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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. The following feature(s) are not shown:
Claim 4 (line 6): “a first direction”.
Therefore, the above feature(s) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
In Figs. 3 and 10, character 10’
In Fig. 12(a), character 110’.
In Fig. 14, character 10”
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the following features as described in the specification:
The specification ([0039]) discloses: “FIG. 3 is a perspective view illustrating the PCB laminated waveguide antenna in a direct feed type in which the metal cover layer in FIG. 1 is omitted”. However, the slot configuration in Fig. 3 does not correspond to the slot configuration in Fig. 1 (see annotated Figs. 1, 3 and 4 below);
The specification ([0040]) discloses: “FIG. 4 is a plan view illustrating the PCB laminated waveguide antenna in a direct feed type in which the metal cover layer in FIG. 1 is omitted”. However, the slot configuration in Fig. 4 corresponds to the slot configuration in Fig. 3, not Fig. 1 (see annotated Figs. 1, 3 and 4 below);
The specification ([0042]) discloses: “FIG. 6 is a cross-sectional view illustrating the PCB laminated waveguide antenna in a direct feed type along line II-II’ of FIG. 3 in which the metal cover layer is omitted”. However, the cross-sectional view shown in Fig. 6 does not correspond to a cross-sectional view of the waveguide antenna along line II-II’;
The specification ([0043]) discloses: “FIG. 7 is a cross-sectional view illustrating the PCB laminated waveguide antenna in a direct feed type according to one embodiment of the present disclosure along line III-III’ of FIG. 3 in which the metal cover layer is omitted”. However, line III-III’ is not shown in Fig. 3. In addition, the cross-sectional view in Fig. 7 would correspond to a cross-sectional view of the waveguide antenna in Fig. 3 along line II-II’, if the slots 21a, 21c, and 21e were aligned along a same axis (regarding the alignment of slots 21a, 21c, and 21e in the waveguide antenna in Fig. 3, see annotated Fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
765
1236
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
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 Objections
Claim 9-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 9 and 10 (line 2): “a center of the plurality of slots in a width direction” should be amended to “a center of the plurality of slots in the width direction”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 5, 7, and 16-17 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.
Claim 5 (line 2) recites: “the plurality of via holes are disposed in a rectangular shape in one column”. It is not clear how the plurality of via holes are disposed in a rectangular shape in one column.
Claim 7 (line 2) recites: “adjacent slots are misaligned with each other”. It is not clear whether “adjacent slots” refers to slots belonging to a same column or to slots belonging to different columns. For examination purposes, in view of the specification (Fig. 1), this limitation is interpreted as “adjacent slots from different columns”.
Claim 16 recites: “a width of the first opening ranges from zero to 1.5λ”. As is well-known in the art, λ is the scientific notation for the wavelength of electromagnetic waves. Thus, as recited here, λ indicates any arbitrary wavelength of an infinite number of wavelengths, which makes the scope of this limitation indefinite. For examination purposes, in view of the specification (e.g., [0107, 0139]), this limitation is interpreted as: wherein λ is a wavelength corresponding to an operation frequency of the waveguide antenna structure.
Claim 17 recites: “a thickness of the metal cover layer ranges from zero to 2λ”. As is well-known in the art, λ is the scientific notation for the wavelength of electromagnetic waves. Thus, as recited here, λ indicates any arbitrary wavelength of an infinite number of wavelengths, which makes the scope of this limitation indefinite. For examination purposes, in view of the specification (e.g., [0107, 0139]), this limitation is interpreted as: wherein λ is a wavelength corresponding to an operation frequency of the waveguide antenna structure.
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 1-2, 4-9, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uemichi (US 20160126637 A1) in view of Petroutsos et al. (“5G Multilayer Slot Array Antenna Fed by Integrated Substrate Groove Gap Waveguide for 26 GHz Band”, 2023 IEEE International Symposium on Antennas and Propagation and USNC-URSI Radio Science Meeting, July 2023, hereinafter Petroutsos).
Regarding claim 1, Uemichi (Figs. 1, 2) discloses a waveguide antenna structure comprising:
a base layer (13) in which a feed hole (13a) is formed;
a waveguide layer (12) laminated on the base layer and including a waveguide (a rectangular parallelepiped region serving as a waveguide – see [0028], lines 1-3) communicating with the feed hole;
an antenna layer (11) laminated on the waveguide layer and including an antenna (slots 11d1-11d6) for transmitting or receiving a signal passing through the feed hole and the waveguide to or from an outside (inherent).
