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 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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sledkov (U.S. Patent Application No. 20170358865), hereinafter known as Sledkov, in view of Guo et al. (CN112864548A, made of record in IDS dated 19 March 2026), hereinafter known as Guo.
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Sledkov teaches (Figs. 1-6) a plurality of phase shifters (2), wherein each phase shifter comprises a phase shifter cavity (see Fig. 3), phase shifter cavities of the plurality of phase shifters are disposed in parallel (see Fig. 3), two adjacent phase shifter cavities of the phase shifter cavities are connected such that the phase shifter cavities form a reflection plate (4) of the antenna (see Fig. 1).
Sledkov does not expressly teach how the phase shifter cavities are connected.
Guo teaches (para. bridging pp. 11-12) attaching a phase shifter with welding.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention to one of ordinary skill in the art use welding to connect the phase shifter cavities of Sledkov since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to employ/use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, products) in the same way is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) Welding provides a secure connection between metal which is well known to a skilled artisan.
Regarding claims 2 and 19, Sledkov teaches (Figs. 1-6) wherein each phase shifter cavity comprises a first side wall, first side walls of adjacent phase shifter cavities are connected through welding, and first side walls of the phase shifter cavities of the plurality of phase shifters form the reflection plate (see Fig. 3, top of 2 form 4).
Regarding claim 6, Sledkov teaches (Figs. 1-6) wherein the adjacent phase shifter cavities are connected by a continuous weld, or the adjacent phase shifter cavities are connected by a weld having a plurality of segmented welds that are spaced apart (see Fig. 3, rejection of claim 1, parts being welded will fall into one of these categories).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 7, 11-12, 14-17 and 20 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 19 March 2026 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 DANIEL MUNOZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1957. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 a.m. - 5 p.m.
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.
/DANIEL MUNOZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights