and/or curvatures (¶39, “The curvature of the different waveguides of the second layer can be variable. For example, waveguides at the periphery can be more curved than waveguides at the Center”) and identical cross-sections (see fig. 3A), the phase shifts produced by the array of waveguides being adjusted, at least partially, for some or each of the waveguides, by means of said phase-adjustment elements (Delgado teaches phase-adjustment elements 3)”.
Gomez does not explicitly disclose “which remain incapable of adjusting differences in frequency response and/or phase differences caused by the different lengths and/or different curvatures of the waveguides”.
However, ¶92 of Gomez states “these differences can be compensated for by the electronics powering each port 60 or processing the received signals”. Therefore, Gomez teaches another method of adjusting (eliminating/correcting) differences in frequency response and/or phase differences other than by controlling the cross-sections of the waveguides.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Gomez to the RF module of Gomez in view of Z, wherein the different waveguides having different lengths and/or different curvatures and identical or different transverse section, which remain incapable of eliminating or correcting differences in frequency response and/or phase differences caused by the different lengths and/or different curvatures of the waveguide. Doing so provides a device that allows for a compact device that can be manufactured using additive manufacturing.
Claim 10: the modified Gomez teaches the radiofrequency module as claimed in claim 1.
Gomez discloses (fig. 3B below) “wherein the different waveguides (40) have an identical transverse section (according to ¶71 of the instant Specification, the shape of the transverse section refers to the outer contour of a given waveguide)”.
PNG
media_image8.png
255
433
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Claim 11: the modified Gomez teaches the radiofrequency module as claimed in claim 1. Gomez discloses “wherein said waveguides comprise a core (¶104, “module 1 comprises a core”)”.
Gomez does not disclose “said at least one phase-adjustment element being directly linked to or integrated into the core”.
Delgado teaches (fig. 4A) phase-adjustment elements (422, 432, 421, 431) directly linked to the sides (“core”) of the waveguide (410) (fig. 8, “couple first and second ridges .. to interior surface of waveguide body”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Delgado to the RF module of Gomez in view of Z, said at least one phase-adjustment element being directly linked to or integrated into the core. Doing so allows for the RF module to be manufactured using an additive manufacturing process to produce a monolithic module.
Claim 12: the modified Gomez teaches the radiofrequency module as claimed in claim 11.
The modified Gomez teaches “wherein the surfaces of the core and said at least one phase-adjustment element are covered with a conductive material (¶104 of Gomez, “module 1 comprises a core made of polymer, PEEK, metal or ceramic, and a conductive envelope deposited on the faces of this core.”)”.
Claim 13: the modified Gomez teaches the radiofrequency module as claimed in claim 1.
Gomez discloses (fig. 3A) “wherein some of the waveguides are non-straight (¶38, “The waveguides of the second layer are preferably curved”), such that the second layer (4) is flared”.
Claim 14: the modified Gomez teaches the radiofrequency module as claimed in claim 1.
Gomez discloses (fig. 3A) “wherein the curvature of the different waveguides of the second layer varies within the module (¶39, “The curvature of the different waveguides of the second layer can be variable. For example, waveguides at the periphery can be more curved than waveguides at the center.”)”.
Claim 15: the modified Gomez teaches the radiofrequency module as claimed in claim 1.
Gomez discloses (figs. 1 and 3A, & ¶¶66-68) “comprising a fourth layer (6) with ports (60) connected to the waveguides (40) at the end of the waveguides opposite the radiating elements (30), the surface area of the first layer (3) being smaller than the surface area of the fourth layer (6) in such a way that the waveguides (40) move towards each other between the fourth layer and the first layer”.
Claim 18: the modified Gomez teaches the radiofrequency module as claimed in claim 1.
Gomez does not explicitly disclose “wherein said at least one phase-adjustment element is non-symmetrical and/or arranged in the waveguide in an irregular manner at different intervals”.
Delgado teaches (fig. 1) “wherein said at least one phase-adjustment element (3) is non-symmetrical”.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Delgado to the RF module of Gomez in view of Z wherein said at least one phase-adjustment element is non-symmetrical. Doing so allows for the phase shift in a waveguide to be influenced according to the requirements of a user (¶20 of Delgado).
Claim 19: the modified Gomez teaches the radiofrequency module as claimed in claim 1.
