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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed June 9, 2025 has been considered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed November 10, 2025 has been entered into the record. Claims 4-5, 8-9, 11, and 17-18 are pending. Claims 1-3, 6-7, 10, and 12-16 have been canceled by the applicant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 4, 5, and 9 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 4, the applicant notes that it is unclear what element of figs. 4(a) and 4(b) consists of a radar mount. The examiner respectfully points the applicant to the description of figs. 4(a) and 4(b) in para. 0048, which clearly states that the radar mount is represented by the number 52. In response to applicant's argument that it is not clear "how one would modify Pfeiffer" with the taught radar mount of Geise, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In para 0032, cited in the previous Office Action, Geise teaches a radar mount and further teaches that a radar mount is advantageous because it increases measurement precision. This teaching is sufficient to render obvious the use of a radar mount for one of ordinary skill in the art.
The applicant further argues that Pfieffer does not teach, “a device which is fastened to the base body or the device is an integral part of the base body” because the statement that, “radome 5 is likewise installed in the radiator protection grill 1,” does not teach that the device is fastened to the base body. The examiner respectfully disagrees. In the context of the art, installing a radome in the radiator protection grill 1 requires fastening it to the base body, because otherwise the radar device and radome would simply fall off when the car was in motion.
Regarding claim 5, the applicant argues that the injection molds of Geise do not constitute making the mounting and wall section in one piece. Specifically, the applicant states that para. 0024 of the instant application’s specification states that injection molding the device ensures that a large number of devices can be manufactured quickly, and that injection molding the mount and wall ensures that they are precisely positioned relative to one another. The examiner first notes that para. 0024, reproduced below, does not make either alleged statement.
PNG
media_image1.png
127
610
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For the purposes of examination, the examiner will assume the applicant intended to refer to para. 0016, reproduced below,
PNG
media_image2.png
218
637
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This argument is not convincing. First, in response to applicant's argument that the invention of Geise does not make the process of forming the radar device cheaper, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, the method of Geise results in a radar device in which the wall and mounting section are made in one piece, because the final injection molding step includes molding the radar mount 52 and the wall 33.
The applicant further argues that Pfeiffer does not teach, “wherein the second surface is part of an outer surface of the cladding component.” The examiner disagrees. As can clearly be seen in fig. 1 of Pfeiffer, reproduced below, the radome 5 is designed as part of the radiator grille 3, 4, which the examiner understands to be one of the cladding components of the car.
PNG
media_image3.png
573
645
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The examiner thanks the applicant for including an additional translation of Pfeiffer; however, the additional translation does not mean that Pfeiffer does not read on the claimed limitation.
Claim Objections
Claims 17 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 reads, “the radar sensor when fastened to the mounting surface emits…” but should read, “wherein the radar sensor, when fastened to the mounting surface, emits…”
Claim 17 reads, “at least one of the first surface and the second surface being…” but should read, “wherein at least one of the first surface and the second surface is…”
Claim 18 is objected to for the same reasons as claim 17.
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 4-5, 9, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfeiffer et al. (EP 2151888 A1) in view of Geise (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0215086 A1). The examiner notes that both a machine translation and a copy of the original patent document of Pfeiffer et al. were included in the previous Office Action and thus are not attached to this Office Action. The paragraph referenced below are from the machine translation, while image references can be seen in the original patent document.
Regarding claim 4, Pfeiffer et al. teaches,
An external cladding component for a vehicle (para. 0015, “Fig. 1 shows the radiator protection grill 1 of a motor vehicle 2.”) comprising,
a base body (fig. 1, motor vehicle 2) and a device which is fastened to the base body or the device is an integral part of the base body (fig. 1, radiator grill 1 containing radome 5), said device comprising,
a wall section having a first surface and a second surface (fig. 2, wall section 5 has first and second surfaces 6 and 7),
wherein the radar sensor (para. 0009, “Taking this relationship into account, it can be achieved that the electromagnetic waves likewise run parallel again after leaving the radome.” The examiner notes that, per paras. 0003-0005, the radar sensor is mounted behind the grille in which the radome is situated, as in fig. 1) emits radar waves that impinge on the first surface by a respective angle of incidence α, β, γ, δ, to enter the wall section (fig. 2, radar waves 19 and 22 impinge on the first surface 6 by two different angles of incidence, as measured from the normal to the first surface) and leave the wall section via the second surface (fig. 2, waves 21 and 24 are seen leaving via the second surface 7), such that the radar waves have travelled a traveling distance between the first surface and the second surface (fig. 2, each wave travels a distance between surface 6 and surface 7),
at least one of the first surface and the second surface being convexly shaped (fig. 2, surfaces 6 and 7 are both convexly shaped) such that the traveling distance of the radar waves stays constant for every angle of incidence (para. 0016, “Due to the shape of the radome 5 so that the optical path length of the reference surface 11 to the reference surface 18 for any parallel rays are the same”).
