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 .
Preliminary Amendment
The amendment filed 6/27/2025 pursuant to 37 CFR 1.115 was entered. The applicant has cancelled claims 1-13 and added claims 14-33. Claims 14-33 are pending.
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 6/27/2025 and 2/6/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. Specification, ¶24; MPEP § 608.02(g).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “1032” has been used to designate both the end wall 1032 and the ledge 1034 or 1036 in Figs. 10, 11 and 15. Specification, ¶54.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: Fig. 10, ledge 1036.
The drawings are also objected to because of the following minor informalities:
Fig. 2 includes a reference “h” designating the height of the waveguide, which is referred to as the ‘b’ dimension in the specification (¶45). The examiner suggests changing “h” to “b” in Fig. 2 for consistency with the specification and the claims.
Fig. 3 includes two references “W2”: one designating the width of cavity 238; the other designating the width of opening 228. The reference “W2” designating the width of elongated cavity 238 should be changed to “W1.”
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. No new matter should be entered. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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: WAVEGUIDE BEND WITH STEPPED IMPEDANCE MATCHING STRUCTURE.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 47, lines 3-9 should read:
--The cavity has a width [[W2]] W1 which corresponds to the [[”a”[[ ‘a’ [single quotes] dimension of the waveguide as the signal propagates towards the right of the FIG. 3 as shown. The FIG. 3 also shows the opening 228 in the first laminate structure 220. The opening has a smaller dimension (or width) [[W1]] W2, which corresponds to the 'b' dimension of the waveguide as the signal propagates down (into the paper as shown) from the LiP packaged semiconductor device (not shown) to the elongate cavity 238.--
Paragraph 51, line 1, there is a missing space in “FIG. 6”;
Paragraph 51, line 4, there is a missing space in “FIG. 3”;
Paragraph 51, line 5, “as can be seen in the FIG.,the second laminate…” should read --as can be seen in the FIG. 6, the second laminate--;
Paragraph 52, line 6, there is a missing space in “FIG. 7”.
Paragraph 54, uses reference characters “1034” and "1036" to designate the ledge; one should be chosen for consistency with appropriate corrections in the figures.
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 14-33 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.
Claims 14 and 28, last line each, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the opening width.” It is unclear whether it refers to “a smaller opening width” recited previously in the claims or some other opening width, which renders the claims vague and indefinite. For examination purposes, the terms will be understood to mean --the smaller opening width--.
Claims 20 and 33, recite “wherein the ledge extends between 50% and 60% of the width of the waveguide.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the width of the waveguide.” It is unclear which particular “waveguide” is used as a reference, which renders the claims vague and indefinite. The disclosure is also unclear. See, e.g., Specification, ¶¶12, 55; Fig. 13. For examination purposes, this limitation will be understood to mean “wherein the ledge extends a distance (d2) between 50% and 60% of the opening width (W2)”.
Claim 24, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the offset,” which renders the claim indefinite. For examination purposes, this limitation will be understood to mean “the offset distance” recited in claim 14.
Claims 15-27 and 29-33 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 14, 16-19, 21-23, 25, 28, 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN114267931A, published 4/1/2022 (“Wu”), cited by the applicant, a machine translation of which including paragraph numbers is provided herewith.
Wu discloses in Figs. 1-7 and the corresponding description:
PNG
media_image1.png
506
710
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 14, 16, 25, and 28 (as best understood)
A waveguide assembly (Figs. 1, 2, integrated waveguide 2, ¶¶61-71) comprising:
a stack of a first laminate structure (substrate 211), a second laminate structure (substrates 212 and 213), and a substrate (substrate 214) having a conductive surface (metal layer 2141, annotated as ML5 in Fig. 1 above) proximal to the second laminate structure;
wherein the first laminate structure comprises a plurality of metal layers (two metal layers ML1 and ML2, 2111) with dielectric material therebetween (¶2, LTCC) and has at least one opening therethrough (Fig. 1, annotated, ¶55, 97-98) having an opening length and a smaller opening width (Fig. 2 shows that the width of the opening is smaller than its length) and configured to propagate millimeter-wavelength or microwave radiation through the first laminate structure (¶¶1-2);
wherein the second laminate structure (substrates 212 and 213) comprises a plurality of metal layers (2123, annotated as ML3, and 2133, annotated as ML4) with dielectric material therebetween (¶2, LTCC) and an elongate cavity therethrough (¶¶61-66) having a cavity width and extending in a first direction therealong and having conductive sidewalls (¶66, formed by metallized holes 2124 and 2134) and forming an air-filled waveguide for the millimeter-wavelength or microwave radiation (¶¶64-66, 98); and
wherein the opening is partially over an end of the elongate cavity, such that the opening length is aligned with the cavity width (Figs. 1-2 show that the opening length is aligned with the cavity width, i.e., waveguiding ‘a’ dimension), and a sidewall of the opening along the opening length is offset from the end of the elongate cavity by an offset distance (Fig. 1, annotated) which is less that the opening width (¶¶48, 61, 66, a stepped portion is formed by forming cut-off portions 2121 and 2131 with different lengths in the transmission direction on at least two intermediate substrates. Metal layers 2123 and 2133 are provided on the stepped portion. Multiple metallized holes 2124 and 2134 are formed on both sides of the stepped portion along the transmission direction and on one side perpendicular to the transmission direction.)
Claims 17 and 30
wherein the second laminate structure comprises a multi-layer printed circuit board (substrates 212 and 213) having top and bottom metals layer, and at least a third metal layer (2133) therebetween (¶¶64-69).
Claims 18 and 31
where the elongate cavity comprises a ledge across a width of the elongate cavity at the end (Fig. 1, annotated).
Claims 19 and 32
wherein an upper surface of the ledge is formed of the third metal layer (¶66, 69).
Claim 21
wherein the opening length is a waveguiding 'a' dimension and the width of the opening in the first laminate structure is a waveguiding 'b' dimension (Figs. 1-2).
Claim 22
wherein a distance between a bottom metal layer of the first laminate structure and the conductive surface of the substrate is the same as the width of the opening in the first laminate structure (Figs. 1-2, ¶64, The upper metal layer 2111, the lower metal layer 2141 and the two rows of metallized holes 2122 and 2132 form an air waveguide.)
Claim 23
wherein a distance between a bottom metal layer of the first laminate structure and the conductive surface of the substrate is a waveguiding 'b' dimension (Figs. 1-2, ¶64, The upper metal layer 2111, the lower metal layer 2141 and the two rows of metallized holes 2122 and 2132 form an air waveguide.)
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 15, 26-27, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0173490, published 6/2/2022 (“Buijsman”), cited by the applicant.
Regarding claims 15 and 29, Wu discloses all the limitations and also teaches to use its invention “for the fabrication of millimeter-wave terahertz devices” (¶2), but does not explicitly disclose “a semiconductor device mounted on the first laminate structure and configured to propagate millimeter-wavelength or microwave radiation at least a one of into and out of the opening.”
However, Buijsman, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a semiconductor device mounted on the laminated substrate including integrated hollow waveguide (Figs. 1A-B).
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 assembly of Wu by having a semiconductor device mounted thereupon for the benefit of providing a channel configured for propagation of radar and mm Wave signals between the semiconductor device and a waveguide antenna, as taught by Buijsman (¶¶9, 42).
Regarding claims 26-27, Wu is silent on how the first and second laminate structures are affixed.
However, Buijsman, teaches joining stacked substrates to form integrated waveguides by using joining material, such as solder (¶18).
It would have been obvious to combine the elements as claimed 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 20, 24, 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Lee et al., Design Formulas for Compact Low-Reflection Waveguide Bends, J. Korean Soc. Inf. Tech., 2011, vol. 9, issue 1, pp. 89–94 (“Lee”).