The modified Gomez teaches “wherein said at least one phase-adjustment element makes it possible to use the phase shifts in the absence of an array of active electronic phase shifting circuits, in order to control the relative phase shift between radiating elements (see Examiner’s note below) and to control beamforming (¶69 of Gomez teaches that the RF module (1) can be used as part of a beamforming network)”.
Examiner’s note: It is stated in para. [101] of the instant Specification “the different waveguides 40 in the second layer 4 may have different lengths and curvatures, which influence their frequency response curve. These differences may be compensated for by the electronic system supplying each port 60 or processing the received signals. However, these differences are preferably at least partially compensated for by adapting one or more of the shape, number, dimensions and geometry of the phase-adjustment elements 500 of the present description. According to one advantageous arrangement, the presence of the phase-adjustment elements eliminates the need for electronic elements dedicated to correcting the phase shift”. As the modified Gomez teaches the presence of the phase-adjustment elements in a waveguide, the modified Gomez also teaches “in the absence of an array of active electronic phase shifting circuits”.
Claim 20: the modified Gomez teaches the radiofrequency module as claimed in claim 1.
Gomez discloses “wherein the pitch (p1) between two radiating elements (30) of the first layer (3) is less than λ/2, λ being the wavelength at the maximum operating frequency (¶83, “The pitch p1 between two radiant elements 30 of the first layer 3 is preferably less than or equal to l/2, l being the wavelength at the maximum frequency for which the module is intended.”)”.
Claim 21: the modified Gomez teaches the radiofrequency module as claimed in claim 1.
Gomez discloses “wherein the pitch (p1) between two radiating elements (30) varies within the radiofrequency module (¶34, “The step (p1) between two radiating elements can be variable within the module.”)”.
Claim 22: the modified Gomez teaches the radiofrequency module as claimed in claim 1.
Gomez does not disclose, in the embodiment of figs. 1 & 3A, “wherein the radiating elements (30) of the first layer are non-ridged and constituted by open waveguides with a square, rectangular, circular, hexagonal or octagonal cross section, or pyramid-shaped or spline-shaped horns”.
Gomez discloses, in the embodiment shown in fig. 11 (shown below), “wherein the radiating elements (30) of the first layer (3) are non-ridged and constituted by pyramid-shaped horns (¶33, “The radiating elements of the first layer can also be non-striated and consist of open waveguides or square, circular, pyramidal, spline-shaped horns.”)”.
PNG
media_image9.png
362
385
media_image9.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute the pyramid-shaped horns of the embodiment of fig. 11 for the non-ridged radiating elements of the embodiment of figs. 1&3A in the RF module of Gomez in view of Z. Doing so allows for the creation of an RF module with large radiant elements without increasing the size of the ports and the network of active elements connected to these ports (¶74 of Gomez).
Claim 23: the modified Gomez teaches the radiofrequency module as claimed in claim 15.
Gomez discloses (fig. 1) “comprising a third layer (5) interposed between the second layer (4) and the fourth layer (6) and comprising an array of elements (50) providing cross-section adaptation between the cross section of the output of the ports (60, 60A, 60B) of the fourth layer (6) and the differently shaped cross section of the waveguides (40) (¶31, “The third layer may also include a network of elements performing a cross-sectional adaptation between the output cross-section of the ports of the fourth layer and the differently shaped cross-section of the waveguides.”)”.
Claim 24: the modified Gomez teaches the radiofrequency module as claimed in claim 15.
Gomez discloses (fig. 1) “comprising a third layer (5) interposed between the second layer (4) and the fourth layer (6) and comprising an array of elements (50) comprising a polarizer (¶68, “the third layer 5 comprises a network of elements 50, for example polarizers”)”.
Claim 25: the modified Gomez teaches the radiofrequency module as claimed in claim 1.
Gomez discloses “comprising polarizers between the first (3) and second layers (4) (¶70, “it is also possible to use a layer of polarizers between the first layer 3 with the radiating elements and the second layer 4 with the waveguides”)”.
Claim 26: the modified Gomez teaches the radiofrequency module as claimed in claim 15.
Gomez discloses “comprising a third layer (5) interposed between the second layer (4) and the fourth layer (6) and comprising a filter (¶98, “The elements 50 of the third layer 5 can also perform a transformation of the signal, for example using other waveguide elements such as filters”)”.
Claim 27: the modified Gomez teaches the radiofrequency module as claimed in claim 1.
Gomez discloses (fig. 3B) “wherein each waveguide (40) has a square transverse section”.
Claim 28: the modified Gomez teaches the radiofrequency module as claimed in claim 1.
