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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted 5/19/2025 and 8/29/2025 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: Additively Manufactured Inkjet-Printed RF and mm-Wave Circuits.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over B. K. He et al., Additively Manufactured mm-Wave Multichip Modules With Fully Printed “Smart” Encapsulation Structures, IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, vol. 68, no. 7, pp. 2716-2724, 2019 (“He”) in view of WO2020/205691, published 10/8/2020 (“Sokol”), both cited by the applicant.
Regarding Claims 1-2, 15-16, He discloses (Figs. 1d-14, pp. 2716-2724):
An electronic circuit (Figs. 1d, 2, fully inkjet-printed interconnected RF front-end multichip module MCM) comprising a three-dimensional (3D) frequency pass filter (FPF), wherein:
the 3D FPF comprises a plurality of two-dimensional (2D) inkjet printed layers (Figs. 1b, 2 showing the multiple layers that were additively manufactured),
each of the 2D inkjet printed layers comprises an RF (radiofrequency) circuit and/or a mm wave circuit that comprises traces of conductive ink (p. 2818, “the metallization was accomplished using Suntronic EMD5730 silver nanoparticle (SNP) ink from Sun Chemical”) bordered by dielectric ink (p. 2818, “SU8 photoresist ink was inkjet printed as the dielectric material”) according to a given FPF design, and are cured and/or sintered (p. 2718 “the SNP ink was sintered”), and
the 3D FPF comprises:
a first buried waveguide (Figs. 1-2, 5, 10; inkjet-printed gap-filled RF_interconnect2) in communication with a power amplifier (PA) (Qorvo TGA 4036 PA);
a buried selector (Qorvo TGS 4302 SPDT switch) in communication with the first buried waveguide;
a second buried waveguide (RF_interconnect4) in communication with the buried selector; and
a low noise amplifier (LNA) (ALH369 LNA) in communication with the second buried waveguide.
He does not explicitly disclose (albeit, fairly suggests in Figs. 10, 12-13, RF_interconnect3 and an antenna port labeled “Output” and also Fig. 14, an FSS) an “antenna in communication with the buried selector.”
However, Sokol, in the same field of endeavor, discloses similar inkjet-printed AME circuits (Figs. 1-3, ¶¶1, 63), including a printed antenna 140 in communication with the buried chip 110 (Fig. 1, 3, ¶¶6, 60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic circuit of He by adding a printed antenna in communication with the buried selector (switch) for the benefit of increasing the quality and reliability of the device, as taught by Sokol (¶60).
Regarding Claim 3, He in view of Sokol discloses wherein the antenna comprises an antenna array (Sokol, ¶60, “a dual port diversity antenna by printing two antennas extending orthogonally thereby ameliorating multipath interference”)
Regarding Claim 4, He in view of Sokol discloses wherein the first and/or second buried waveguide comprises a Post-wall waveguide (Figs. 1, 2, 10, vias forming post-wall waveguides) or a full coaxial waveguide (Figs. 1-2, 5, 10; inkjet-printed gap-filled interconnects combine a coaxial cavity waveguide with a common propagation axis with a continuous conductive trace forming a portion of the waveguide).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Sokol as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of G. P. Le Sage, 3D Printed Waveguide Slot Array Antennas, IEEE Access, vol. 4, pp. 1258-1265, 2016 (“Le Sage”).
Regarding Claim 5, He in view of Sokol discloses all the limitations except wherein the antenna array comprises a slot array antenna or a patch array antenna.
However, Le Sage, in the same field of endeavor, discloses 3D printed waveguide slot arrays antennas (Figs. 8, 9, 13, 14, p. 1265).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the electronic circuit of He by adding a 3D-printed waveguide slot arrays antenna in communication with the buried selector (switch) for the benefit of reducing the cost, weight and prototyping speed of the devices, as taught by Le Sage (Abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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