DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the applicant's amendment submitted on 06/25/2026. In virtue of this amendment:
Claim 4, 16 and 18 are canceled;
Claims 1, 5, 15, 17 and 19-20 are currently amended; and thus,
Claims 1-3, 5-15, 17 and 19-20 pending;
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejections to Claims 5-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph is withdrawn in view of the amendment made to the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 5-8, 10-11, 13-15, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2016/0126637A1 hereinafter “Uemichi” in view of Machine Translation of KR20200026234A hereinafter “Kim”
Regarding claim 1, Uemichi discloses a waveguide antenna structure (¶24L2: waveguide array antenna), comprising:
a base layer (¶25L2: second conductor layer [13]) having a feeding hole (¶39L1: second conductor layer [13] has then opening [13a]; ¶40L1-3: waveguide tube is a feeding section for antenna)
a waveguide layer (¶24L4-5: a first dielectric layer [12]) stacked on the base layer (as shown in Fig.1 for examine) and having a waveguide communicating with the feeding hole of the base layer (¶28L1-3: the first dielectric layer includes a post wall serving as a waveguide);
an antenna layer (¶24L4: a first conductor layer [11]) stacked on the waveguide layer (as shown in Fig.1 for example) and having an antenna configured to transmit or receive signals passing through the feeding hole of the base layer and the waveguide of the waveguide layer to or from an outside of the waveguide antenna structure (¶36L1-18: the slots are each provided at an interface between the first dielectric layer and the atmosphere; this cause reflection of part of an electromagnetic wave propagating through the waveguide side the first dielectric layer)
a plurality of second via holes penetrate the base layer, the waveguide layer and the antenna layer (Uemichi ¶28L3-8: the post wall [12a] is a set of conductor post [12a1, 12a2,..12aM] which is a cylindrical conductor whose upper end is connected to the first conductor layer and whose lower end is connected to the second dielectric layer),
the plurality of second via holes are arranged to surround the feeding hole, the waveguide and the antenna when viewed in a first direction in which the base layer, the waveguide layer, and the antenna layer are stacked (as shown in Fig.1 of Uemichi for example, post wall [12a] surrounds the opening [13a] and slots [11d1-11d6])
Uemichi does not explicitly disclose:
a first via wall layer comprising a plurality of first via holes on the antenna layer and configured to change a path of the signals transmitted or received through the antenna
Kim discloses an antenna device comprising:
a first via wall layer (¶29L1-3: conductive ring pattern) comprising a plurality of first via holes on the antenna layer (¶38L1-4: conductive ring pattern include a plurality of chain vias arranged to surround the patch antenna) and configured to change a path of the signals transmitted or received through the antenna. (¶40L1-2: the plurality of chain vias reduce the RF signal transmitted from the patch antenna in the lateral direction)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the antenna disclosed by Uemichi to incorporate the conductive ring pattern with the chain vias as disclosed by Kim.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because the chain vias concentrate the RF signal transmitted in the z direction. (¶47L6-7)
Uemichi in view of Kim hereinafter “Uemichi/Kim” does not explicitly disclose the arrangement in which
the plurality of first via holes of the first via wall layer are formed on a side of the antenna along an extension direction in which the waveguide extends, and are disposed at a farther distance from the antenna than the plurality of second via holes.
The combination of Uemichi/Kim would results in the arrangement of the claimed invention, as the chain via to support the conductive ring pattern disclosed by Kim would be incorporated into the antenna of Uemichi around the slots, which would be then surrounded by the post wall of Uemichi.
Therefore, post wall via of Uemichi would be at a distance further from the slots than the chain via around the slot and Kim does disclose that the distances between the conductive ring pattern and antenna may be adjusted to further concentrate the antenna pattern in the z-direction. (Kim ¶48-52)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the antenna disclosed by Uemichi/Kim to meet the claimed limitation.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because the RF signal can be more concentrated in the z direction depending on the distance of the arrangement. (Kim ¶48-52)
Regarding claim 5, Uemichi/Kim discloses in Uemichi the waveguide antenna structure of claim 1, wherein
the plurality of second via holes are arranged in a row in a rectangular shape, and an overall arrangement length of a first group of the plurality of second via holes arranged in the extension direction in which the waveguide extends is longer than an overall arrangement length of a second group of the plurality of second via holes arranged in a direction different from the extension direction in which the waveguide extends. (as shown in Fig.1 for example)
Regarding claim 6, Uemichi/Kim discloses the waveguide antenna structure of claim 5,
Uemichi/Kim does not explicitly disclose the arrangement in which
a distance between the plurality of second via holes and the plurality of first via holes is 1.5 or less of a wavelength of one of the signals.
Kim does disclose that the distances between the conductive ring pattern and antenna may be adjusted to further concentrate the antenna pattern in the z-direction. (Kim ¶48-52)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the antenna disclosed by Uemichi/Kim to meet the claimed limitation.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because the RF signal can be more concentrated in the z direction depending on the distance of the arrangement. (Kim ¶48-52)
Regarding claim 7, Uemichi/Kim discloses the waveguide antenna structure of claim 5,
Uemichi/Kim does not explicitly disclose the arrangement in which
a height of the plurality of first via holes is 1.5 or less of a wavelength of one of the signals.
Kim does disclose that the distances between the conductive ring pattern and antenna may be adjusted to further concentrate the antenna pattern in the z-direction. (Kim ¶48-52)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the antenna disclosed by Uemichi/Kim to meet the claimed limitation.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because the RF signal can be more concentrated in the z direction depending on the distance of the arrangement. (Kim ¶48-52)
Regarding claim 8, Uemichi/Kim discloses in Kim the waveguide antenna structure of claim 5, wherein
the plurality of first via holes are arranged in a row on one side or both sides of the waveguide in the extension direction in which the waveguide extends. (¶33L1-3: the conductive pattern surround the patch antenna pattern)(Note: since the conductive pattern surrounds the antenna, the chain vias will as well)
Regarding claim 10, Uemichi/Kim discloses in Kim the waveguide antenna structure of claim 5, wherein
the first via wall layer has a first opening surrounding an area formed by the plurality of second via holes surrounding the feeding hole, the waveguide and the antenna, the first opening is wider than the area formed by the plurality of second via holes surrounding the feeding hole, the waveguide and the antenna, and the plurality of first via holes are located outside the first opening. (as shown in Fig.1 for example)
Regarding claim 11, Uemichi/Kim discloses in Kim the waveguide antenna structure of claim 5, wherein
the first via wall layer is disposed to cover the area formed by the plurality of second via holes surrounding the feeding hole, the waveguide and the antenna. (as shown in Fig.1 for example)
Regarding claim 13, Uemichi/Kim discloses in Kim the waveguide antenna structure of claim 10, further comprising:
a second via wall layer which is stacked on the first via wall layer and comprises a plurality of third via holes for changing the path of the signals, wherein the second via wall layer has a second opening surrounding the first opening and being wider than the first opening, and the plurality of third via holes are located outside the second opening. (as shown in Fig.1 for example, third to sixth conductive ring pattern)
Regarding claim 14, Uemichi/Kim discloses in Kim the waveguide antenna structure of claim 11, further comprising:
a second via wall layer which is stacked on the first via wall layer and comprises a plurality of third via holes for changing the path of the signals, wherein the second via wall layer is arranged such that the second via wall layer covers the area formed by the plurality of second via holes surrounding the feeding hole, the waveguide and the antenna, and the plurality of third via holes are spaced farther apart from the plurality of second via holes than the plurality of first via holes. (as shown in Fig.1 for example, third to sixth conductive ring pattern)
Regarding claim 15, Uemichi discloses a waveguide antenna structure (¶24L2: waveguide array antenna), comprising:
a base layer (¶25L2: second conductor layer [13]) having a feeding hole (¶39L1: second conductor layer [13] has then opening [13a]; ¶40L1-3: waveguide tube is a feeding section for antenna)
a waveguide layer (¶24L4-5: a first dielectric layer [12]) stacked on the base layer (as shown in Fig.1 for examine) and having a waveguide communicating with the feeding hole of the base layer (¶28L1-3: the first dielectric layer includes a post wall serving as a waveguide);
an antenna layer (¶24L4: a first conductor layer [11]) stacked on the waveguide layer (as shown in Fig.1 for example) and having an antenna configured to transmit or receive signals passing through the feeding hole of the base layer and the waveguide of the waveguide layer to or from an outside of the waveguide antenna structure (¶36L1-18: the slots are each provided at an interface between the first dielectric layer and the atmosphere; this cause reflection of part of an electromagnetic wave propagating through the waveguide side the first dielectric layer)
Uemichi does not explicitly disclose:
one or more via wall layers stacked on the antenna layer and configured to change a path of the signals transmitted or received through the antenna.
Kim discloses an antenna device comprising:
one or more via wall layers stacked on the antenna layer (¶29L1-3: conductive ring pattern; ¶38L1-4: conductive ring pattern include a plurality of chain vias arranged to surround the patch antenna) and configured to change a path of the signals transmitted or received through the antenna. (¶40L1-2: the plurality of chain vias reduce the RF signal transmitted from the patch antenna in the lateral direction) wherein
each of the one or more via wall layers comprises a plurality of via holes formed on a side of the antenna along an extension direction in which the waveguide extends. (¶38L1-4: conductive ring pattern include a plurality of chain vias arranged to surround the patch antenna)
a first group of the plurality of via holes formed in the one or more via wall layers that is positioned to be closer to the antenna layer is positioned to be closer to the antenna than a second group of the plurality of via holes formed in the one or more via wall layers that is disposed farther from the antenna layer. (as shown in Fig.1 for example, ring 131a is closer to antenna than ring 132a])
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the antenna disclosed by Uemichi to incorporate the conductive ring pattern with the chain vias as disclosed by Kim.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because the chain vias concentrate the RF signal transmitted in the z direction. (¶47L6-7)
Regarding claim 17, Uemichi/Kim discloses in Kim the waveguide antenna structure of claim 15, wherein
each of the plurality of via holes formed in the one or more via wall layers is arranged in a row on one side or both sides of the antenna. (¶33L1-3: the conductive pattern surround the patch antenna pattern)(Note: since the conductive pattern surrounds the antenna, the chain vias will as well)
Regarding claim 19, Uemichi/Kim discloses in Kim the waveguide antenna structure of claim 15, wherein
each of the one or more via wall layers includes an opening surrounding the feeding hole, the waveguide and the antenna when viewed in a direction in which the base layer (as shown in Fig.1 for example), the waveguide layer, and the antenna layer are stacked and
Uemichi in view of Kim hereinafter “Uemichi/Kim” does not explicitly disclose the arrangement in which
when the one or more via wall layers include a plurality of via wall layers, an opening of a via wall layer disposed farther from the antenna layer is wider than an opening of another via wall layer disposed closer to the antenna layer.
The combination of Uemichi/Kim would results in the arrangement of the claimed invention, as the chain via to support the conductive ring pattern disclosed by Kim would be incorporated into the antenna of Uemichi around the slots, which would be then surrounded by the post wall of Uemichi.
Therefore, post wall via of Uemichi would be at a distance further from the slots than the chain via around the slot and Kim does disclose that the distances between the conductive ring pattern and antenna may be adjusted to further concentrate the antenna pattern in the z-direction. (Kim ¶48-52)
Regarding claim 20, Uemichi/Kim discloses in Kim the waveguide antenna structure of claim 15,
Uemichi/Kim does not explicitly disclose the arrangement in which
one of the one or more via wall layers covers the feeding hole, the waveguide and the antenna.