Gomez discloses “wherein each waveguide (40) is designed to transmit either only a fundamental mode or a fundamental mode and a single degenerate mode (¶36, “Each waveguide in the second layer is preferably designed to transmit either only a fundamental mode or a fundamental mode and a single degenerate mode.”)”.
Claim 29: the modified Gomez teaches the radiofrequency module as claimed in claim 1.
Gomez discloses (fig. 3A) “wherein a first end of all of the waveguides (40) lies in a first plane, a second end of all of the waveguides lying in a second plane”.
Claim 30: the modified Gomez teaches the radiofrequency module as claimed in claim 1.
Gomez discloses “wherein the radiofrequency module has been produced by additive manufacturing (¶42, “The module is advantageously a module created by additive manufacturing”)”.
Claim 31: the modified Gomez teaches the radiofrequency module as claimed in claim 1.
Gomez discloses “wherein the array of waveguides (40) forms a single-piece component (¶49, “The module is preferably monolithic”)”.
Claim 32: The modified Gomez discloses “A method for producing a radiofrequency module as claimed in claim 1 (see fig. 3A of Gomez and fig. 1 of Z), comprising modeling by means of one or more algorithms (¶47 of Gomez, “defining a model of the part”; ¶115 of Gomez, “The shape of module 1 can be determined by a computer file stored in a computer data medium and allowing control of an additive manufacturing device”) (a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the step-by-step instructions used to manufacture an additively manufactured device comprises an algorithm)”.
Gomez does not disclose “modeling at least some of the characteristics of said at least one phase-adjustment element by means of one or more algorithms, said characteristics being selected from the number, dimensions, arrangement and shape of the phase-adjustment elements”.
Delgado teaches “comprising modeling at least some of the characteristics of said at least one phase-adjustment element, said characteristics being selected from the number, dimensions, arrangement and shape of the phase-adjustment elements (¶38, “the length and shape of the septum 3 can be determined using computer simulation”)”.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Delgado to the method of Gomez in view of Z, comprising modeling at least some of the characteristics of said at least one phase-adjustment element, said characteristics being selected from the number, dimensions, arrangement and shape of the phase-adjustment elements. Doing so allows for the RF module to be manufactured using additive manufacturing, which makes it possible to produce complex shapes (¶44 of Gomez).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomez in view of Zanichkowsky, and further in view of Stern (US 4389650 – of record).
Claim 7: the modified Gomez teaches the radiofrequency module as claimed in claim 1.
Gomez does not disclose “wherein the proportion of the inner surface of the waveguide occupied by one or more phase-adjustment elements may vary from 10% to 100% for a given transverse section of the waveguide”.
Stern teaches (fig. 4 below) a rectangular waveguide with a phase-adjustment element as shown in fig. 2 below. From fig. 4, it can be seen that the proportion of the inner surface occupied by the phase-adjustment elements is approximately 10%.
PNG
media_image10.png
113
97
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
147
244
media_image11.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Stern to the RF module of Gomez in view of Z, wherein the proportion of the inner surface occupied by one or more phase-adjustment elements may vary from 10% to 100% for a given transverse section of the waveguide. Doing so allows for the phase-shift of the waveguide to be controlled according to the requirements of a user.
Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomez in view of Zanichkowsky, and further in view of Voit et al. (US 2022/0088873 – of record; “Voit”).
Claim 33: the modified Gomez teaches the production method as claimed in claim 32.
Gomez does not disclose “wherein the modeling involves an artificial intelligence or deep learning module”.
Voit teaches (¶90) “software may include a module for processing CAD data and representing 3D geometry using implicit data representations, deep learning networks, and adaptive, hierarchical data structures, which may optimize and accelerate a design life cycle of product development in additive manufacturing”.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Voit to the method of Gomez in view of Z, wherein the modeling involves an artificial intelligence or deep learning module. Doing so does not require a designer to add each edge, vertex and topological structure for a 3D objection, but instead use broad sweeping design guidelines and neural networks for determining edges and vertices of the 3D object (¶90 of Voit).
Claim 34: the modified Gomez teaches the production method as claimed in claim 32.
Gomez discloses “comprising transferring at least some of the parameters from the modeling to an additive manufacturing device (¶115, “The shape of module 1 can be determined by a computer file stored in a computer data medium and allowing control of an additive manufacturing device.”)”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 N HAMADYK whose telephone number is (703)756-1672. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Dimary Lopez can be reached at (571) 270-7893. 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 N HAMADYK/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights