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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species XXIII in the reply filed on 7/17/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse. MPEP § 818.01(a). Claims 11-12, 15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 1-10 and 13-14 are being examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted 2/11/2025 and 5/14/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: --RIDGE WAVEGUIDE INCLUDING A WALL--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 2, to provide a proper antecedent basis for later occurrences of the term “first surface,” the term “a first conductive surface” should be:
--a first , which is conductive,--
Claim 1, line 3, to provide a proper antecedent basis for later occurrences of the term “second surface,” the term “a second conductive surface” should be:
--a second , which is conductive,--
Claim 2, line 1, for proper characterization, the term “the length of the wall portion” should read:
--a
Claim 10, line 1, for proper characterization, the term “the top surface” should read:
--a --
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-10 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 1, line 4, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “in the planar direction of the first surface” For examination purposes, this limitation will be understood to mean: --in a first planar direction of the first surface--.
A corresponding change must be made in claim 2, changing “in planar direction” to “in the first planar direction; and in claim 13, changing “in the planar direction” to “in the first planar direction.”
Claim 1, line 15, recites “wherein at least a side surface facing the waveguide member has conductivity.” It is unclear whether the term “a side surface” refers to the previously recited “a first member,” “a second member,” “a plurality of rods” or “a wall portion,” all of which appear to be facing the waveguide member. For examination purposes, this limitation will be understood to mean:--wherein at least a side surface of the wall portion facing the waveguide member has conductivity--.
Claim 8 recites “wherein some of the plurality of rods are provided on the side opposite the wall portion, adjacent to the waveguide member, and interposing the waveguide member.” It is unclear what is meant by “and interposing the waveguide member,” particularly because claim 1 requires the wall portion to be “adjacent to the waveguide member without the plurality of rods interposed therebetween” (emphasis added). Until this ambiguity is resolved, no meaningful prior art examination of claim 8 is possible.
Claim 14 recites “wherein the wall portion defines the distance between the first member and the second member.” It is unclear which particular dimension of the wall portion defines the distance between the first member and the second member. For examination purposes, this limitation will be understood to mean:
--wherein a height of the wall portion defines the distance between the first member and the second member--
Claims 2-10, 13-14 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as dependent on the rejected claim(s).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 3-5, 7, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0194862, published 6/18/2020 (“Kamo”), cited by the applicant.
Kamo discloses in Figs. 4-5, 10-12 and the corresponding description:
Claim 1 (as best understood)
A waveguide device (Figs. 3A, 4A-B, 5; ¶94, waveguide device) comprising:
a first member (320) that has a first conductive surface (320a) (Figs. 3A, 4A-B, 5);
a second member (310) that has a second conductive surface (310b) facing the first surface (Figs. 3A, 4A-B, 5);
a waveguide member (322) that is provided to extend in the planar direction of the first surface between the first surface and the second surface, is in contact with the first surface, forms a gap with the second surface, and has a conductive waveguide surface facing the second surface (Figs. 3A, 4A-B, 5; ¶¶88-97);
a plurality of rods (324) that are provided around the waveguide member between the first surface and the second surface, are in contact with one of the first surface and the second surface and extend toward the other surface, form a second gap with the other surface, and each have a conductive surface (Figs. 3A, 4A-B, 5, ¶¶88-97); and
a wall portion (354) that is in contact with or is high-frequency coupled to the first surface and the second surface, and is provided between the first surface and the second surface adjacent to the waveguide member without the plurality of rods interposed therebetween, wherein at least a side surface of the wall portion facing the waveguide member has conductivity (¶¶88-97, walls 354 are conductive).
Claim 3
wherein the plurality of rods (324) are in contact with the first surface (320a) and extend toward the second surface (310b), and a second gap is formed with second surface (Figs. 3A, 4A-B, 5).
Claim 4
wherein the side surface of the wall portion extends along the waveguide member (Fig. 5, each arm of the U-shaped wall 354 extends along the waveguide 322).
Claim 5
wherein the side surface of the wall portion is adjacent to a straight portion of the waveguide member (Fig. 5, each arm of the U-shaped wall 354 is adjacent to a straight portion of the waveguide 322).
Claim 7
wherein some of the plurality of rods are provided on both sides of the wall portion in the direction in which the waveguide member extends (Fig. 5, at least some of rods 324 are provided on both sides of the U-shaped wall 354).
Claim 14
wherein the wall portion defines the distance between the first member and the second member (Figs. 4, 10B showing that the height of the wall 354 is equal to the distance between the first member 320 and the second member 310).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamo in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0166119, published 5/26/2022 (“Wu”).
Regarding claims 9-10, Kamo discloses all the limitations but is silent on how the second member is fastened to the wall portion.
However, Wu, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a similar ridge gap waveguide including pins 31 with screwholes 32 for connecting the upper and bottom plates (Figs. 1-2, ¶54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the waveguide of Kamo by adding a screwhole to the top surface of the wall portion and using a screw fastener for the benefit of securing the second member to the wall portion, as taught by Wu (¶54).
In addition, it would have been obvious to combine the elements, that is, the waveguide of Kamo and the fastening structure of Wu, as recited in claims 9-10, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art, could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143.I.A.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 6, 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim(s) and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kildal et al., Design and experimental verification of ridge gap waveguides in bed of nails for parallel plate mode suppression, IET Microwaves, Antennas & Propagation, vol. 5(3), 2011, pp. 262-270 (“Kildal”) discloses a ridge gap waveguide including bottom and upper plates, rods, waveguiding ridges and a wall portion (“shorting post”) (Fig. 10, Section IX).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTOR COLE, telephone number (571) 272-4686. The examiner can be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-5PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ANDREA LINDGREN BALTZELL, can be reached at (571) 272-5918. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/VICTOR COLE/
Examiner, Art Unit 2843
/ANDREA LINDGREN BALTZELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights