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 XXI in the reply filed on 8/3/2026 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 Claims 6 and 14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 1-5 and 7-13 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 3/6/2025 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 THROUGH-HOLES AND 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 read:
--a first , which is conductive,--
Claim 1, line 3, for proper characterization, the term “the side opposite the first surface” should read:
-- a
Claim 1, line 5, to provide a proper antecedent basis for later occurrences of the term “third surface,” the term “a third conductive surface” should read:
--a third , which is conductive,--
Claim 1, line 17, to provide a proper antecedent basis for later occurrences of the term “side surface,” the term “a conductive side surface” should read:
--a side , which is conductive,--
Claim 5, line 1, for proper characterization, the term “the length of the side surface” should read:
--a
Claim 5, line 2, for proper characterization, the term “the length of the first through hole” should read:
-- a
Claim 7, line 1, for proper characterization, the term “the length of the side surface” 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 1-5 and 7-13 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 6, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “in the planar direction of the first surface,” which renders the claim indefinite. For examination purposes, this limitation will be understood to mean:
--in a first planar direction of the first surface--.
A corresponding correction must be made in claims 5 and 7, wherein “in the planar direction” should read:
--in the first planar direction--
Claim 1, line 16, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the rods,” which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the term refers to the previously recited “a plurality of rods” or some other rods. For examination purposes, this term will be understood to mean:
--any rods of the plurality of rods--
Claim 1, lines 16-17, recites “at least a conductive side surface on the first through-hole side.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the first through-hole side,” which renders the claim indefinite. For examination purposes, this limitation will be understood to mean:
--at least a conductive side surface facing
Claim 3 recites “wherein the side surface of the wall portion is perpendicular to the direction in which the waveguide member extends to the tip.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the direction,” which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the term refers to the first planar direction or another direction. For examination purposes, this limitation will be understood to mean:
-- wherein the side surface of the wall portion is perpendicular to the first planar direction in which the waveguide member extends to the tip--
Claim 4 recites “wherein the wall portion has a step portion away from the second member at a point on the surface of the second member side that is located on the first through-hole side.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the terms “the surface”, “the second member side,” and “the first through-hole side.” It is also unclear what is meant by “away from the second member” and “at a point on the surface of the second member side that is located on the first through-hole side” which appears to refers to “a point on the third surface.” For examination purposes, this limitation will be understood to mean:
--wherein the wall portion has a step portion--
Claim 11, lines 2-3, recites “the direction in which the tip of the waveguide member and the side surface of the wall portion face each other.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the direction” and it is unclear how this direction to be determined with respect to the term “face each other.” For examination purposes, this limitation will be understood to mean:
-- the first planar direction--
Claim 13 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 2-5, 7-13 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 1-5, 7-8, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0036230, published 1/31/2019 (“Kirino”), cited by the applicant.
Kirino discloses in Figs. 4, 16-18 and the corresponding description:
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 13 (as best understood)
A waveguide device (Figs. 16-18, ¶¶256-277, array antenna device) comprising:
a first member (Fig. 16-21, conductive member 120) that has a conductive first surface (120a) and a first through-hole (port 145U) passing between the first surface (120a) and a second surface (120b) on the side opposite the first surface (120a) and having a conductive inner surface in contact with the first surface (¶¶262, 279);
a second member (conductive member 110) that has a conductive third surface facing the first surface (Fig. 16);
a waveguide member (waveguide member 122U) that is provided to extend in the planar direction (Figs. 16-17, Y-axis) of the first surface between the first surface and the third surface, is in contact with first surface, forms a first gap with the third surface, and has a tip (Fig. 19, annotated, below) adjacent to the first through-hole and a conductive waveguide surface facing the third surface (Figs. 16-21);
a plurality of rods (conductive rods 124U) each having a conductive surface that are provided around the waveguide member between the first surface and the third surface, are in contact with one of the first surface and the third surface and form a second gap with the other surface, and are not arranged between the first through-hole and the tip of the waveguide member (Figs. 18-21);
and a wall portion (Fig. 19, annotated, flat portion 123a, ¶271-276) that is in contact with or is high-frequency coupled to the first surface and the third surface and provided adjacent to the first through-hole between the first surface and the third surface without the rods interposed therebetween, and has at least a conductive side surface on the first through-hole side (¶¶271-276).
PNG
media_image1.png
443
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4 (as best understood), Kirino teaches wherein the wall portion has a step portion (Fig. 19, steps La and Lb)
Regarding claim 5, Kirino teaches that the aperture of the port 145U is substantially flush with the end of the waveguide member, which means that the length of the side surface of the wall portion in the planar direction is greater than the length of the first through-hole in the direction in which the side surface of the wall portion extends in plan view.
Regarding claim 7, Kirino teaches to set the distance between the first surface and the third surface at less than λ/2 (Fig. 4, ¶202). Kirino further teaches to set the length of the step portion, La+Lb, at about λ/2 (Fig. 19, ¶272). Because the length of the side surface of the wall portion in the first planar direction actually exceeds the length of the step portion, it is greater than the distance between the first surface and the third surface.
Regarding claim 13, Kirino teaches to set the height of the flat portion 123a of the wall portion greater than the height of the waveguide member (Figs. 16-17, ¶276). Kirino also teaches to set the height of the waveguide member at less than λ/2 (¶¶199-200). Kirino further teaches to set the distance between the first member and the second member at less than λ/2 (Fig. 4, ¶202). Therefore, Kirino teaches that the height of the wall portion, at least in part 123a, defines the distance between the first member and the second member.
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 Kirino in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0166119, published 5/26/2022 (“Wu”).
Regarding claims 9-10, Kirino discloses all the limitations, including wherein the top surface of the wall portion has a recessed portion (Fig. 19, recessed portion 122b), 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 recessed portion 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.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirino in view of Wu, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of C. G. Montgomery et al., Principles of Microwave Circuits, 1948 (“Montgomery”).
Regarding claims 11-12, Kirino in view of Wu discloses all the limitations except a groove around the second through-hole with the depth of 1/4 of wavelength.
However, Montgomery, in the same field of endeavor, discloses RF circular choke grooves with the depth of λ/4 around through-holes in microwave waveguides to reduce radio frequency leakage (Fig. 6.24, pp. 197-198).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the waveguide of Kamo by adding a circular groove around the second through-hole with the depth of λ/4 for the benefit of reducing radio frequency leakage, as taught by Montgomery (pp. 197-198).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0194862, published 6/18/2020 (“Kamo”) discloses waveguide devices comprising first member 320, second member 310, waveguide member 322, first through-hole 352 and wall portion 354 (Figs. 4-5).
JP 3829040 B2, issued 10/4/2006 (“Nakane”), a machine translation of which is provided herewith, discloses circular choke grooves M1 and M2 with depth of λ/4 around two circular waveguides H1 and H2 to improve waveguide characteristics (Fig. 1, ¶12-15).
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