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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/02/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argued that “The red arrow associated with the "inner ends of the radiation orifices" is intended to point to any side of the perimeter that bounds and forms the shape of the orifices. This amendment is in contrast with regard to Garcia Tejero. The Office Action maps openings 13 of Figures 7 and 8 to the radiation orifices of the claimed invention, but openings 13 are flush with, and therefore are not recessed from, surface 17.
Therefore, in view of this discussion, withdrawal of the Section 103 rejection based on Garcia Tejero And Brandenburg is requested.”
The arguments are now moot because claim 1 is now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia Tejero et al, US-20230420857-A1 in view of Park et al, US-20220231423-A1 as explained below.
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 9-13 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein the centering body is bonded via the electrically conductive surface layer to a ground electrode of a circuit board” in lines 1-3 which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear which electrically conductive surface layer the claim is referring to because there are an electrically conductive surface layer of at least one waveguide structure and an electrically conductive surface layer of at least one further plastic body recited in claim 1. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the claim as best understood.
Similar rejection would be applied to claim 13.
Claims 10-13 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 9 and are subsequently rejected.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia Tejero et al, US-20230420857-A1 (hereinafter Garcia Tejero) in view of Park et al, US-20220231423-A1 (hereinafter Park).
Regarding claim 1, Garcia Tejero discloses the following:
a radar sensor, comprising:
at least one high-frequency component (radar chip 3, fig. 4, para [0107] which is used in millimeter-wave frequencies and automobile radar applications, para [0023], i.e. high-frequency);
at least one waveguide structure (8, figs. 1-8) in the form of a plastic body provided with an electrically conductive surface layer (para [0107], [0109]: the back part 7 and/or the front part 8 of the antenna device 1 are made by injection molding of a plastic material and the back part 7 and/or the front part 8 are made of metal and/or metallized plastic and/or any other material conductive at the surface); and
at least one further plastic body provided with an electrically conductive surface layer (7, para [0107], [0109]);
wherein the plastic body and the at least one further plastic body with their conductive surface layers are thermally bonded to one another (para [0047]);
wherein an underside surface (18) of the at least one waveguide structure (8, fig. 5) facing a topside (15) of the at least one further plastic body (7) includes a plurality of parallel waveguides (11, fig. 7, para [0107]),
wherein each of the parallel waveguides respectively includes a respective set of radiation orifices (13),
wherein the parallel waveguides (11) and the radiation orifices (13) are formed in the plastic body (8, fig. 7, para [0107], [0109]),
wherein the radiation orifices (13) are formed in the parallel waveguides (11, figs. 7, 8), and
wherein inner ends of the radiation orifices (13, fig. 5) that are visible from a perspective directed to the underside surface (18) of the at least one waveguide structure (8) are recessed from the underside surface (figs. 7-9).
Garcia Tejero does not disclose wherein inner ends of the radiation orifices that are visible from a perspective directed to the underside surface of the at least one waveguide structure are recessed from the underside surface.
Park suggests wherein inner ends of the radiation orifices (133, fig. 5) that are visible from a perspective directed to the underside surface of the at least one waveguide structure (110) are recessed from the underside surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the inner ends of the radiation orifices taught in Garcia Tejero to be recessed from the underside surface as suggested in Park as claimed for the purpose of isolating the radiation orifices from contacting with other components next to the underside surface in order to perform wireless communication.
PNG
media_image1.png
258
587
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Garcia Tejero discloses wherein the plastic body and the at least one further plastic body are soldered together (para [0047]).
Regarding claim 4, Garcia Tejero discloses wherein the at least one waveguide structure is a waveguide antenna (para [0107]: antenna element 11-13 of the at least one waveguide structure 8 is a part of the antenna 1, i.e. waveguide antenna).
Regarding claim 5, Garcia Tejero discloses wherein the at least one further plastic body (7, fig. 5) is a further waveguide structure (9, 10).
Regarding claim 6, Garcia Tejero discloses wherein the further waveguide structure forms a further waveguide antenna (para [0107]: the further waveguide structure 9, 10 is a part of the antenna 1, i.e. waveguide antenna).
Regarding claim 7, Garcia Tejero discloses wherein the further waveguide structure (7, figs. 4-6) has further waveguides (9, 10) for connection of the waveguide antenna (11-13 of waveguided structure 8, para [0107]) to the high-frequency component (3).
Regarding claim 14, Garcia Tejero discloses wherein:
each of the parallel waveguides contains a subset of the radiation orifices,
within each respective subset, the radiation orifices are arranged in two rows, and
within each respective subset, a first row of the two rows contains radiation orifices that are longitudinally offset with respect to radiation orifices of a second row of the two rows (fig. 22, para [0106]: rows of offset orifices 13).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia Tejero and Park as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Snider et al, US Pub. No. 2014/0011465 (hereinafter Snider).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Garcia Tejero and Park does not disclose wherein the conductive surface layer of the plastic body and the conductive surface layer of the at least one further plastic body are made of a thermally stable and electrically conductive plastic.
Snider suggests wherein the conductive surface layer is made of a thermally stable and electrically conductive plastic (Abstract: the antenna is formed of electrically conductive plastic molded within the face plate which suggests that the electrically conductive plastic should be thermally stable so that the functions of the antenna wouldn’t be affected under heat generated from the molding process).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filling of invention to apply the thermally stable and electrically conductive plastic as suggested in Snider to the conductive surface layers taught in Garcia Tejero and Park as claimed for the purpose of reducing the weight and improving the durability of the design.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia Tejero and Park as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brandenburg et al, US-20220109247-A1 (hereinafter Brandenburg).
Regarding claim 8, the combination Garcia Tejero and Park does not disclose wherein the at least one further plastic body is a centering body configured to center the high-frequency component relative to the waveguide structure.
Brandenburg suggests wherein the at least one further plastic body (Fig. 3: 302-1 which is made of plastic, see para [0021]) is a centering body configured to center the high-frequency component (310) relative to the waveguide structure (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a centering body as suggested in Brandenburg to the radar sensor taught in Garcia Tejero and Park as claimed for the purpose of providing protection to the high-frequency component from external impact and placing the high-frequency component at a desired location.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia Tejero, Park and Brandenburg as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Danny et al, US Pub. No. 2013/0256850 (hereinafter Danny).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, the combination of Garcia Tejero, Park and Brandenburg does not disclose wherein the centering body is bonded via the further electrically conductive surface layer to a ground electrode of a circuit board, which carries the high-frequency component.
Danny suggests wherein the centering body is bonded via the further electrically conductive surface layer to a ground electrode of a circuit board, which carries the high-frequency component (fig. 2, para [0053]: waveguide 76, 59 is bonded via conductive surface layers 72, 74 to ground electrode of circuit board 32 which carries the high frequency component 44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filling of invention to bond the centering body taught by Garcia Tejero, Park and Brandenburg to the ground electrode of a circuit board as suggested by Danny as claimed for the purpose of forming a common ground for the radar sensor in order to create a reference point for all the voltages in the circuit to be the same to simplify the connection routing.
Regarding claim 10, Garcia Tejero does not disclose wherein the centering body is a plate-shaped body which is provided on both sides with the electrically conductive surface layer on one side and a further conductive surface layer on another side , wherein the electrically conductive surface layer and the further conductive surface layer are electrically connected to one another.
Brandenburg suggests wherein the centering body is a plate-shaped body (fig. 3: centering body 302-1) which is provided with the electrically conductive surface layer on one side and a further conductive surface layer on another side (fig. 3, para [0032]: with conductive layer 316 on one side and further conductive layer 314 on another side), wherein the electrically conductive surface layer and the further conductive surface layer are electrically connected to one another (para [0032]: layers 302-1 to 302-3 are electrically connected together via conductive layers 314, 316, it is implied that the electrically conductive surface layer 316 and the further conductive surface layer 314 are electrically connected to one another).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to electrically connect the conductive surface layers of the radar sensor taught in Garcia Tejero as suggested by Brandenburg as claimed for the purpose of electrically connecting all the layers of the radar sensor together in order to improve the gain and the directivity of the sensor (Brandenburg, para [0068]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Garcia Tejero, Park and Brandenburg does not disclose wherein an even further conductive surface layer of the waveguide structure is connected via the centering body to the ground electrode of the circuit board.
Danny suggests wherein an even further conductive surface layer of the waveguide structure is connected via the centering body to the ground electrode of the circuit board (para [0039], [0061]: conductive surface layers M1-M4 of waveguide structures 76, 59 are connected to the ground electrode of the circuit board 32 and the centering body is a part of the waveguide structure as taught in Brandenburg).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filling of invention to connect the conductive surface layers of all waveguide structures taught by Garcia Tejero and Brandenburg to the ground electrode of a circuit board as suggested by Danny as claimed for the purpose of forming a common ground for the radar sensor in order to create a reference point for all the voltages in the circuit to be the same to simplify the connection routing.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Garcia Tejero, Park and Brandenburg does not disclose wherein the centering body has vias for connecting contacts of the circuit board to at least one conductor track of the waveguide structure that lead to contacts of the high-frequency component.
Danny suggests wherein the centering body has vias for connecting contacts of the circuit board to at least one conductor track of the waveguide structure that lead to contacts of the high-frequency component (fig. 2, para [0038], [0044], [0053]: centering body 54, 56 has vias 36 for connecting contacts 72 of circuit board 32 to conductor tracks/soldering pad of the waveguide structure 59, 76 that lead to contacts of the high-frequency component 44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filling of invention to providing vias as suggested in Danny to the radar sensor taught by Brandenburg’640 and Brandenburg’247 as claimed for the purpose of connecting the high-frequency component to the circuit board in order to create electrical connections for signals to be transmitted and received in the radar sensor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH N HO whose telephone number is (571)272-4657. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Dameon Levi can be reached at (571)272-2105. 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.
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/ANH HO/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights