Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 Amendment
3. The amendment filed 05/21/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-15 are pending.
4. The Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 overcome the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, however there is a new form of rejection
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5 section ‘Specification’, filed 5/21/2025, with respect to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5 section ‘Rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Munker in view of Emanuelson’, filed 5/21/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Schoebel (US 20090213019 A1).
In regards to the Applicant’s arguments, see page 5 section ‘Priority’ it appears that the PDX system has not retrieved the foreign priority documents. We don’t have any information as to why, but the Examiner respectfully request that a copy is supplied. We apologize for this mishap.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muenker (EP 1902902 A1) in view of Emanuelsson (EP 3107151 A1) further in view of Schoebel (US 20090213019 A1). The examiner notes that the citations for Muenker come from the EPO translation (see attachment: 17962794_EPO_translation.pdf) of the patent EP 1902902 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Muenker discloses
A device for improving the transmission behavior of radar waves (A), comprising a wall section having a first surface and a second surface, said first and second surfaces, at a first location, are located at a first wall thickness distance (dwl) relative to each other, and - at a second location, the first and second surfaces are located at a second wall thickness distance (dw2) relative to each other; said first wall thickness distance (dwl) and said second wall thickness distance (dw2) differ from each other by a first value (A1) (Figure 1c element 10, thin and thick portions of the first transparent plastic 10), an equilibration body mounted on the first surface of the wall section, said equilibration body having a first body surface and a second body surface, and mounted on the first surface of the wall section via the second body surface (Figure 1d element 14), at the first location, the first body surface and the second surface are located at a first traveling distance (del) relative to each other, at the second location, the first body surface and the second surface are located at a second traveling distance (de2) relative to each other, the first traveling distance (del) and the second traveling distance (de2) differ from each other by a second value (A2), the equilibration body being designed and mounted to the wall section such that the second difference (A2) is smaller than the first difference (Al) (Figure 1d element 10 and 14, where element 10 and 14 are combined in such a way that the distance from the top surface of element 10 to the bottom surface of element 14 appear to create a constant distance along the length of the cover). Muenker does not disclose a radar sensor fastened to a mounting section emitting radar waves (A) impinge on the first body surface by entering the equilibration body and subsequently the wall section, leaving the wall section via the second surface, nor does it disclose said wall thickness of the wall section is continuously decreasing over the wall section.
Emanuelsson discloses,
A radar sensor fastened to a mounting section emitting radar waves (A) impinge on the first body surface by entering the equilibration body and subsequently the wall section, leaving the wall section via the second surface (Col 2 lines 26-32, “a radar bracket could also be referred to as a radar holder, or a radar frame, which is configured to hold the radar module in place when the radar bracket with a radar module is arranged in a vehicle. For example, the radar bracket may be configured to be attached on the inside of a front or rear bumper of a vehicle”).
Muenker and Emanuelsson are considered analogous arts as both references concern improving a radar’s performance that has been implemented on a vehicle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Muenker with Emanuelsson by adding in a bracket that attaches to the vehicles side wall so that the radar has a place to occupy while it is in operation. Emanuelsson notes that a bracket is useful to, Col 2 lines 28-30, “to hold the radar module in place when the radar bracket with a radar module is arranged in a vehicle”.
Schoebel discloses
A wall thickness of the wall section is continuously decreasing over the wall section (Figure 2 and Figure 3 elements 1 [antenna] and 2 [radome]; Paragraph 0020, "The thickness profile of radome 2 may also, at least partially, increase or decrease in a non-linear way, for example, concave or convex, that is, the wave front additionally appears also bundled or scattered. The thickness variation may be implemented in the elevation and/or in the azimuth direction of the excitation field" where the radome in this reference is tantamount to the wall section as both are protective covers and both are made of plastic that is permeable by the radar signals).
Muenker and Schoebel are considered analogous art as they both concern improving a radar’s performance that has been implemented on a vehicle. Muenker discloses an outer wall and an equilibrium body but these two elements have various shapes. As Muenker discloses injection molding, it would be reasonable to expect success from Muenker using that molding technique to manipulate what shapes are created. Schoebel discloses a specific wedge shape of a radome for mitigating unwanted radiation. Schoebel notes the shape of the radome would be advantageous as (Abstract, "the thickness of the radome is varied such that a location-dependent phase delay of the emitted or received wave front may be attained. Thus, tilts, in particular for the non-vertical installation of radar devices in motor vehicles, that lead to unwanted radiation lobe deviations, may be compensated for in a simple way"). The radome is a protective body installed on a vehicle and is made of plastic permeable by radar, as such it can function as the outer wall or the equilibrium body. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Muenker with Schoebel so that Muenker adjusts the shapes of its outer wall and equilibrium body to satisfy its own requirements while adding a new function to mitigate unwanted radiation.
Regarding claim 2, Muenker further discloses
The device according to claim 1, wherein the second value (A2) is zero (Figure 1d element 10 and 14, where element 10 and 14 are combined in such a way that the distance from the top surface of element 10 to the bottom surface of element 14 appear to create a constant distance along the length of the cover).
Regarding claim 3, Muenker further discloses
The device according to claim 1, wherein the first body surface is plane, at least in sections (Figure 1c element 10; Paragraph 0041, “Figure 1c shows the arrangement after over-spraying the front side 4 of the film 2 and the color 6 applied to the front side 4 with a layer of a first transparent plastic 10, here made of polycarbonate. This overmolding is carried out in such a way that a surface of the layer of the first plastic 10 is particularly smooth and even”).
Regarding claim 4, Muenker further discloses
The device according to claim 1, wherein the equilibration body is mounted to the wall section by gluing, welding or molding (Paragraph 0042, “Figure 1d shows a schematic sectional view of a first embodiment of a cover element 12 according to the invention, as it is provided after a final manufacturing step. In this last step, the back side 8 of the film 2 is back-injected to provide a cover layer which, in the present embodiment, is formed from a second plastic 14 made of black polycarbonate” where back-injecting involves a mold).
Regarding claim 5, Muenker further discloses
The device according to claim 1, wherein the wall section is made of a first plastic and the equilibration body is made of a second plastic, the first and second plastic either being the same or different (Figure 1d elements 10 and 14; Paragraph 0041, “Figure 1c shows the arrangement after over-spraying the front side 4 of the film 2 and the color 6 applied to the front side 4 with a layer of a first transparent plastic 10, here made of polycarbonate.”; Paragraph 0042, “In this last step, the back side 8 of the film 2 is back-injected to provide a cover layer which, in the present embodiment, is formed from a second plastic 14 made of black polycarbonate” where a polycarbonate is a plastic).
Regarding claim 6, Muenker further discloses
The device according to claim 1, wherein the first traveling distance (del) and the second traveling distance (de2) are chosen such that an attenuation of the radar waves (A) is at or near a minimum (Figure 1d element 12 the cover element; Paragraph 0031, “Furthermore, it is provided that the cover element has an attenuation of less than 1.8 dB, so that the cover element is sufficiently transparent, in particular for radar beams”).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Muenker, Emanuelsson, and Schoebel discloses
The device according to claim 1. Muenker does not disclose wherein the device comprises a mounting section for mounting a radar sensor, said mounting section either being fastened to the equilibration body or the wall section.
Emanuelsson discloses
The device according to claim 1, wherein the device comprises a mounting section for mounting a radar sensor, said mounting section either being fastened to the equilibration body or the wall section (Col 2 lines 26-32, “a radar bracket could also be referred to as a radar holder, or a radar frame, which is configured to hold the radar module in place when the radar bracket with a radar module is arranged in a vehicle. For example, the radar bracket may be configured to be attached on the inside of a front or rear bumper of a vehicle”).
Muenker and Emanuelsson are considered analogous arts as both references concern improving a radar’s performance that has been implemented on a vehicle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Muenker with Emanuelsson by adding in a bracket that attaches to the vehicles side wall (in this case Fig 1d element 14 of Muenker) so that the radar has a place to occupy while it is in operation. Emanuelsson notes that a bracket is useful to, Col 2 lines 28-30, “to hold the radar module in place when the radar bracket with a radar module is arranged in a vehicle.”
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Muenker, Emanuelsson, and Schoebel discloses
The device according to claim 7. Muenker discloses wherein the equilibration body or the wall section are made in one piece (Paragraph 0042, “Figure 1d shows a schematic sectional view of a first embodiment of a cover element 12 according to the invention, as it is provided after a final manufacturing step. In this last step, the back side 8 of the film 2 is back-injected to provide a cover layer which, in the present embodiment, is formed from a second plastic 14 made of black polycarbonate”; Paragraph 0024, “The invention can thus be used to form a covering element …This cover element typically serves as an insert or attachment for openings in vehicle bodies … in particular a radar sensor, is to be covered. The design of the cover element according to the invention ensures that it is sufficiently transparent and thus continuous”). Muenker does not disclose the mounting section.
Emanuelsson discloses
A mounting section (Col 2 lines 26-32, “a radar bracket could also be referred to as a radar holder, or a radar frame, which is configured to hold the radar module in place when the radar bracket with a radar module is arranged in a vehicle. For example, the radar bracket may be configured to be attached on the inside of a front or rear bumper of a vehicle”).
Muenker and Emanuelsson are considered analogous arts as both references concern improving a radar’s performance that has been implemented on a vehicle. Additionally, Muenker teaches an ability to mold plastics together into a continuous piece. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Muenker with Emanuelsson by adding in a bracket that becomes one piece with the vehicle side wall (in this case Fig 1d element 14 of Muenker) so that the radar device has a place to occupy and the stability of the invention is improved when the structural components are all in one piece. The radar bracket can be made of the same polycarbonate material and back-injected on Fig 1d element 14 of Muenker. Muenker notes that having all of the components in one piece is useful to, Paragraph 0024, “ensures that it is sufficiently transparent and thus continuous for the electromagnetic radiation to be able to measure the distance.”
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Muenker, Emanuelsson, and Schoebel discloses
The device according to claim 7. Muenker does not disclose wherein the mounting section comprises an absorption layer or absorptive material wherein the absorption layer or the absorptive material absorb the radar waves (A) when the radar waves (A) impinge on the mounting section.
Emanuelsson discloses
The device according to claim 7, wherein the mounting section comprises an absorption layer or absorptive material wherein the absorption layer or the absorptive material absorb the radar waves (A) when the radar waves (A) impinge on the mounting section (Col 7 lines 12-15, "One approach for reducing reflections is to arrange a radar absorbing material on selected portions of the radar bracket in order to dampen a radar signal as it passes through the radar bracket").
Muenker and Emanuelsson are considered analogous arts as both references concern improving a radar’s performance that has been implemented on a vehicle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Muenker with Emanuelsson by adding in a bracket with an absorption layer in order to mitigate internal reflections as the radar waves first impinge on the equilibration body or element 14 of Muenker’s Fig 1d. Emanuelsson notes that, Col 1 lines 20-22, “it is important to reduce the amount of noise, disturbances and spurious echo signals reaching the radar receiver.”
Regarding claim 10, Muenker further discloses
An external cladding component of a vehicle, comprising a base body, and a device according to claim 1, and the wall section forming a part of the base body (Figure 1d element 12, element 10, where the wall section (or element 10) is forming part of the base body so the wall section is the base body).
Regarding claim 11, Muenker further discloses
The external cladding component according to claim 10, wherein the wall section and the base body are formed of the same plastic (Figure 1d elements 10 and 14; Paragraph 0041, “Figure 1c shows the arrangement after over-spraying the front side 4 of the film 2 and the color 6 applied to the front side 4 with a layer of a first transparent plastic 10, here made of polycarbonate.”; Paragraph 0042, “In this last step, the back side 8 of the film 2 is back-injected to provide a cover layer which, in the present embodiment, is formed from a second plastic 14 made of black polycarbonate” where both layers are the same plastic as they are both polycarbonate).
Regarding claim 12, Muenker further discloses
The external cladding component according to claim 10, wherein the second surface is part of an outer surface of the cladding component (Figure 1d element 12, 10, and 4 (front side), where the wall section is element 10; Paragraph 0010, “the front side of the film is at least partially optically transparent, so that a pattern represented by the metallized film is visible from the outside”).
Regarding claim 13, Muenker discloses
The external cladding component according to claim 10 (Figure 1d element 12, 10, and 4 (front side), where the wall section is element 10). Muenker does not disclose wherein a radar sensor is fastened to the mounting section.
Emanuelsson discloses
Wherein a radar sensor is fastened to the mounting section (Col 2 lines 26-28, “a radar bracket could also be referred to as a radar holder, or a radar frame, which is configured to hold the radar module in place”).
Muenker and Emanuelsson are considered analogous arts as both references concern improving a radar’s performance that has been implemented on a vehicle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Muenker with Emanuelsson by adding in a bracket that holds the radar sensor in place to secure the radar sensor and ensure it does not become damaged from movement during the operation of the vehicle. Emanuelsson also notes the radar bracket is Abstract, “configured to receive a radar module (302) so that said radar module is exposed on a front side of said radar bracket,” where by exposed they mean exposed to the wall that defines the side of the vehicle, so that the radar signals can be projected outward.
Regarding claim 14, Muenker further discloses
A vehicle comprising an external cladding component according to claim 10 (Paragraph 0017, “In the method according to the invention for producing a cover element for an opening of a vehicle, a front side of an at least partially metallized film is overmolded with a first plastic to form a composite, and a back side of this film is backmolded with a second plastic to form a composite”).
Regarding claim 15, Muenker further discloses
A vehicle comprising the device of claim 1 (Paragraph 0017, “In the method according to the invention for producing a cover element for an opening of a vehicle, a front side of an at least partially metallized film is overmolded with a first plastic to form a composite, and a back side of this film is backmolded with a second plastic to form a composite”).
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.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER D DOZE whose telephone number is (571)272-0392. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:40am - 5:40pm 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 http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire can be reached on (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.
/PETER DAVON DOZE/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/JESSICA L LAUX/Primary Examiner, RD00
/BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights