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 08/27/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4-17, 20 remain pending in the application. Claims 2-3 and 18-19 are canceled. Newly added claims 21-24 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/27/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (REMARKS page 8) about the objection to claim 7, the objection has been overcome by the amendment.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (REMARKS page 10) “Akbari does not disclose a plate having openings that expose a first set of protruding scattering elements defined on a second surface of an underlying block while the plate itself comprises a second, distinct set of flattened scattering elements configured to approximate perfect electric conductors” (see lines 8-11) and “These are not disclosures of the claimed plate-based scattering configuration” (see lines 16-17) about the rejection of amended claim 1, Examiner disagrees because:
1) Akbari (‘NPL) does disclosed the claimed language “a plate coupled with the block { Fig.1 item (radiating layer); Fig.10(a) (see top layer) }, wherein the plate comprises a plurality of openings configured to expose a first set of scattering elements defined on the second surface of the block {Fig.1 (a), (c), (d); Fig.2(b); Fig.10 (a)-(c); abstract lines 2-3 (gap waveguide); page 252 right column below Fig.2 lines 4 (three metal layers), 17-19 (The feeding layer couples the electromagnetic (EM) energy through coupling slot to the cavity layer that is placed in the middle.), 23-24 (Four radiating slots are placed on the top of the cavity layer. The cavity excites the radiating slots); page 255 below Fig.11, right column lines 1-3 (a prototype of the 64-slot array antenna has been fabricated using CNC milling machine in aluminum material,); Examiner’s note: gap in Fig.2(b) and “The cavity excites the radiating slots” for “expose a first set of scattering elements defined on the second surface of the block”. “metal layers” and “aluminum material” for “scattering elements” because of pins on metal layers}, and “wherein the second set of scattering elements comprises a set of flattened scattering elements configured to approximate perfect electric conductors” { Fig.1(a) walls of radiating layer; page 253 below Fig.3 left column lines 5-6 (The metal walls in the radiating layer suppress the surface waves and mutual coupling between slots); page 255 below Fig.11, right column lines 1-3 (a prototype of the 64-slot array antenna has been fabricated using CNC milling machine in aluminum material,);}.
2) As Examiner’s note above, Fig.1, the gaps in Fig.2, “metal layers” (see page 252 right column below Fig.2 lines 4), and “excites the radiating slots” (see page 252 right column below Fig.2 line 1 from bottom) indicate the claimed language “a plurality of openings configured to expose a first set of scattering elements defined on the second surface of the block” because in the ridge gap waveguide, “The feeding layer couples the electromagnetic (EM) energy through coupling slot to the cavity layer” (see page 252 right column below Fig.2 lines 17-19) and “The cavity excites the radiating slots” (see page 252 right column below Fig.2 line 1 from bottom). The openings on the “radiating layer” expose the pins on the feeding layer and cavity layer, which are interpreted as “a first set of scatter elements”, via the gaps between the pins and the layers, as seen in Fig.2. Fig.1(a) (walls of radiating layer) and page 253 below Fig.3 left column lines 5-6 (The metal walls in the radiating layer suppress the surface waves and mutual coupling between slots) indicates “the plate itself comprises a second, distinct set of flattened scattering elements configured to approximate perfect electric conductors” because the walls on the radiating layer have different pattern from the pattern of the pins.
PNG
media_image1.png
337
490
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
522
375
media_image2.png
Greyscale
3) Layers in Akbari (‘NPL) are interpreted as “plate” because the layers are metal layer (see Akbari (‘NPL) page 252 right column below Fig.2 lines 4 (three metal layers)). The scatter elements on the layers in Akbari (‘NPL) are “plate-based scattering configuration”.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (REMARKS page 11-12) regarding the rejection of claim 11, Examiner disagrees because:
1) Regarding “Suppressing surface waves and mutual coupling between slots in an antenna radiating layer is not the same as reducing backscatter radiation by contributing to destructive interference of electromagnetic waves incident upon destructive interference elements. Akbari does not disclose that the cited walls form a backscatter-cancellation surface, that electromagnetic waves incident upon the cited walls are cancelled by destructive interference, or that the cited walls are configured as destructive interference elements” (REMARKS from page 11 line 4 from bottom to page 12 line 4) and “Akbari fails to disclose at least "an array of destructive interference elements arranged in a repeating pattern and configured to reduce backscatter radiation by contributing to destructive interference of electromagnetic waves incident upon the destructive interference elements."” (page 12 lines 15-18), Akbari (‘NPL) page 253 below Fig.3 left column lines 5-6 indicates that “The metal walls in the radiating layer suppress the surface waves and mutual coupling between slots”. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention knows that walls near antenna slots are used to “reducing backscatter radiation by contributing to destructive interference of electromagnetic waves incident upon destructive interference elements” because the walls block backscatter waves from unwanted electromagnetic waves incident direction. For example, the middle wall in Akbari (‘NPL) Fig.1(a) blocks electromagnetic waves from left two slots to the right two slots and at the same time the middle wall blocks electromagnetic waves from right two slots to the left two slots. Therefore the walls in Akbari (‘NPL) is “destructive interference of electromagnetic waves incident upon destructive interference elements”. In addition, Akbari (‘NPL) does disclose the claimed language “an array of destructive interference elements arranged in a repeating pattern and configured to reduce backscatter radiation by contributing to destructive interference of electromagnetic waves incident upon the destructive interference elements” { Fig.1(a) walls of radiating layer; Fig.10 (a)-(d) walls; Fig.11(a)-(d) walls; page 252 right column below Fig.2 lines 4 (three metal layers); page 253 below Fig.3 left column lines 5-6 (The metal walls in the radiating layer suppress the surface waves and mutual coupling between slots)}.
2) Regarding “The Office Action further relies on Akbari's FIGS. 1 0(b) and 11 (b) as allegedly disclosing "at least two distinct types of destructive interference elements." However, Akbari's FIG. 1 0(b) shows the radiating layer of the proposed structure, while FIG. 11 (b) is a photograph of the corresponding fabricated radiating layer. These figures do not identify two distinct types of destructive interference elements arranged together in a repeating backscatter-cancellation pattern. At most, the cited figures show radiating-layer wall or slot structures associated with Akbari's circularly polarized slot antenna array. A different arrangement or orientation of radiating-layer walls does not disclose two distinct types of destructive interference elements configured to cooperate in a repeating pattern to reduce backscatter radiation.” (REMARKS page 12 lines 5-14) and “Akbari also fails to disclose that "the repeating pattern compris[es] at least two distinct types of destructive interference elements," as recited in claim 11.” (REMARKS page 12 lines 18-20), Akbari (‘NPL) Fig.10(b) and Fig.11(b) show walls on radiating layer have different arrangement, which address the claimed language “at least two distinct types of destructive interference elements” because the directions of the wall arrangements determine the destructive incident angle of waves. Therefore different wall arrangements provide different “types of destructive interference elements”. Akbari (‘NPL) does disclose the claimed language “the repeating pattern comprising at least two distinct types of destructive interference elements” {Fig.10(b); Fig.11(b); Examiner’s note: Fig.10(b) and Fig.11(b) show walls on radiating layer have different arrangement for “at least two distinct types”.}.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (REMARKS pages 13-14) “Akbari does not disclose that "at least one of the at least two distinct types of destructive interference elements is exposed by at least a subset of the plurality of openings and comprises protruding scattering elements formed on the waveguide block," as recited in claim 17.” (see REMARKS page 14 lines 5-8) about the amended claim 17, Examiner disagrees because:
1) Akbari (‘NPL) does disclose the claimed language “wherein at least one of the at least two distinct types of destructive interference elements is exposed by at least a subset of the plurality of openings and comprises protruding scattering elements formed on the waveguide block” { Fig.1(a) (openings on radiating layer, pins on cavity layer and feeding layer); Fig.2; Fig.11(a)(b); page 252 right column below Fig.2 line 4 (three metal layers)};
2) Akbari (‘NPL) Fig.1 (a) pins on cavity layer and feeding layer are “formed on the waveguide block”.
3) Fig.2 shows “exposed by at least a subset of the plurality of openings” because “The feeding layer couples the electromagnetic (EM) energy through coupling slot to the cavity layer” (see page 252 right column below Fig.2 lines 17-19) and “The cavity excites the radiating slots” (see page 252 right column below Fig.2 line 1 from bottom). The openings on the “radiating layer” expose the pins on the feeding layer and cavity layer via the gaps between the pins and the layers, as seen in Fig.2.
Examiner added more explanation in this office action for further clarifications.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11-13, 16-17, 20-21, 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Akbari et al. (M. Akbari, A. Farahbakhsh and A. -R. Sebak, "Ridge Gap Waveguide Multilevel Sequential Feeding Network for High-Gain Circularly Polarized Array Antenna," in IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 251-259, Jan. 2019, doi: 10.1109/TAP.2018.2878281, hereafter Akbari).
Regarding claim 11, Akbari (‘NPL) discloses that An antenna module {Fig.1; Fig.10; title; abstract line 4 ( The antenna subarray)}, comprising:
one or more waveguides formed in a first layer of a multi-layered assembly of the antenna module { Fig.1(a) (feeding layer, cavity layer, radiating layer), (b); Fig.7(b); abstract lines 5-6 (a ridge gap waveguide (RGW).); page 252 right column below Fig.2 lines 4 (three metal layers); page 254 right column below Fig.9 lines 12 (B. 16-Way Sequential-Phase Feeding Network), 18-20 (A transition from WR28 rectangular waveguide to the RGW and two T-junctions are integrated to build the center power divider. Fig. 7(b) shows the center power divider.)};
one or more antenna slots each operably coupled with at least one waveguide of the one or more waveguides {Fig.1(a)-(d) (see mark below); page 252 left column lines 1-3 from bottom (Fig. 1, a cavity is used to feed four slots by a feed line to compact the array and achieving acceptable radiation pattern. ); page 254 right column below Fig.9 lines 12 (B. 16-Way Sequential-Phase Feeding Network), 18-20 (A transition from WR28 rectangular waveguide to the RGW and two T-junctions are integrated to build the center power divider. Fig. 7(b) shows the center power divider}; and
PNG
media_image3.png
611
491
media_image3.png
Greyscale
an array of destructive interference elements arranged in a repeating pattern and configured to reduce backscatter radiation by contributing to destructive interference of electromagnetic waves incident upon the destructive interference elements { Fig.1(a) walls of radiating layer; Fig.10 (a)-(d) walls; Fig.11(a)-(d) walls; page 252 right column below Fig.2 lines 4 (three metal layers); page 253 below Fig.3 left column lines 5-6 (The metal walls in the radiating layer suppress the surface waves and mutual coupling between slots); Examiner’s note: walls near antenna slots are used guide radiation waves therefore “reducing backscatter radiation by contributing to destructive interference of electromagnetic waves incident upon destructive interference elements” because the walls block backscatter waves from unwanted electromagnetic waves incident direction. For example, the middle wall in Akbari (‘NPL) Fig.1(a) blocks electromagnetic waves from left two slots to the right two slots and at the same time the middle wall blocks electromagnetic waves from right two slots to the left two slots.}, the repeating pattern comprising at least two distinct types of destructive interference elements {Fig.10(b); Fig.11(b); Examiner’s note: Fig.10(b) and Fig.11(b) show walls on radiating layer have different arrangement for “at least two distinct types” because the directions of the wall arrangements determine the destructive incident angle of waves. Therefore different wall arrangements provide different “types of destructive interference elements”.}.
Regarding claim 12, which depends on claim 11, Akbari (‘NPL) discloses that in the antenna module,
a second layer of the multi-layered assembly comprises a plate { Fig.1(a)(radiating layer), (d)}, and
wherein the plate comprises a plurality of openings formed in a pattern {Fig.1(a)(d); Fig.10(a)(b)}.
Regarding claim 13, which depends on claims 11-12, Akbari (‘NPL) discloses that in the antenna module,
the plate further comprises a plurality of antenna slots { Fig.1(a)(d); page 252 left column lines 1-3 from bottom (Fig. 1, a cavity is used to feed four slots by a feed line to compact the array and achieving acceptable radiation pattern. );}.
Regarding claim 16, which depends on claim 11, Akbari (‘NPL) discloses that in the antenna module,
each of the one or more waveguides and each of the one or more antenna slots is formed in a unitary waveguide block { Fig.1(a)-(d); Fig.10(a); abstract lines 4-5 (The antenna subarray is a 2×2 slot groove gap waveguide based cavity-backed antenna)}.
Regarding claim 17, Akbari (‘NPL) discloses that An antenna module { Fig.1; Fig.10; title; abstract line 4 ( The antenna subarray)}, comprising:
a waveguide block defining one or more waveguides { Fig.1(a) (feeding layer, cavity layer), (b)(c); Fig.7(a)-(b); abstract lines 5-6 (a ridge gap waveguide (RGW).); page 254 right column below Fig.9 lines 12 (B. 16-Way Sequential-Phase Feeding Network), 18-20 (A transition from WR28 rectangular waveguide to the RGW and two T-junctions are integrated to build the center power divider. Fig. 7(b) shows the center power divider.)};
one or more antenna slots configured to deliver electromagnetic radiation to and/or from a corresponding waveguide therethrough { Fig.1(a) (feeding layer, radiating layer with slot), (b)-(d); Fig.8 (reflection, transmission); page 252 left column lines 1-3 from bottom (Fig. 1, a cavity is used to feed four slots by a feed line to compact the array and achieving acceptable radiation pattern.); page 252 right column lines 6-8 from bottom (The feeding layer couples the electromagnetic (EM) energy through coupling slot to the cavity layer that is placed in the middle.), 1-2 from bottom (Four radiating slots are placed on the top of the cavity layer. The cavity excites the radiating slots); Examiner’s note: reflection and transmission in Fig.8 for “to and/or from”};
a plate { Fig.1 item (radiating layer); Fig.10(a) top layer } coupled with the waveguide block { Fig.1 item (radiating layer, cavity layer, feeding layer); Fig.10(a)-(d) },
wherein the plate comprises a plurality of openings { Fig.1(a)(d) (see mark below)}; and
PNG
media_image4.png
348
491
media_image4.png
Greyscale
a plurality of destructive interference elements { Fig.1(a) walls on radiating layer, , pins on cavity layer and feeding layer; page 252 right column below Fig.2 line 4 (three metal layers); page 253 below Fig.3 left column lines 5-6 (The metal walls in the radiating layer suppress the surface waves and mutual coupling between slots); Examiner’s note: walls and pins are “destructive interference elements” because they guide electromagnetic waves therefore “destructive interference”},
wherein the destructive interference elements are configured to reduce backscatter radiation by contributing to destructive interference of electromagnetic waves incident upon the destructive interference elements {Fig.1(a); page 253 below Fig.3 left column lines 5-6 (The metal walls in the radiating layer suppress the surface waves and mutual coupling between slots); Examiner’s note: walls near antenna slots are used guide radiation waves, therefore to “reduce backscatter radiation by contributing to destructive interference of electromagnetic waves incident upon destructive interference elements” because the walls block backscatter from unwanted electromagnetic waves incident direction. For example, the middle wall in Akbari (‘NPL) Fig.1(a) blocks electromagnetic waves from left two slots to the right two slots and at the same time the middle wall blocks electromagnetic waves from right two slots to the left two slots.},
wherein the plurality of destructive interference elements comprise at least two distinct types of destructive interference elements arranged adjacent to one another { Fig.1(a)(walls on radiating layer, pins on cavity layer and feeding layer); Fig.10(a)(b); Fig.11(a)(b); Examiner’s note: walls on top layer in Figs. 10-11 are in different patterns. Pins on cavity layer and feeding layer are arranged in different patterns. The directions of the wall arrangements determine the destructive incident angle of waves. The arrangement of pins determines the transmission path of electromagnetic waves. Therefore different wall/pin arrangements provide different “types of destructive interference elements”}, and
wherein at least one of the at least two distinct types of destructive interference elements is exposed by at least a subset of the plurality of openings and comprises protruding scattering elements formed on the waveguide block { Fig.1(a) (openings on radiating layer, pins on cavity layer and feeding layer); Fig.2; Fig.11(a)(b); page 252 right column below Fig.2 line 4 (three metal layers); Examiner’s note: Fig.1 (a) pins on cavity layer and feeding layer are “formed on the waveguide block”. Walls, pins, and “metal layers” for “scattering elements”. Fig.2 for “exposed by at least a subset of the plurality of openings” because “The feeding layer couples the electromagnetic (EM) energy through coupling slot to the cavity layer” (see page 252 right column below Fig.2 lines 17-19) and “The cavity excites the radiating slots” (see page 252 right column below Fig.2 line 1 from bottom). The openings on the “radiating layer” expose the pins on the feeding layer and cavity layer via the gaps between the pins and the layers, as seen in Fig.2.}.
Regarding claim 20, which depends on claim 17, Akbari (‘NPL) discloses that in the antenna module,
second type of the at least two distinct types of destructive interference elements comprises flattened scattering elements { Fig.1(a) walls on radiating layer; page 253 below Fig.3 left column line 5 (The metal walls in the radiating layer)}, and
wherein the flattened scattering elements are defined by the plate { Fig.1(a) walls on radiating layer}.
Regarding claim 21, which depends on claims 17 and 20, Akbari (‘NPL) discloses that in the antenna module,
the protruding scattering elements and the flattened scattering elements together define a repeating pattern configured to reduce backscatter radiation by contributing to destructive interference of electromagnetic waves incident upon the repeating pattern { Fig.1(a) walls of radiating layer, pins on feeding layer and cavity layer; Fig.10 (a)-(d) walls/pins; Fig.11(a)-(d) walls/pins; page 252 right column below Fig.2 lines 4 (three metal layers); Examiner’s note: walls near antenna slots are used to guide electromagnetic waves therefore to “reduce backscatter radiation by contributing to destructive interference of electromagnetic waves incident upon the repeating pattern” because the walls block backscatter waves from unwanted electromagnetic waves incident direction. For example, the middle wall in Akbari (‘NPL) Fig.1(a) blocks electromagnetic waves from left two slots to the right two slots and at the same time the middle wall blocks electromagnetic waves from right two slots to the left two slots.}.
Regarding claim 23, which depends on claim 11, Akbari (‘NPL) discloses that in the antenna module,
the array of destructive interference elements is positioned on an outer surface of the first layer, and wherein the one or more waveguides are formed on an inner surface of the first layer opposite the outer surface {Fig.1(a); Fig.7; page 254 right column below Fig.9 lines 12 (B. 16-Way Sequential-Phase Feeding Network), 18-20 (A transition from WR28 rectangular waveguide to the RGW and two T-junctions are integrated to build the center power divider. Fig. 7(b) shows the center power divider.); Examiner’s note: walls on radiating layer for “the array of destructive interference elements”. Waveguide is on feeding layer.}.
Regarding claim 24, which depends on claim 11, Akbari (‘NPL) discloses that in the antenna module,
a first type of the at least two distinct types of destructive interference elements is configured to provide a first reflection phase at an operating frequency of the antenna module, and wherein a second type of the at least two distinct types of destructive interference elements is configured to provide a second reflection phase different from the first reflection phase at the operating frequency {Fig.11(b); Examiner’s note: vertical walls and horizontal walls have different reflection phase because the phase of electromagnetic wave reflected from a metal surface depends on the angle of incidence }.
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, 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akbari (‘NPL) in view of Doyle et al. (US 2022/0094071, hereafter Doyle).
Regarding claim 1, Akbari (‘NPL) discloses that A {Fig.1; abstract lines 4-5 (The antenna subarray is a 2×2 slot groove gap waveguide based cavity-backed antenna); Examiner’s note: “antenna subarray” for “sensor module” because antenna is a sensor}, comprising:
a block comprising a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface { Fig.1 (feeding layer, cavity layer);Fig.10(a); Examiner’s note: bottom two layers in Fig.10(a) for “a block”};
one or more waveguides at least partially defined on the first surface { Fig.1(b); Fig.7; Fig.10(d); Fig.11(d); abstract lines 5-6 (a ridge gap waveguide (RGW).); page 254 right column below Fig.9 lines 12 (B. 16-Way Sequential-Phase Feeding Network), 18-20 (A transition from WR28 rectangular waveguide to the RGW and two T-junctions are integrated to build the center power divider. Fig. 7(b) shows the center power divider.)};
one or more openings extending between the first and second surfaces {Fig.1 (c) see mark below; Fig.2 (gap “ag”); page 252 left column lines 1-3 from bottom (Fig. 1, a cavity is used to feed four slots by a feed line to compact the array and achieving acceptable radiation pattern. ); Examiner’s note: space among posts is also openings.}; and
PNG
media_image5.png
611
491
media_image5.png
Greyscale
a plate coupled with the block { Fig.1 item (radiating layer); Fig.10(a) (see top layer) }, wherein the plate comprises a plurality of openings configured to expose a first set of scattering elements defined on the second surface of the block {Fig.1 (a), (c), (d); Fig.2(b); Fig.10 (a)-(c); abstract lines 2-3 (gap waveguide); page 252 right column below Fig.2 lines 4 (three metal layers), 17-19 (The feeding layer couples the electromagnetic (EM) energy through coupling slot to the cavity layer that is placed in the middle.), 23-24 (Four radiating slots are placed on the top of the cavity layer. The cavity excites the radiating slots); page 255 below Fig.11, right column lines 1-3 (a prototype of the 64-slot array antenna has been fabricated using CNC milling machine in aluminum material,); Examiner’s note: gap in Fig.2(b) and “The cavity excites the radiating slots” for “expose a first set of scattering elements defined on the second surface of the block” because “The feeding layer couples the electromagnetic (EM) energy through coupling slot to the cavity layer” (see page 252 right column below Fig.2 lines 17-19) and “The cavity excites the radiating slots” (see page 252 right column below Fig.2 line 1 from bottom). The openings on the “radiating layer” expose the pins on the feeding layer and cavity layer, which are interpreted as “a first set of scatter elements”, via the gaps between the pins and the layers, as seen in Fig.2. “metal layers” and “aluminum material” for “scattering elements” because of pins on metal layers.},
wherein the plate further comprises a second set of scattering elements distinct from the first set of scattering elements { Fig.1(a) (walls of radiating layer, pins on cavity layer and feeding layer); page 253 below Fig.3 left column lines 5-6 (The metal walls in the radiating layer suppress the surface waves and mutual coupling between slots); Examiner’s note: walls on radiating layer in Fig.1(a) are different from pins on cavity layer.}.
wherein the first set of scattering elements comprises a plurality of protruding scattering elements {Fig.1(a) pins on cavity layer }, and
wherein the second set of scattering elements comprises a set of flattened scattering elements configured to approximate perfect electric conductors { Fig.1(a) walls of radiating layer; page 253 below Fig.3 left column lines 5-6 (The metal walls in the radiating layer suppress the surface waves and mutual coupling between slots); page 255 below Fig.11, right column lines 1-3 (a prototype of the 64-slot array antenna has been fabricated using CNC milling machine in aluminum material,);}.
However, Akbari (‘NPL) does not disclose (see words with underline) “A vehicle sensor module”. In the same field of endeavor, Doyle (‘071) discloses that
A vehicle sensor module { abstract lines 1-2 (a vehicle sensor module, such as a RADAR sensor module), 6(antenna block)}
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Akbari (‘NPL) with the teachings of Doyle (‘071) {use sensor module (e.g. radar) on vehicle with antenna block} to use sensor module (e.g. radar) on vehicle with antenna block. Doing so would provide an assembly (e.g. an antenna block) so as to provide the primary support structure for various means for coupling a sensor assembly (e.g. RADAR ) to a vehicle , as recognized by Doyle (‘071) {[0002] lines 4-5 (assemblies may comprise RADAR sensor modules for vehicles,); [0003] lines 2-6 (antenna block, a casting, may have features designed to establish the foundation for one or more waveguides and may provide the primary support structure for various means for coupling the sensor assembly to a vehicle); [0017] line 3 (mounting the vehicle RADAR module to a vehicle)}.
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Akbari (‘NPL) and Doyle (‘071) discloses that in the vehicle sensor module,
the first set of scattering elements and the second set of scattering elements together define a repeating pattern {see Akbari (‘NPL) Fig.10(a)-(c); Fig.11(a)-(c)} configured to reduce backscatter radiation by contributing to destructive interference of electromagnetic waves incident upon the repeating pattern of scattering elements {see Akbari (‘NPL) page 253 below Fig.3 left column lines 5-6 (The metal walls in the radiating layer suppress the surface waves and mutual coupling between slots)}.
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Akbari (‘NPL) and Doyle (‘071) discloses that in the vehicle sensor module,
the block comprises a plurality of posts positioned underneath scattering elements of the second set of scattering elements { see Akbari (‘NPL) Fig.1 (a) (see pins on cavity layer and feeding layer)}.
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Akbari (‘NPL) and Doyle (‘071) discloses that in the vehicle sensor module, the plate further comprises
a plurality of antenna slots { see Akbari (‘NPL) Fig.1(a)(d); Fig.10 (a)(b) (64-slot antenna array); abstract lines 4-5 (The antenna subarray is a 2×2 slot groove gap waveguide based cavity-backed antenna); page 253 left column line 1-3 from bottom (Fig. 1, a cavity is used to feed four slots by a feed line to compact the array and achieving acceptable radiation pattern.)}, and wherein each of the plurality of antenna slots is positioned adjacent to at least one opening of the one or more openings to deliver electromagnetic radiation therethrough { see Akbari (‘NPL) Fig.1(a) (see mark below); Fig.10(b)(c); page 253 left column line 1-3 from bottom (Fig. 1, a cavity is used to feed four slots by a feed line to compact the array and achieving acceptable radiation pattern.) }.
PNG
media_image6.png
611
491
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, which depends on claims 1 and 6, the combination of Akbari (‘NPL) and Doyle (‘071) discloses that in the vehicle sensor module,
the plurality of antenna slots is formed in a staggered array of antenna slots { see Akbari (‘NPL) Fig.10(b)}.
Regarding claim 8, which depends on claims 1 and 6-7, the combination of Akbari (‘NPL) and Doyle (‘071) discloses that in the vehicle sensor module,
at least one opening of the one or more openings comprises an elongated antenna slot { see Akbari (‘NPL) Fig.1(a),(c) (see mark below); Fig.10 (a)(c)}, and
PNG
media_image7.png
611
491
media_image7.png
Greyscale
wherein the staggered array of antenna slots is positioned adjacent to the elongated antenna slot { see Akbari (‘NPL) Fig.(a)(c)(d) (see marks below); Fig.10 (a)-(c)}.
PNG
media_image6.png
611
491
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Akbari (‘NPL) and Doyle (‘071) discloses that in the vehicle sensor module,
at least one of the one or more openings comprises a transitional waveguide feed tunnel extending between the first and second surfaces { Fig.1(a)-(c) (see mark below); page 252 right column lines 6-8 from bottom (The feeding layer couples the electromagnetic (EM) energy through coupling slot to the cavity layer that is placed in the middle.}.
PNG
media_image8.png
611
491
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Akbari (‘NPL) and Doyle (‘071) discloses that in the vehicle sensor module,
at least one of the one or more openings comprises an elongated antenna slot { see Akbari (‘NPL) Fig.1(a),(c) (see mark below); Fig.10 (a)(c)}.
PNG
media_image7.png
611
491
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akbari (‘NPL) as applied to claims 11-12 above and further in view of Yang et al. (US 2020/0287291, hereafter Yang).
Regarding claim 14, which depends on claims 11-12, Akbari (‘NPL) discloses that in the antenna module,
the repeating pattern { Fig.10; Fig.11} comprises a first type of {Fig.1 (pins on cavity layer and feeding layer); page 251 right column lines 3 (In the gap waveguide structures), 6-7 (A guiding wave mode can be obtained by introducing a ridge or groove between the pins); page 252 right column below Fig.2 lines 4 (three metal layers), 14 (feeding layer pins), 17 (pin texture has a stopband from 23 to 43 GHz); page 254 right column lines 8-10 from bottom (A transition from WR28 rectangular waveguide to the RGW and two T-junctions are integrated to build the center power divider. Fig. 7(b) shows the center power divider.); } and
a second type of destructive interference element defined by the plate {Fig.1 (walls on radiating layer); page 252 right column below Fig.2 lines 4 (three metal layers); page 253 below Fig.3 left column lines 5-6 (The metal walls in the radiating layer suppress the surface waves and mutual coupling between slots)}.
However, Akbari (‘NPL) does not explicitly disclose (see words with underline) “a first type of destructive interference element defined by the first layer”. In the same field of endeavor, Yang (‘291) discloses that
a first type of destructive interference element defined by the first layer {[0014] lines 6-7 (The gap post/pin technology is suppressing propagation in or between channels in the antenna); [0019] lines 1-3 (The use of protruding posts to form suppression of waves in unwanted directions may be referred to as gap waveguide technology)}.
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying a known technique (e.g. The use of protruding posts to form suppression of waves in unwanted directions may be referred to as gap waveguide technology) to a known device (e.g. antenna) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g. wave propagation is stopped by using periodic elements such as metal posts ( also referred to as pins) in one or both of two parallel conductive surfaces, and in case a waveguide is to be formed, the waves are guided along e.g. metal ridges, arranged on one of the two conducting surfaces.) and result in an improved system (e.g. to control wave propagation in the narrow gap between parallel conducting plates, or to form surfaces suppressing wave propagation without need metal connections between the two parallel conductive surfaces, as recognized by Yang (‘291) {[0019] lines 3-12 (to control wave propagation in the narrow gap between parallel conducting plates, or to form surfaces suppressing wave propagation. The wave propagation is stopped by using periodic elements such as metal posts ( also referred to as pins) in one or both of two parallel conductive surfaces, and in case a waveguide is to be formed, the waves are guided along e.g. metal ridges, arranged on one of the two conducting surfaces. No metal connections between the two parallel conductive surfaces are needed)}.).
Regarding claim 15, which depends on claims 11-12 and 14, the combination of Akbari (‘NPL) and Yang (‘291) discloses that in the antenna module,
the first type of destructive interference element comprises a protruding scattering element {see Akbari (‘NPL) Fig.1(a) pins on the cavity layer and feeding layer; page 252 right column below Fig.2 line 4 (three metal layers); Examiner’s note: “metal layers” for “scattering”}, and
wherein the second type of destructive interference element comprises a flattened scattering surface defined by the plate { see Akbari (‘NPL) Fig.1(a) walls on the radiating layer; page 253 below Fig.3 left column line 5 (The metal walls in the radiating layer) }.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 11 but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closest prior art of record is represented by Akbari (‘NPL), Li (US 11,749,883, hereafter Li), Petersson et al. (US 12,294,151, hereafter Petersson), Gupta et al. (US 2023/0352845, hereafter Gupta).
Regarding claim 22, which depends on claim 11, Akbari (‘NPL), Li (‘883’), Petersson (‘151), and Gupta (‘845), either alone or in combination, do not disclose (see words with underline)
each destructive interference element of the array of destructive interference elements is spaced apart from each antenna slot of the one or more antenna slots by a distance of at least one-half of a wavelength of electromagnetic radiation used by the antenna module.
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 YONGHONG LI whose telephone number is (571)272-5946. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571)270-5144. 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.
/YONGHONG LI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
