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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/25/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3, 7, 14-15, 21, 23-24, 26-27, and 29-31 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2: “The module” should read “The radiofrequency module”.
Claim 3: “the inner diameter” should read “the inner diameter of the waveguide” for clarification purposes.
Claim 7: “the inner diameter” should read “the inner diameter of the waveguide” for clarification purposes.
Claim 14: “the module” should read “the radiofrequency module”.
Claim 15: “indeed” should be removed from line 6.
Claim 21: “the module” should read “the radiofrequency module”.
Claim 27: “de” should be removed from line 2.
Claim 29: “lying” in line 3 should read “lies”, for consistency.
Claim 30 should read “wherein the radiofrequency module is produced by additive manufacturing”.
Claim 31: “the assembly of waveguides” should read “the array of waveguides”.
Claims 23-24, and 26 are objected to due to their dependency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: at least one phase-adjustment element designed to eliminate or correct 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 cross section, in claim 1 and claims dependent thereon.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-34 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 1, 9 and 17 recite “at least one phase-adjustment element designed to eliminate or correct the phase shift of the waveguides with respect to each other”. However, it is not clear what is meant by “correct” the phase shift, as the desired phase shift is not specified in the claim. The difference between the elimination of phase shifts and correction of phase shifts of the waveguides with respect to each other is also not understood. The metes and bounds of this claim are not clearly defined and claims 1, 9 and 17 are therefore indefinite.
“Correct the phase shift of the waveguides” is interpreted by the Examiner as “to adjust a phase shift of the waveguides”.
Claim 7 recites “the proportion … may vary from 10% to 100%, preferably from 20% to 100%”. In this case, the use of a narrow numerical range that falls within a broader range in the same claim is indefinite, as the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth (see MPEP 2173.05(c)).
Claims 8 and 9 recite “wherein the waveguides of the array of waveguides comprise longitudinal inner structures that do not allow the phase shift to be eliminated or controlled, the phase shifts produced by the array of waveguides being eliminated or corrected, 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 eliminated or corrected, at least partially”. How is it possible for the phase-adjustment elements to partially correct or eliminate a phase shift? Clarification is required.
Claims 8 and 9 are interpreted by the Examiner “as best understood”.
Claim 11 recites “wherein said waveguides comprise a core, said at least one phase-adjustment element being directly linked to or integrated into the core”. However, claim 1, on which claim 11 depends, recites “without changing the shape or dimensions of their cross section”. If the core of a waveguide includes a phase-adjustment element, then either the shape or dimensions of the cross-section of the waveguide will be changed. Clarification is required.
Claim 10 (dependent on claim 1) recites the limitation “the different waveguides”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 13 and 14 (dependent on claim 1) recite the limitation “the second layer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 34 (dependent on claim 32) recites the limitation “the parameters”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-6, 12, 15-16, 18-33 are rejected due to their 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, 6, and 8-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IDS document Gomez et al. (WO 2019/229515A1 – published 5 December 2019; hereinafter Gomez) in view of Delgado (US 2013/0120086).
Claim 1: Gomez discloses (fig.1 and the first embodiment of fig. 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
In the first embodiment 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 eliminate or correct the phase shift of the waveguides with respect to each other at nominal frequency of the waveguide”. However, Gomez teaches (¶37) “different waveguides have different lengths and cross-sections so as to compensate for the phase variation produced by the different lengths. The different waveguides are preferably isophase, that is to say the phase shifts across the different waveguides are identical”. Gomez also teaches (¶71) a “nominal frequency”, that is, operating frequency at which the module (1) is intended to be used.
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 first embodiment of 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 eliminate or correct the phase shift of the waveguides with respect to each other at nominal frequency of the waveguide. Doing so allows the gain of a direct radiating array (DRA) antenna to be controlled.
Gomez does not explicitly disclose “at least one phase-adjustment element designed to eliminate or correct 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 cross section”.
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).
PNG
media_image3.png
279
393
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 Delgado to the RF module of Gomez, at least one phase-adjustment element designed to eliminate or correct 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 cross section. Doing so provides a device that is compact, has a low mass and is cost-efficient to manufacture (¶6 of Delgado).
Claim 2: the modified Gomez teaches the radiofrequency module as claimed in claim 1.
Gomez does not disclose “wherein the at least one phase-adjustment element is arranged protruding from the inner surface of said waveguides”.
Delgado teaches (figs. 1 and 3) “wherein the at least one phase-adjustment element is arranged protruding from the inner surface of said waveguides (one portion of element 3 placed at the inner surface of waveguide 2 and protrudes towards the center of the waveguide)”.
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 Delgado, wherein the at least one phase-adjustment element is arranged protruding from the inner surface of said waveguides. Doing so provides a device that is compact, has a low mass and is cost-efficient to manufacture (¶6 of Delgado).
Claim 3: the modified Gomez teaches the radiofrequency module as claimed in claim 1. Gomez does not teach “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 between a maximum diameter (dmax) value and a minimum diameter (dmin) value over the length of the waveguide or a portion of its length”.
Delgado teaches (figs. 1-3) “wherein said at least one phase-adjustment element (3) is arranged on the inner surface of said waveguide (2) in such a way as to vary the inner diameter between a maximum diameter (dmax) value and a minimum diameter (dmin) value over the length of the waveguide or a portion of its length (shown at least in fig. 1, where the inner dimensions of the waveguide 2 are altered by the phase-adjustment element 3)”.
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 Delgado, 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 between a maximum diameter (dmax) value and a minimum diameter (dmin) value over the length of the waveguide or a portion of its length. Doing so allows for the phase shift induced by the phase-adjustment element to be controlled (¶20 of 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) “wherein the shape of a transverse section of said at least one phase-adjustment element (3) is a polygonal shape”.
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 Delgado, 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.
The modified Gomez teaches, as best understood, “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 eliminated or controlled, the phase shifts produced by the array of waveguides being eliminated or corrected, at least partially, for some or each of the waveguides, by means of said phase-adjustment elements (Delgado teaches phase-adjustment elements 3)”.
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 eliminated or corrected, 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 eliminating or correcting 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 Delgado, 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_image4.png
255
433
media_image4.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 Delgado, 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 16: the modified Gomez teaches the radiofrequency module as claimed in claim 1.
In the first embodiment, Gomez does not disclose, “wherein said phase-adjustment elements make it possible to eliminate the phase shifts of the waveguides, so that all of the waveguides are isophasic at the wavelength in question”.
However, Gomez teaches (¶37) “the different waveguides have different lengths and different cross-sections so as to compensate for the phase variation produced by the different lengths. The different waveguides are preferably isophase, that is to say that the phase shifts across the different waveguides are identical”)”.
Delgado teaches (¶20) a phase-adjustment element (3) that can adjust the phase inside a waveguide, and that the phase-adjustment element (3) is not restricted to a particular shape or size.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the phase-adjustment element of Delgado could be sized and/or shaped to produce a desired phase shift in the waveguide such that the phase shift differences between individual waveguides are eliminated.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the phase-adjustment elements of Delgado in the waveguides of the RF module of Gomez in view of Delgado to eliminate the phase shifts of the waveguides, so that all of the waveguides are isophasic at the wavelength in question. Doing so allows for better beam control and a more predictable beam shape.
Claim 17: the modified Gomez teaches the radiofrequency module as claimed in claim 1.
The modified Gomez teaches “wherein said phase-adjustment elements make it possible to correct the phase shifts of the waveguides”.
The modified Gomez does not explicitly teach “so as to produce a controlled phase shift”. However, Gomez teaches (¶94) that it is possible to have different waveguides of different lengths and/or producing different phase shifts in order to control the relative phase shift between radiating elements, for example to control beamforming.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use phase adjustment elements so as to produce a controlled shift in the radiofrequency module of Gomez in view of Delgado, as taught by Gomez. Doing so allows for a compact direct radiating array (DRA) which can be used beamforming (¶¶3-4 of Gomez).
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 Delgado, 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, for example, 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 fig. 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_image5.png
362
385
media_image5.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 fig. 3A in the RF module of Gomez in view of Delgado. 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 Delgado), comprising modeling by means of one or more algorithms (¶47, “defining a model of the part”; ¶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”) (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 Delgado, 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).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomez in view of Delgado, and further in view of Lange (US 2011/0133863).
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 Delgado, 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_image6.png
399
285
media_image6.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_image7.png
392
315
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 Lange to the RF module of Gomez in view of Delgado, 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).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomez in view of Delgado, and further in view of Stern (US 4389650).
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 occupied by one or more phase-adjustment elements may vary from 10% to 100%, preferably from 20% 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_image8.png
113
97
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
147
244
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 apply the teachings of Stern to the RF module of Gomez in view of Delgado, wherein the proportion of the inner surface occupied by one or more phase-adjustment elements may vary from 10% to 100%, preferably from 20% 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 Delgado, and further in view of Voit et al. (US 2022/0088873; hereinafter Voit).
Claim 33: the modified Delgado 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 Delgado, 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 Delgado 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.”)”.
Conclusion
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
/HOANG V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845