Pfeiffer et al. does not teach a device with a mounting section.
Geise teaches a mounting section to which a radar sensor is fastened (figs 4a and 4b, para. 0034, “Using a first light-dispersing plastic material, a first injection mold forms a three-dimensional structure, which includes at least one optical conductor. A second injection mold uses a second plastic material to form a cover element, which at least partially covers the three-dimensional structure in a planar manner in the position of use and on which the contour of the three-dimensional structure has been left open. After the three-dimensional structure has been metallized with the aid of the metallization device, a third injection mold embeds the 3D structure together with the cover element disposed thereon in a third plastic material, and a mount for a radar module as well as a plurality of fastening points are molded in addition.”).
Geise is analogous to the claimed invention because it discloses a radar cover and mount for a vehicle. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the mounting section of Geise with the radar cover of Pfeffer et al. because the cover of Geise produces a mechanically rigid and stable mount for the exact positioning of the radar device, which results in increased reliability of radar measurements (see Geise, para. 0032).
Regarding claim 5, Pfeifer et al. as modified by Geise teaches all of the limitations of claim 4, described above. Pfeiffer et al. does not teach a mounting section to which a radar sensor is fastened that is made in one piece with the wall section.
Geise teaches a mounting section to which a radar sensor is fastened that is made in one piece with the wall section (figs 4a and 4b, para. 0034, “Using a first light-dispersing plastic material, a first injection mold forms a three-dimensional structure, which includes at least one optical conductor. A second injection mold uses a second plastic material to form a cover element, which at least partially covers the three-dimensional structure in a planar manner in the position of use and on which the contour of the three-dimensional structure has been left open. After the three-dimensional structure has been metallized with the aid of the metallization device, a third injection mold embeds the 3D structure together with the cover element disposed thereon in a third plastic material, and a mount for a radar module as well as a plurality of fastening points are molded in addition.”).
Geise is analogous to the claimed invention because it discloses a radar cover and mount for a vehicle. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the mounting section of Geise with the radar cover of Pfeffer et al. because the cover of Geise produces a mechanically rigid and stable mount for the exact positioning of the radar device, which results in increased reliability of radar measurements (see Geise, para. 0032).
Regarding claim 9, Pfeiffer et al. as modified by Geise teaches all the limitations of claim 4, described above. Pfeiffer et al. further teaches an external cladding component for a vehicle wherein the second surface is part of an outer surface of the cladding component (para. 0015, “If the radome 5 has the configuration according to the invention of the vehicle interior-side surface, not only the horizontal structures 3 but also the vertical structures 4 can be continued on the surface located on the outside of the motor vehicle, as can be seen in FIG. 1.”).
Regarding claim 11, Pfeiffer et al. as modified by Geise teaches all of the limitations of the device according to claim 4. Pfeiffer et al. further teaches a vehicle comprising said device (Fig. 1, motor vehicle 2 comprises the radiator grille 1 and radome 5).
Claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons and using the same citations as claim 9, noting that claim 9 is dependent upon and therefore includes all the limitations of independent claim 4.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfeiffer et al. in view of Geise, and further in view of Sakai et al. (US Pat. No. 11353546).
Regarding claim 8, Pfeiffer et al. as modified by Geise teaches all of the limitations of claim 4, described above. Pfeiffer et al. teaches an external cladding component for a vehicle and a base body, but is silent as to the material making up the cladding component and body. That is, Pfeiffer et al. does not teach the mounting section and the wall section are made of a first plastic and the base body is made of a second plastic.
Sakai et al. further teaches the external cladding component for a vehicle wherein the mounting section and the wall section are made of a first plastic and the base body is made of a second plastic (fig. 1 depicts the first and second dielectric layers as the wall of the radar housing and the body of the car. Furthermore, in col. 4, lines 2-3, Sakai states that the first dielectric layer is made of flouroresin and the body of the car is made up of a resin, both of which are plastics. Sakai further states, in col. 3, lines 64-67, that layers 111 and 112 must have different dielectric constants, i.e., they must be made of different materials).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine the external cladding component of Pfeiffer et al. as modified by Geise with the mounting and wall sections being made of a first plastic and the base body made of a second plastic of Sakai et al. because using varying plastics allows one to use their varied dielectric constants to reduce the amount of waves that are reflected by the bumper, thus resulting in increased sensing performance by the radar apparatus (Sakai et al, col. 1, lines 34-56).
Claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons and using the same citations as claim 8, noting that claim 8 is dependent upon, and therefore includes all the limitations of, claim 4.
Conclusion
The examiner notes that pertinent prior art of record not used in this Office Action is cited in the 892 List of References Cited attached to this Office Actions. Explanation of the relevance of these references was set out in previous Office Actions and is therefore not repeated here.
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 Anna K Gosling whose telephone number is (571)272-0401. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:30-4:30 Eastern, Friday, 10:00-2:00 Eastern.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571) 270-5144. 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.
/Anna K. Gosling/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648