Kim does disclose that the distances between the conductive ring pattern and antenna may be adjusted to further concentrate the antenna pattern in the z-direction. (Kim ¶48-52)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the antenna disclosed by Uemichi/Kim to meet the claimed limitation.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because the RF signal can be more concentrated in the z direction depending on the distance of the arrangement. (Kim ¶48-52)
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uemichi/Kim in view of US20230163443A1 hereinafter “Zhang”
Regarding claim 2, Uemichi/Kim discloses in Uemichi the waveguide antenna structure of claim 1, wherein
each of the first via wall layer, the antenna layer, the waveguide layer and the base layer comprises:
a board layer (¶26L1-5: first conductor layer, second conductor layer can be metal, the dielectric layer can be any of glasses, such as silica glass, fluorine-based resin such as PTFE)
Uemichi/Kim does not disclose:
a first protective layer and a second protective layer stacked on one surface and another surface of the board layer, respectively.
Zhang discloses an antenna wherein
a first protective layer and a second protective layer stacked on one surface and another surface of the board layer, respectively. (¶28L1-24: the antenna includes a protective layer)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the protective layer disclosed by Zhang into each layer disclosed by Uemichi/Kim.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because the protective layer can provide protection to the components, and improve efficiency of signal transmission. (Zhang ¶28)
Regarding claim 3, Uemichi/Kim in view of Zhang discloses the waveguide antenna structure of claim 2, wherein
the board layer is made of glass epoxy material (Uemichi ¶26L1-5: the dielectric layer can be any of glasses, such as silica glass, fluorine-based resin such as PTFE), and wherein
the first protective layer and the second protective layer have conductive material. (Zhang ¶28L1-24: the protective layer may also have conductivity)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uemichi/Kim in view of US2024/0039141A1 hereinafter “Karikalan”
Regarding claim 9, Uemichi/Kim discloses the waveguide antenna structure of claim 5
Uemichi/Kim does not disclose:
the plurality of first via holes are arranged in two rows on one side or both sides of the waveguide such that neighboring via holes of the plurality of first via holes are arranged to be staggered in the extension direction in which the waveguide extends.
Lim discloses a waveguide antenna wherein
the plurality of first via holes are arranged in two rows on one side or both sides of the waveguide such that neighboring via holes of the plurality of first via holes are arranged to be staggered in the extension direction in which the waveguide extends. (¶70L1-15: metallic via-holes form lines [520A, 520B] which have staggered alignment which involves some of the metallic via hold within each line begin offset relative to a centerline of the line.)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the via hole disclosed by Uemichi/Kim to be staggered and offset relative to centerline of a line as disclosed by Lim
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because the staggered alignment provide a more robust design toward the misalignment of via-holes during manufacturing.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uemichi/Kim in view of US2024/0039141A1 hereinafter “Karikalan”
Regarding claim 12, Uemichi/Kim discloses the waveguide antenna structure of claim 1,
Uemichi/Kim does not explicitly disclose:
an adhesive layer is respectively interposed between the base layer, the waveguide layer, the antenna layer and the first via wall layer.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to utilize an adhesive layer to bind each layer together.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because this is a common practice in the art, as disclosed in ¶34 of Karikalan. (¶34: one or more adhesive layer between each of the layer)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued one of ordinary skill in the art could not arrive at the relative positional relationship and via arrangement between the plurality of via wall layers of independent claim 1 and 15 in view of the combined teachings of Uemichi and Kim.
The examiner disagrees, the combination of Uemichi/Kim would results in the arrangement of the claimed invention, as the chain via to support the conductive ring pattern disclosed by Kim would be incorporated into the antenna of Uemichi around the slots, which would be then surrounded by the post wall of Uemichi.
Therefore, post wall via of Uemichi would be at a distance further from the slots than the chain via around the slot and Kim does disclose that the distances between the conductive ring pattern and antenna may be adjusted to further concentrate the antenna pattern in the z-direction. (Kim ¶48-52)
For the at least foregoing reason, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RAYMOND R CHAI whose telephone number is (571)270-0576. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30AM-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, Alexander Taningco can be reached at 571-242-8048. 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.
/Raymond R Chai/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights