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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues, see Remarks page 7 filed 12/31/2025, that no combination of the cited references teaches implementing the “safety function” as amended. The argument is persuasive; however a new ground(s) of rejection is made upon consideration of the newly added feature.
Applicant further discusses on pages 7-8 advantages of radar over optical sensing for recognizing hands or body parts of users of a machine to initiate a safety reaction and “None of the cited references provides any information on the benefits of the particularly claimed radar sensor with reference to impaired vision or to different permittivity that would have motivated the person of ordinary skill in the art.” However it is noted that the claimed language of triggering a “safety reaction when an object is detected in a danger area” broadly encompasses any application of the radar for any objects where an action that is in any way safety-related is triggered. The claims are silent as to permittivity, hand/body part detection, and the nature of the safety reaction.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: at line 34 of page 11, the specification refers to “processor 704”, however reference 704 in the drawings indicates a lens.
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.
Claim(s) 20, 28, and 30-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grzyb et al. (“A 210–270-GHz Circularly Polarized FMCW Radar With a Single-Lens-Coupled SiGe HBT Chip”) in view of Nagasaku et al. (US 2006/0139206), Schmidt et al. (US 2005/0001632), and Chen et al. (US 2021/0325528).
Regarding claim 20, Grzyb discloses radar circuitry comprising a radar chip (Figure 3), configured to generate, emit, receive, and evaluate radar measurement signals (i.e. generic radar operation, see at least Page 781, “Summary and Outlook” section) and a housing in which the radar circuitry is located (page 773, “The entire chip-on-lens assembly is then mounted on the backside of a regular FR-4 board with a recess accommodating the radar chip),
wherein the radar chip has a cross-sectional area of less than 1 cm2 (Fig. 1 caption: “The chip size is 2.9 × 1.1 mm2”; it is also noted that the claims nor specification are found to specify a plane in which the claimed “cross-sectional area” is taken, therefore the limitation has minimal limiting effect),
wherein the radar measurement signals have a frequency above 160 GHz (title) and are focused such that a resulting beam aperture angle is narrow (Figure 9),
wherein the radar circuitry further comprises a phase-locked loop (PLL) configured to generate frequency modulated continuous wave radar measurement signals (e.g. Figure 12),
wherein the radar circuitry further comprises a first lens in an area of a primary radiator (antenna) and configured to focus the radar measurement signals emitted by the primary radiator (e.g. Figure 5), and
wherein the radar sensor is configured to define at least one parameterizable “danger area” (“The cardboard box area of 12 × 6 cm 2 was meander-scanned with a step size of 1 and 0.5 mm in the X- and Y -direction, respectively, as indicated in Fig. 17”).
Grzyb does not disclose that the housing comprises a second lens configured to focus the radar measurement signals emitted by the primary radiator.
Nagasaku discloses a similar radar sensor (Fig. 7) where both the housing comprises a lens (“second” lens 9) and radar circuitry comprises a lens (“first” lens 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to modify the radar of Grzyb to use a two lens design housed as suggested by Nagasaku in order to both protect the chip when in use outside of a laboratory environment (a conventional advantage in the art) and minimize loss while achieving the desired focus as explained by Nagasaku ([0067]) with predictable results.
The claim limitation requiring “a resulting beam aperture angle” of less than 5°, e.g. as illustrated at Figure 5, is interpreted to refer to the conventional 3 dB or “half-power” beam width. In the Figure 9 antenna pattern plot Grzyb appears to illustrate this measurement as approximately 5° but the figure lacks resolution sufficient to conclusively anticipate the requirement of less than 5°. Schmidt discloses lens focused radar circuitry with similar frequency and applicability, where the resulting beam aperture angle is less than 5° (([0011]: “The measurement in the microwave range makes high beam focusing possible (less than ±5° of the full width at half-maximum…”). If not already less than 5°, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to focus the beam of Grzyb to less than 5° as suggested by Schmidt for the conventional advantage of improved angular resolution to better differentiate objects.
Grzyb discloses general applicability to hidden object detection (Abstract; section VI. “Summary and Outlook”) but is not concerned with any specific application. While a test setup inspecting the contents of a cardboard box is demonstrated, Grzyb does not specify an application to include triggering a “safety reaction” when an object is detected in the danger area.
Chen et al. discloses a particular application (Fig. 12) for radar sensors operating above 160 GHz ([0020]) and teaches triggering a safety reaction (s209) when an object (“dangerous article”) is detected (S208) after defining a parameterizable “danger area” (S201-S203). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to modify the radar of Grzyb for application to security inspection as demonstrated by Chen et al., to include defining a parameterizable danger area and triggering a safety reaction upon object detection, in order to meet the need for safe and effective non-ionizing hidden object detection as disclosed by Chen ([0003]), particularly as the 3-D imaging capability of Grzyb is specifically suited to hidden object detection (“VI. Summary and Outlook”).
Regarding claim 28, the diameter of the second lens of Grzyb as modified by Nagasaku is constrained by other design parameters. In accordance with the teaching of Nagasaku at [0045], by applying the relationships disclosed in order to achieve the narrow beam aperture angle of Grzyb, it follows that the second lens diameter may be less than 20mm. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to size the second lens at 20mm or less with a reasonable expectation of success in order to minimize the size of the device while maintaining the intended performance.
Regarding claim 30, Grzyb discloses the first lens has a diameter of 10mm or less (i.e. 9mm).
Regarding claims 31 and 32, the distance between the chip and lens is a result-effective variable and Nagasaku demonstrates this effect at Figure 18, showing this distance (a) vs. focal point error. In modifying Grzyb to use two lenses as suggested by Nagasaku it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to space the chip and first lens at a distance of less than 30 mm (and/or between 5 mm and 50 mm) as claimed through routine optimization with a reasonable expectation of success. For example, Figure 18 of Nagasaku demonstrates that focal point error can be high at very close distances (e.g. less than 5mm), whereas extending to distances beyond 30mm produces limited additional benefit.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights