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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 8/2/2024 and 8/29/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 20 includes two Y-axes and missing an X-axis. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0187803 A1, published June 15, 2023 (“Takemoto”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0024226 A1, published Jan. 25, 2018 (“Izadian”).
Takemoto discloses in Figs. 1-4 and the corresponding description:
Claim 1
A waveguide (Figs. 1-4, waveguide connection structure 1) comprising:
a first waveguide (10) having a first waveguide hole (11); and
a second waveguide (20) having a second waveguide hole (21) and assembled to the first waveguide with a predetermined gap (g) between the first waveguide (10) and the second waveguide (20), wherein
the first waveguide (10) and the second waveguide (20) are assembled in a state capable of transmitting an electromagnetic wave through the first waveguide hole (11) and the second waveguide hole (21) (¶40),
the second waveguide hole (21) has an opening on one surface (20a) of the second waveguide (20) facing the first waveguide (10b), and the opening that has a rounded (see below) polygonal (opening 21 is a rectangular polygon) shape or a circular shape, and
the second waveguide (20) has a choke groove (25) around the second waveguide hole (21), and
the choke groove (25) has such a shape that a length between a wall surface of the second waveguide hole and an inner wall surface of the choke groove adjacent to the second waveguide hole is constant along a circumferential direction of the second waveguide hole (21) (¶43, “The minor radius rs2 of the outer ellipse e2 is longer than the minor radius rs1 of the inner ellipse e1 by a length corresponding to ¼ of the guide wavelength λg.”).
Takemoto discloses waveguides with openings that have a rectangular polygonal shape but does not disclose a “rounded” polygonal shape.
Takemoto does not disclose “the second waveguide includes a resin molded product and a metal coating film covering the resin molded product.”
However, Izadian, in the same field of endeavor, discloses an antenna and a radar system including polarization-rotating layers fabricated using CNC machining or metal-plated plastic molding and including rounded rectangular openings. (Izadian, Fig. 1, channels 106, ¶¶25-26). Izadian therefore discloses waveguides that include rounded polygonal shape openings and are made of a resin molded product and a metal coating film covering the resin molded product.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the waveguide of Takemoto from metal-plated plastic and to include rounded rectangular openings for the benefit of improving energy efficiency, as taught by Izadian (¶26).
Takemoto in view of Izadian discloses:
Claim 2
wherein the choke groove (Fig. 3c, choke groove 25) has a frame shape surrounding the second waveguide hole (21) (¶47).
Claim 3
wherein the opening (21) of the second waveguide hole (21) on the one surface (20a) of the second waveguide (20) facing the first waveguide (10) has the rounded polygonal shape (Takemoto, Figs. 1-4; Izadian, Fig. 1, opening 106, ¶¶25-26), and a long side direction of the rounded polygonal shape is one direction in a planar direction of the one surface (Takemoto, Figs. 1-4; Izadian, Fig. 1), and
the choke groove (Takemoto, Figs. 1-4, choke groove 25) faces the second waveguide hole (21) in a direction intersecting with the long side direction in the planar direction of the one surface (Takemoto, Figs. 1-4).
Claim 4
wherein a sum of the length between the wall surface of the second waveguide hole and the inner wall surface of the choke groove adjacent to the second waveguide hole and a depth of the choke groove is set to 0.2 to 0.7 λ, where λ is a wavelength of the electromagnetic wave to be transmitted (¶¶42-43).
Takemoto teaches that the length between the wall surface of the second waveguide hole and the inner wall surface of the choke groove adjacent to the second waveguide hole is equal to ¼ of the guide wavelength λg and that the depth of the choke groove is equal to ¼ of the guide wavelength λg. The sum would be equal to 0.5λ, as required by the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
F. Arndt, R. Beyer, J.M. Reiter, T. Sieverding, and T. Wolf, “Automated design of waveguide components using hybrid mode-matching/numerical EM building-blocks in optimization-oriented CAD frame-works.” 1997; IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory and Tech.: vol. 45; pp. 747-760 (“Arndt”) teaches to include round corners in the design of microwave cavities to allow for easy computer-controlled milling fabrication and to enable high-power applications.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0220245 A1, published July 9, 2020 (“Algaba Brazalez”) discloses waveguides made from metallized plastic (¶55).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0028228 A1, published Jan 23, 2020 (“Yoshioka”) discloses waveguides with circular shape opening (Fig. 10A, ¶¶117-118).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTOR COLE, telephone number (571) 272-4686. The examiner can be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-5PM ET.
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 www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ANDREA LINDGREN BALTZELL, can be reached at (571) 272-5918. 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and 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.
/VICTOR COLE/
Examiner, Art Unit 2843
/ANDREA LINDGREN BALTZELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2843