Regarding claims 20, 24, 33 (as best understood), Wu discloses all the limitations except “wherein the ledge extends between 50% and 60% of the opening width distance is between 25% and 75% of the opening width” (claim 24).
PNG
media_image2.png
327
657
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Lee, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a compact rectangular waveguide bend including a two-step impedance matching structure (Fig. 1b, annotated above, pp. 90-91). The two-step impedance matching structure includes step 1, corresponding to the claimed offset distance (distance ‘d’ in Fig. 1b), and step 2, corresponding to the claimed ledge (distance ‘c’ in Fig. 1b). Lee further teaches that c=0.510b, that is that the ledge extends 51%, and d=0.255b, that is, the offset distance of 25.5%, where b is the “narrow wall height of the waveguide” (p. 91), which corresponds to the claimed opening width.
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 assembly of Wu by having the ledge extends between 50% and 60% of the opening width and by having the offset distance between 25% and 75% of the opening width for the benefit of providing a compact, low-reflection waveguide bend operating over the entire waveguide bandwidth, as taught by Lee (pp. 90-93).
Claims 14-16 and 21- 29 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buijsman in view of F. F. Manzillo, et al., Mode Matching Analysis of an E-Plane 90° Bend With a Square Step in Parallel-Plate Waveguide, IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters, 2017, vol. 16, pp. 2187-2190 (“Manzillo”).
Regarding claims 14-16 and 21- 28, Buijsman discloses in Figs. 1-7 and the corresponding description:
A waveguide assembly (Fig. 1A, assembly 100, ¶¶9-21) comprising:
a stack of a first laminate structure, a second laminate structure, and a substrate having a conductive surface (conductive layer 138) proximal to the second laminate structure (Fig. 1A, annotated);
wherein the first laminate structure comprises a plurality of metal layers (138) with dielectric material therebetween (¶¶10-14, PCB) and has at least one opening therethrough (Fig. 1, annotated) having an opening length and a smaller opening width and configured to propagate millimeter-wavelength or microwave radiation through the first laminate structure (¶¶9-21);
wherein the second laminate structure comprises a plurality of metal layers with dielectric material therebetween and an elongate cavity (134 or 136) therethrough having a cavity width and extending in a first direction therealong and having conductive sidewalls (138, 140) and forming an air-filled waveguide for the millimeter-wavelength or microwave radiation (¶14, “The substrate integrated hollow waveguide 106 includes waveguides 134 and 136.”).
PNG
media_image3.png
599
931
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Buijsman does not disclose “wherein the opening is partially over an end of the elongate cavity, such that the opening length is aligned with the cavity width, and a sidewall of the opening along the opening length is offset from the end of the elongate cavity by an offset distance which is less that the opening width.”
However, Manzillo, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a 90° bend in parallel-plate waveguide implemented in multilayer PCBs (Abstract) including an impedance matching step with an offset distance ‘b’ (Fig. 1, annotated below, p. 2187).
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 assembly of Buijsman by adding an offsetting step for the benefit of cancelling out the reactance of the waveguide bend to achieve broadband matching, as taught by Manzillo (pp. 2187, 2190).
PNG
media_image4.png
478
679
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 15 and 29, Buijsman in view of Manzillo discloses a semiconductor device (Buijsman, Figs. 1A-B, semiconductor device 102) mounted on the first laminate structure and configured to propagate millimeter- wavelength or microwave radiation at least a one of into and out of the opening (¶¶10-14).
Regarding claim 24 (as best understood), Buijsman in view of Manzillo discloses wherein the offset is between 25% and 75% of the opening width (Manzillo, p. 2189, “the best matching is achieved when the ratio b/a is between 0.4 and 0.6”).
Regarding claims 26-27, Buijsman in view of Manzillo discloses joining stacked substrates to form integrated waveguides by using joining material, such as solder (Buijsman, ¶18).
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