Uemichi does not disclose a metal cover layer laminated on the antenna layer and including a first opening surrounding the antenna to change a path of a radio wave transmitted or received through the antenna.
PNG
media_image2.png
652
938
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Petroutsos (Fig. 1; Section II, first and second paragraphs) teaches a waveguide antenna structure comprising a metal cover layer (PCB 4) laminated on an antenna layer (PCB 3) and including a first opening (regarding the first opening, see annotated Fig. 1a in Petroutsos below) surrounding the antenna (plurality of slots in annotated Fig. 1a in Petroutsos below) to change a path of a radio wave transmitted or received through the antenna (regarding change of path of a radio wave, Section II, second paragraph, last sentence discloses “The addition of the last layer contributes to improving the antenna's directivity.” One skilled in the art would recognize that changing the antenna directivity results in changing a path of a radio wave transmitted or received through the antenna.).
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 modify Uemichi by adding a metal cover layer laminated on the antenna layer and including a first opening surrounding the antenna to change a path of a radio wave transmitted or received through the antenna as taught by Petroutsos. This modification would provide a waveguide antenna structure with improved directivity (see Petroutsos, Section II, second paragraph, last sentence).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Uemichi teaches the waveguide antenna structure of claim 1 as addressed above.
The modified Uemichi does not teach the limitation wherein each of the metal cover layer, the antenna layer, the waveguide layer, and the base layer includes: a substrate layer; and a first protection layer and a second protection layer laminated on an upper surface and a lower surface of the substrate layer, respectively.
Petroutsos (Fig. 1; Section II, first and second paragraphs) teaches a waveguide antenna structure comprising multiple layers (PCB 1 – PCB 4), including the metal cover layer (PCB 4) and the antenna layer (PCB 3), wherein each of these layers include: a substrate layer; and a first protection layer (top copper cladding) and a second protection layer (bottom copper cladding) laminated on an upper surface and a lower surface of the substrate layer, respectively (see Section II, first paragraph: “The proposed design utilizes substrates that are covered top and bottom by copper cladding”).
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 modify Uemichi so that each of the metal cover layer, the antenna layer, the waveguide layer, and the base layer includes: a substrate layer; and a first protection layer and a second protection layer laminated on an upper surface and a lower surface of the substrate layer, respectively, as taught by Petroutsos. This modification would provide a solution for preventing leakage in case of small unwanted air gaps between the different layers. (see Petroutsos, Conclusion).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Uemichi teaches the waveguide antenna structure of claim 1 as addressed above.
Further, Uemichi (Figs. 1, 2) teaches a plurality of via holes (the holes corresponding to conductor posts 12ai) passing through the base layer (13), the waveguide layer (12), and the antenna layer (11) which are laminated on each other are formed in the base layer, the waveguide layer, and the antenna layer; and the plurality of via holes are disposed to surround the feed hole (13a), the waveguide (a rectangular parallelepiped region serving as a waveguide – see [0028], lines 1-3), and the antenna (slots 11d1-11d6) when viewed in a first direction (z-axis) in which the layers are laminated.
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, the modified Uemichi teaches the waveguide antenna structure of claim 4 as addressed above.
Further, Uemichi (Figs. 1, 2) teaches the plurality of via holes (the holes corresponding to conductor posts 12ai) are disposed in a rectangular shape in one column; and an arrangement length of the plurality of via holes disposed in an extension direction of the waveguide is formed to be greater than a length of the plurality of via holes disposed in a width direction.
Regarding claim 6, the modified Uemichi teaches the waveguide antenna structure of claim 1 as addressed above.
Further, Uemichi (Figs. 1, 2) teaches the antenna (slots 11d1-11d6) is a slot antenna; and the slot antenna includes a plurality of slots (slots 11d1-11d6) disposed in an upper portion thereof in an extension direction of the waveguide (a rectangular parallelepiped region serving as a waveguide – see [0028], lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, the modified Uemichi teaches the waveguide antenna structure of claim 6 as addressed above.
Further, Uemichi (Figs. 1, 2) teaches the plurality of slots (slots 11d1-11d6) are arranged in two columns (slots 11d1, 11d3, and 11d5 are arranged in one column; slots 11d2, 11d4, and 11d6 are arranged in another column) in the extension direction of the waveguide (a rectangular parallelepiped region serving as a waveguide – see [0028], lines 1-3); and adjacent slots (11d1-11d2, 11d3-11d4, and 11d5-11d6) are misaligned with each other.
Regarding claim 8, the modified Uemichi teaches the waveguide antenna structure of claim 6 as addressed above.
The modified Uemichi does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein the first opening is formed in a rectangular shape surrounding the plurality of slots and extending in the extension direction of the waveguide.
Petroutsos (Fig. 1) teaches the first opening (regarding the first opening, see annotated Fig. 1a in Petroutsos above) is formed in a rectangular shape surrounding a plurality of slots (regarding the plurality of slots, see annotated Fig. 1a in Petroutsos above) and extending in the extension direction of the waveguide (ISGGW).
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 modify Uemichi so that the first opening is formed in a rectangular shape surrounding the plurality of slots and extending in the extension direction of the waveguide, as taught by Petroutsos. This modification would provide a waveguide antenna structure with improved directivity (see Petroutsos, Section II, second paragraph, last sentence).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Uemichi teaches the waveguide antenna structure of claim 8 as addressed above.
The modified Uemichi does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein a center of the first opening in a width direction is formed to match a center of the plurality of slots in a width direction.
Petroutsos (Fig. 1) teaches a center of the first opening in a width direction is formed to match a center of the plurality of slots in a width direction (regarding the first opening and its center in a width direction, and the plurality of slots and their center in a width direction, see annotated Fig. 1a in Petroutsos above).
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 modify Uemichi so that a center of the first opening in a width direction is formed to match a center of the plurality of slots in a width direction, as taught by Petroutsos. This modification would provide a waveguide antenna structure with improved directivity (see Petroutsos, Section II, second paragraph, last sentence).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Uemichi teaches the waveguide antenna structure of claim 8 as addressed above.
The modified Uemichi does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein a second opening which has a rectangular shape and is parallel to the first opening is formed at one side or each of both sides of the first opening.
Petroutsos (Fig. 1) teaches a second opening which has a rectangular shape and is parallel to the first opening is formed at one side of the first opening (regarding the first opening and the second opening, see annotated Fig. 1a in Petroutsos above).
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 modify Uemichi so that a second opening which has a rectangular shape and is parallel to the first opening is formed at one side or each of both sides of the first opening, as taught by Petroutsos. This modification would provide a waveguide antenna structure with improved directivity (see Petroutsos, Section II, second paragraph, last sentence).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Uemichi teaches the waveguide antenna structure of claim 12 as addressed above.
The modified Uemichi does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein a size and a shape of the second opening correspond to the first opening.
Petroutsos (Fig. 1) teaches a size and a shape of the second opening correspond to the first opening (regarding the first opening and the second opening, see annotated Fig. 1a in Petroutsos above).
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 modify Uemichi so that a size and a shape of the second opening correspond to the first opening, as taught by Petroutsos. This modification would provide a waveguide antenna structure with improved directivity (see Petroutsos, Section II, second paragraph, last sentence).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Uemichi teaches the waveguide antenna structure of claim 12 as addressed above.
The modified Uemichi does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein the second opening is disposed as one or more second openings at one side or each of both sides of the first opening; and the one or more second openings are disposed at the one or each of both sides of the first opening in parallel to be spaced apart from each other.
Petroutsos (Fig. 1) teaches the second opening is disposed as one opening at one side of the first opening; and the one second opening is disposed at the one side of the first opening in parallel to be spaced apart from each other. (regarding the first opening and the second opening, see annotated Fig. 1a in Petroutsos above).
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 modify Uemichi so that the second opening is disposed as one or more second openings at one side or each of both sides of the first opening; and the one or more second openings are disposed at the one or each of both sides of the first opening in parallel to be spaced apart from each other, as taught by Petroutsos. This modification would provide a waveguide antenna structure with improved directivity (see Petroutsos, Section II, second paragraph, last sentence).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Uemichi teaches the waveguide antenna structure of claim 1 as addressed above.
The modified Uemichi does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein an inner surface of the first opening is formed as a vertical surface perpendicular to the antenna layer or an inclined or curved surface of which a width increases upward.
Petroutsos (Fig. 1) teaches an inner surface of the first opening (regarding the inner surface of the first opening, see annotated Fig. 1a in Petroutsos above) is formed as a vertical surface perpendicular to the antenna layer (PCB 3).
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 modify Uemichi so that an inner surface of the first opening is formed as a vertical surface perpendicular to the antenna layer or an inclined or curved surface of which a width increases upward, as taught by Petroutsos. This modification would provide a waveguide antenna structure with improved directivity (see Petroutsos, Section II, second paragraph, last sentence).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Uemichi as applied to claim 2 in view of Ahmadloo (US 20200220273 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Uemichi teaches the waveguide antenna structure of claim 12 as addressed above.
The modified Uemichi does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein the substrate layer is formed of a flame retardant FR-4 material.
Ahmadloo (Fig. 1; [0026], lines 11-13) teaches a waveguide antenna structure (100) comprising multiple substrate layers (102, 104, 106) formed of a flame retardant FR-4 material.
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 apply the teachings of Ahmadloo and make the modified Uemichi so that the substrate layer is formed of a flame retardant FR-4 material. This modification would provide an antenna structure with reduced cost and simplified fabrication (see Ahmadloo, [0022]).
The modified Uemichi does not explicitly teach the first protection layer and the second protection layer are formed of a conductive material that allows plating to be performed thereon.
However, Petroutsos (Fig. 1; Section II, first paragraph) teaches substrates having a first protection layer (top) and a second protection layer (bottom) are formed of a conductive material (copper cladding) that allows plating to be performed thereon (inherent).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention apply the teachings of Petroutsos and make the modified Uemichi so that the first protection layer and the second protection layer are formed of a conductive material that allows plating to be performed thereon. This modification would provide a solution for preventing leakage in case of small unwanted air gaps between the different layers (see Petroutsos, Conclusion).
Claims 10 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Uemichi as applied to claim 8 in view of Shi (US 20220302600 A1).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Uemichi teaches the waveguide antenna structure of claim 8 as addressed above.
The modified Uemichi does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein a center of the first opening in a width direction is laterally offset from a center of the plurality of slots in a width direction.
Shi (Figs. 4-1 and 4-2) teaches a waveguide antenna structure having an opening (106 – Fig. 4-2) around a plurality of slots (108 – Fig. 4-2), wherein a center of the opening in a width direction is laterally offset from a center of the plurality of slots in a width direction (see Fig. 4-2).
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 make the modified Uemichi so that a center of the first opening in a width direction is laterally offset from a center of the plurality of slots in a width direction, as taught by Shi. This modification would provide a waveguide antenna structure with a beam-forming feature that shapes the radiation pattern of the antenna and may reduce grating lobes, which would increase the accuracy of a system equipped with the antenna structure (see Shi, [0003], lines 9-16).
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, the modified Uemichi teaches the waveguide antenna structure of claim 8 as addressed above.
The modified Uemichi does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein a width of the first opening ranges from zero to 1.5λ.
Shi (Figs. 8, 9) teaches changing the width of an opening (804-1,2 – Fig. 8; 904-1,2 – Fig. 9) in various ways. In addition, the specification of the current invention ([0119]) discloses “the graph of FIG. 11(b) is a graph according to the change in width W0 of the opening, which is a result of a simulation when the width is sequentially increased …”. Furthermore, a person skilled in the art would recognize that changing the width of the opening would change the beamwidth of the antenna radiation pattern and, thus, by using simulation tools one would be able to adjust the width of the opening to achieve the desired characteristics of the antenna pattern.
Therefore, 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 make the modified Uemichi so that a width of the first opening ranges from zero to 1.5λ, as taught by Shi. This modification would provide a waveguide antenna structure with a beam-forming feature that shapes the radiation pattern of the antenna and may reduce grating lobes, which would increase the accuracy of a system equipped with the antenna structure (see Shi, [0003], lines 9-16; [0023]). Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 17, as best understood, the modified Uemichi teaches the waveguide antenna structure of claim 8 as addressed above.
The modified Uemichi does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein a thickness of the metal cover layer ranges from zero to 2λ.
Shi (Figs. 6-8) teaches changing the thickness of a metal cover layer (the thickness of the metal cover layer is determined by the height of the surrounding metal walls of the opening 604 in Fig. 6, 704 in Fig. 7, and 804-1,2 in Fig. 8, respectively) in various ways. In addition, the specification of the current invention ([0106]) discloses “the thickness H1 of the metal cover layer 100 may have one of various thicknesses according to the antenna and the operation frequency and performance of the waveguide, and may be designed to have a thickness of 0 to 2λ of the operation frequency, and be changed according to a design of the antenna”. Furthermore, one skilled in the art would recognize that changing the thickness of the metal cover layer would change the beamwidth of the antenna radiation pattern and, thus, by using simulation tools one would be able to adjust the thickness of the metal cover layer to achieve the desired characteristics of the antenna pattern.
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 make the modified Uemichi so that a thickness of the metal cover layer ranges from zero to 2λ, as taught by Shi. This modification would provide a waveguide antenna structure with reduced grating lobes in the radiation pattern, which would improve the accuracy and the performance of a system equipped with the antenna structure (see Shi, Abstract; [0023]). Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Uemichi as applied to claim 8 in view of Ikegami et al. (US 20230099058 A1, hereinafter Ikegami).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Uemichi teaches the waveguide antenna structure of claim 8 as addressed above.
The modified Uemichi does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein a pattern of consecutive triangular, semicircular, or quadrangular shapes is formed on each of both sides of an inner surface of the first opening in an extension direction.
Ikegami (Fig. 1) teaches an antenna structure (2) wherein a pattern of consecutive quadrangular shapes (22) is formed on each of both sides of a plurality of slots (6). Further, it is well-known in the art that such shapes (corrugated surfaces as known in the art) can be applied on any surface surrounding an antenna radiating element(s) in both longitudinal and transverse direction in order to suppress unwanted multiple reflections from that surface (e.g., see Ikegami, [0061]).
Therefore, 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 make the modified Uemichi so that a pattern of consecutive quadrangular shapes is formed on each of both sides of an inner surface of the first opening in an extension direction, as taught by Ikegami. This modification would provide a waveguide antenna structure with suppressed unwanted multiple reflections, which in turn would improve the antenna radiation pattern and performance (see Ikegami, [0061]).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uemichi in view of Petroutsos.
Regarding claim 18, Uemichi (Figs. 1, 2) discloses a waveguide antenna structure comprising:
a base layer (13) in which a feed hole (13a) is formed;
a waveguide layer (12) laminated on the base layer and including a waveguide (a rectangular parallelepiped region serving as a waveguide – see [0028], lines 1-3) communicating with the feed hole;
an antenna layer (11) laminated on the waveguide layer and including an antenna (slots 11d1-11d6) for transmitting or receiving a signal passing through the feed hole and the waveguide to or from an outside (inherent).
Uemichi does not disclose a metal cover layer laminated on the antenna layer and including one or more openings having a quadrangular shape extending in an extension direction of the waveguide.
Petroutsos (Fig. 1; Section II, first and second paragraphs) teaches a waveguide antenna structure comprising a metal cover layer (PCB 4) laminated on an antenna layer (PCB 3) and including one or more openings (first and second opening – see annotated Fig. 1a in Petroutsos above) having a quadrangular shape extending in an extension direction of the waveguide (ISGGW).
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 modify Uemichi by adding a metal cover layer laminated on the antenna layer and including one or more openings having a quadrangular shape extending in an extension direction of the waveguide, as taught by Petroutsos. This modification would provide a waveguide antenna structure with improved directivity (see Petroutsos, Section II, second paragraph, last sentence).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Uemichi teaches the waveguide antenna structure of claim 18 as addressed above.
The modified Uemichi does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein the number of the openings is two or more: any one of the openings is formed to surround the antenna; and the remaining openings are disposed beside the opening surrounding the antenna in parallel to be spaced apart from each other.
Petroutsos (Fig. 1) teaches the number of the openings is two or more (first and second opening – see annotated Fig. 1a in Petroutsos above): any one of the openings (first opening in annotated Fig. 1a in Petroutsos above) is formed to surround the antenna (the antenna comprises the plurality of slots surrounded by the first opening – see annotated Fig. 1a in Petroutsos above); and the remaining openings (second opening in annotated Fig. 1a in Petroutsos above) are disposed beside the opening surrounding the antenna in parallel to be spaced apart from each other.
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 make the modified Uemichi so that the number of the openings is two or more: any one of the openings is formed to surround the antenna; and the remaining openings are disposed beside the opening surrounding the antenna in parallel to be spaced apart from each other, as taught by Petroutsos. This modification would provide a waveguide antenna structure with improved directivity (see Petroutsos, Section II, second paragraph, last sentence).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Uemichi teaches the waveguide antenna structure of claim 19 as addressed above.
The modified Uemichi does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein a center of the opening surrounding the antenna in a width direction matches or is offset from a center of the antenna in a width direction.
Petroutsos (Fig. 1) teaches a center of the opening surrounding the antenna in a width direction matches a center of the antenna in a width direction (regarding the center of the opening and the center of the antenna; see annotated Fig. 1a in Petroutsos above; the opening is the first opening and the antenna is the plurality of slots).
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 make the modified Uemichi so that a center of the opening surrounding the antenna in a width direction matches or is offset from a center of the antenna in a width direction, as taught by Petroutsos. This modification would provide a waveguide antenna structure with improved directivity (see Petroutsos, Section II, second paragraph, last sentence).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIN STOYTCHEV STOYTCHEV whose telephone number is (571)272-3467. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:00-17:00.
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.
/MARIN STOYTCHEV STOYTCHEV/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845