Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 17/422,975

RADAR SENSOR FOR FACTORY AND LOGISTICS AUTOMATION

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jul 14, 2021
Priority
Feb 18, 2019 — DE 10 2019 202 144.1 +1 more
Examiner
BARKER, MATTHEW M
Art Unit
3646
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Vega Grieshaber KG
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allowance Rate
574 granted / 791 resolved
+20.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +15% lift
Without
With
+14.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
17 currently pending
Career history
811
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
9.5%
-30.5% vs TC avg
§103
31.8%
-8.2% vs TC avg
§102
15.4%
-24.6% vs TC avg
§112
39.1%
-0.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 791 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/11/2026 has been entered. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments filed 8/11/2026 concerning the prior art are persuasive. A new rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) is necessitated by amendment. Applicant is reminded that upon a finding that independent claim 20 is in condition for allowance, withdrawn claims will be considered for rejoinder. Applicant is encouraged to review all withdrawn claims for inconsistencies, redundancies, etc. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 20, 28, 30, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 20 recites the broad recitation ”wherein the radar sensor is configured to implement a safety function…by triggering a safety reaction when an object is detected in a danger area:, and the claim also recites “wherein the radar sensor is further configured to trigger the safety function particularly when detecting, based on a corresponding reflection in an echo curve, that a hand of a user has entered the parameterizable danger area, the corresponding reflection of the hand being reliably distinguishable from a reflection of a sheet material in the echo curve”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claims 28, 30, and 40 depend on claim 20 and are likewise indefinite. It is suggested that the final three limitations be rewritten to simplify and set forth the functions of the radar sensor chronologically, as an example: --wherein the radar sensor is configured to: detect, based on a corresponding reflection in an echo curve, that a hand of a user has entered a parameterizable danger area, the corresponding reflection of the hand being reliably distinguishable from a reflection of a sheet material in the echo curve; and trigger a targeted, real-time critical safety reaction that includes an automated emergency shutdown of a machine or system when a hand of a user has entered the parameterizable danger area. -- Further, claim 30 recites the broad recitation “wherein the second lens has a distance between 5 mm to 50 mm to the radar chip and/or the first lens”, and the claim also recites “wherein the second lens has a distance of 30 mm or less to the radar chip and/or the first lens” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 20, 28, 30, and 40 as best understood would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WO 2008/028899 relates to radar detection of a hand in a monitoring area and safety shutdown of a machine tool. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew M Barker whose telephone number is (571)272-3103. The examiner can normally be reached on a part time schedule, typically M-Fri 8:00 AM-4:30 PM Eastern Time, but having off alternating Monday-Tuesdays and Fridays. 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, Jack Keith can be reached at 571-273-6878. 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. /MATTHEW M BARKER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 4 earlier events
Sep 10, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Sep 23, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 02, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Dec 31, 2025
Response Filed
May 12, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112
Aug 11, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 13, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12736388
RADAR-OPERATED FILL LEVEL MEASURING DEVICE
2y 4m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12704624
SIGNAL PROCESSING METHOD AND APPARATUS
3y 5m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12674865
RADAR DATA BUFFERING
4y 1m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12638575
Systems and Methods for Noninvasive Detection of Impermissible Objects Using Personal Equipment
3y 2m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12625247
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE PACKAGE AND A METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME
4y 11m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+14.9%)
3y 2m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 791 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month