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
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority benefits of CN202010800271.0 filed 8/11/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 4/2/2024, 11/26/2024 and 12/20/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/8/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument: Regarding amended independent claims 1, 10 and 19, the applicant argues that Yamada and Emanuelsson does not teach the claim limitations of "a housing integrated with the skin structure, wherein the vehicle skin and the housing form a first cavity therebetween that is devoid of a radome."
Response: The examiner disagrees. Claim amendment has changed the scope of invention. Independent claims 1, 10 and 19 are now rejected with Nakano et al. (US 2007/0115102 A1).
Amendment to claims 1, 10, and 19 has been acknowledged.
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.
Claim 2-8 and 11-17 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 2 recites “the first antenna board includes an independent antenna board; or the first antenna board comprises at least two independent antenna boards, and an angle, having a first degree, can be formed between two interconnected antenna boards in the at least two independent antenna boards.” Claim 2 is dependent on independent Claim 1 and Claim 1 recites “wherein the first cavity comprises at least one of a first antenna board, a first digital apparatus, or a first shielding apparatus.” Per independent claim 1, the first cavity can comprise only a first antenna board, or a first digital apparatus, or a first shielding apparatus. If the first comprises first digital apparatus or a first shielding apparatus, the limitation of claim 2 becomes redundant. The applicant needs to clarify.
Claim 3 recites “the first antenna board includes the independent antenna board that is a planar antenna board or a non- planar antenna board, and a non-planar surface of the non-planar antenna board comprises a regular curved surface, an irregular curved surface, or a folded surface having a specific angle.” Claim 3 depends on Claim 1 and Claim 1 recites “wherein the first cavity comprises at least one of a first antenna board, a first digital apparatus, or a first shielding apparatus” Per independent claim 1, the first cavity can comprise only a first antenna board, or a first digital apparatus, or a first shielding apparatus. If the first comprises first digital apparatus or a first shielding apparatus, the limitation of claim 3 becomes redundant. The applicant needs to clarify.
Claim 4 recites “a second cavity is formed between the first antenna board and the skin structure.” Claim 4 depends on Claim 1 and Claim 1 recites “wherein the first cavity comprises at least one of a first antenna board, a first digital apparatus, or a first shielding apparatus” Per independent claim 1, the first cavity can comprise only a first antenna board, or a first digital apparatus, or a first shielding apparatus. If the first comprises first digital apparatus or a first shielding apparatus, the limitation of claim 4 becomes redundant. The applicant needs to clarify.
Claim 5 recites “the second cavity includes a first opening on a side of the first antenna board, and a first opening of the second cavity, on a side of the first antenna board, is smaller than a second opening of the second cavity on a side of the skin structure.” Claim 5 depends on Claim 4 (indirectly on claim 1) and Claim 1 recites “wherein the first cavity comprises at least one of a first antenna board, a first digital apparatus, or a first shielding apparatus” Per independent claim 1, the first cavity can comprise only a first antenna board, or a first digital apparatus, or a first shielding apparatus. If the first comprises first digital apparatus or a first shielding apparatus, the limitation of claim 5 becomes redundant. The applicant needs to clarify.
Claims 6-7 depends on claim 5, and therefore is also rejected.
Claim 8 recites “the first cavity comprises the first antenna board, the first digital apparatus, and the first shielding apparatus; and one or more of: a first apparatus selected from the first antenna board, the first digital apparatus, or the first shielding apparatus is fastened onto the skin structure, and a second apparatus selected from first antenna board, the first digital apparatus, or the first shielding apparatus other than the first apparatus is fastened onto the housing; or the first antenna board, the first digital apparatus, and the first shielding apparatus are fastened onto the housing; or the first antenna board, the first digital apparatus, and the first shielding apparatus are fastened onto the skin structure.” Claim 8 depends on Claim 1 and Claim 1 recites “wherein the first cavity comprises at least one of a first antenna board, a first digital apparatus, or a first shielding apparatus” Per independent claim 1, the first cavity can comprise only a first antenna board, or a first digital apparatus, or a first shielding apparatus. Therefore, claim 8 is not further limiting claim 1. The applicant needs to clarify.
Claim 11 recites “the first antenna board includes an independent antenna board, or the first antenna board comprises at least two independent antenna boards, and an angle of a first degree can be formed between two interconnected antenna boards in the at least two independent antenna boards.” Claim 11 is dependent on independent Claim 10 and Claim 10 recites “wherein the first cavity comprises at least one of a first antenna board, a first digital apparatus, or a first shielding apparatus.” Per independent claim 10, the first cavity can comprise only a first antenna board, or a first digital apparatus, or a first shielding apparatus. If the first comprises first digital apparatus or a first shielding apparatus, the limitation of claim 11 becomes redundant. The applicant needs to clarify.
Claim 12 recites “the first antenna board includes the independent antenna board that is a planar antenna board or a non-planar antenna board, and a non-planar surface of the non-planar antenna board comprises a regular curved surface, an irregular curved surface, or a folded surface having a specific angle.” Claim 12 depends on Claim 10 and Claim 10 recites “wherein the first cavity comprises at least one of a first antenna board, a first digital apparatus, or a first shielding apparatus” Per independent claim 10, the first cavity can comprise only a first antenna board, or a first digital apparatus, or a first shielding apparatus. If the first comprises first digital apparatus or a first shielding apparatus, the limitation of claim 12 becomes redundant. The applicant needs to clarify.
Claim 13 recites “the manufacturing method further comprises: forming a second cavity between the first antenna board and the skin structure.” Claim 13 depends on Claim 10 and Claim 10 recites “wherein the first cavity comprises at least one of a first antenna board, a first digital apparatus, or a first shielding apparatus” Per independent claim 10, the first cavity can comprise only a first antenna board, or a first digital apparatus, or a first shielding apparatus. If the first cavity comprises first digital apparatus or a first shielding apparatus, the limitation of claim 13 becomes redundant. The applicant needs to clarify.
Claim 14 recites “the second cavity includes a first opening on a side of the first antenna board, and a first opening of the second cavity, on a side of the first antenna board, is smaller than a second opening of the second cavity on a side of the skin structure.” Claim 14 depends on Claim 13 (indirectly on claim 10) and Claim 10 recites “wherein the first cavity comprises at least one of a first antenna board, a first digital apparatus, or a first shielding apparatus” Per independent claim 10, the first cavity can comprise only a first antenna board, or a first digital apparatus, or a first shielding apparatus. If the first comprises first digital apparatus or a first shielding apparatus, the limitation of claim 14 becomes redundant. The applicant needs to clarify.
Claims 15-16 depends on claim 14, and therefore is also rejected.
Claim 17 recites “the first cavity comprises the first antenna board, the first digital apparatus, and the first shielding apparatus; and one or more of: a first apparatus selected from the first antenna board, the first digital apparatus, or the first shielding apparatus is fastened onto the skin structure, and a second apparatus selected from first antenna board, the first digital apparatus, or the first shielding apparatus other than the first apparatus is fastened onto the housing; or the first antenna board, the first digital apparatus, and the first shielding apparatus are fastened onto the housing; or the first antenna board, the first digital apparatus, and the first shielding apparatus are fastened onto the skin structure.” Claim 17 depends on Claim 10 and Claim 10 recites “wherein the first cavity comprises at least one of a first antenna board, a first digital apparatus, or a first shielding apparatus” Per independent claim 10, the first cavity can comprise only a first antenna board, or a first digital apparatus, or a first shielding apparatus. Therefore, claim 17 is not further limiting claim 10. The applicant needs to clarify.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakano et al. (US 2007/0115102 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Nakano et al. (‘102) anticipates “a detection apparatus (paragraph 2: an ultrasound sensor, which can be suitably used for a vehicle), comprising:
a skin structure comprising at least a vehicle skin (paragraph 18: the ultrasound sensors 100 can be mounted to an inner surface (i.e., surface of inner side of vehicle) of a periphery member (e.g., bumper 11) of the vehicle); and
a housing integrated with the skin structure (paragraph 19: FIG. 1 shows the ultrasound sensor 100 which is attached to the vehicle to contact the back surface (i.e., inner surface) of the bumper 11),
wherein the vehicle skin and the housing form a first cavity therebetween that is devoid of a radome (Figure 1), wherein the first cavity comprises at least one of a first antenna board, a first digital apparatus, or a first shielding apparatus (paragraph 54: Figure 4: the ultrasound attenuating portion 2a can be arranged, for example, at a concave portion formed at the bottom 3 of the housing 2 and positioned around the ultrasound transferring member 4, to cover at least the range of the bottom 3 between the piezoelectric vibrator 1 and the bottom 3).”
Regarding claim 9, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Nakano et al. (‘102) anticipates the detection device of claim 1. Nakano et al. (‘102) further anticipates
“the skin structure is a planar structure or a non-planar structure (Figures 3A-3B, Figure 16A).”
Regarding claim 10, which is a corresponding method claim of independent device claim 1, Nakano et al. (‘102) anticipates all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, which is a corresponding system claim of independent device claim 1, Nakano et al. (‘102) anticipates all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, which is dependent on independent claim 19, Nakano et al. (‘102) anticipates all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 19. Nakano et al. (‘102) further anticipates “the terminal includes a vehicle (paragraph 2: relates to an ultrasound sensor, which can be suitably used for a vehicle).”
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 2-3, 8, 11-12 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano et al. (US 2007/0115102 A1), and further in view of Yamada et al. (US 2020/0295452 A1).
Regarding claim 2, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Nakano et al. (‘102) discloses the detection device of claim 1. Nakano et al. (‘102) does not explicitly disclose “the first antenna board includes an independent antenna board; or the first antenna board comprises at least two independent antenna boards, and an angle having a first degree can be formed between two interconnected antenna boards in the at least two independent antenna boards.”
Yamada et al. (‘452) relates to millimeter-wave radar cover housing a millimeter-wave radar for automotive application. Yamada et al. (‘452) teaches “the first antenna board includes an independent antenna board (paragraph 53: Figures 1-2: the millimeter-wave radar cover 1 is a housing that houses: an antenna 30 as emission source configured to receive and emit electromagnetic waves; paragraph 55: s illustrated in FIGS. 3 (A) and (B), the first site A of the millimeter-wave radar cover 1 is a three-layer stacked structural body 10 obtained by stacking a first constituent material 11 and second constituent materials 12 sandwiching the first constituent material 11 therebetween on the front surface side (the direction of arrow “a”) and the back surface side (the direction of arrow “b”); paragraph 53: Figures 1-2: the millimeter-wave radar cover 1 is a housing that houses: an antenna 30 as emission source configured to receive and emit electromagnetic waves of millimeter waves…an electronic circuit 40 including…a drive circuit configured to drive the antenna 30 and a power source, and protects these components from the outside)”; or the first antenna board comprises at least two independent antenna boards, and an angle having a first degree can be formed between two interconnected antenna boards in the at least two independent antenna boards.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the detection apparatus of Nakano et al. (‘102) with the teaching of Yamada et al. (‘452) for improved radar detection (Yamada et al. (‘452) – paragraph 28). In addition, all of the prior art references, (Nakano et al. (‘102) and Yamada et al. (‘452)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, transmitting frames of chirps, radar device with circuit boards with antenna within a housing or cover or skin.
Regarding claim 3, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Nakano et al. (‘102)/Yamada et al. (‘452) discloses the detection device of claim 1. Nakano et al. (‘102) does not explicitly disclose “the first antenna board includes the independent antenna board that is a planar antenna board or a non-planar antenna board, and a non-planar surface of the non-planar antenna board comprises a regular curved surface, an irregular curved surface, or a folded surface having a specific angle.”
Yamada et al. (‘452) relates to millimeter-wave radar cover housing a millimeter-wave radar for automotive application. Yamada et al. (‘452) teaches “the first antenna board includes the independent antenna board that is a planar antenna board or a non-planar antenna board, and a non-planar surface of the non-planar antenna board comprises a regular curved surface, an irregular curved surface, or a folded surface having a specific angle (paragraph 23: a millimeter-wave radar cover housing a millimeter-wave radar including an antenna and an electronic circuit configured to drive the antenna, the millimeter-wave radar cover being characterized by including: a first site provided in front of the millimeter-wave radar to protect the millimeter-wave radar and transmit millimeter electromagnetic waves emitted from the antenna…second site including a housing space in which the antenna and the electronic circuit except for the first site are housed…the stacked structural body is curved in a convex shape in a direction centered at an emission source of the millimeter electromagnetic waves and departing from the emission source; paragraph 135: Figure 16A: the dielectric lens-integrated curved stacked structural body 200W is an integration structural body in which the dielectric lens 21 made of a concave lens having a predetermined permittivity for refracting millimeter electromagnetic waves incident from the antenna 30 through the curved stacked structural body 10W is stacked on the second constituent material 12 on the outer periphery side in the curved stacked structural body 10W; paragraph 136: Figure 16B: in the dielectric lens-integrated curved stacked structural body 200W, millimeter electromagnetic waves are incident from the antenna 30 in a direction perpendicular (at an angle θ1=0°) to the tangent line of the second constituent material 12 of the curved stacked structural body 10W on the inner periphery side are refracted outward by an angle θ2 (θ2>θ1) as passing through the dielectric lens 21 and emitted to the outside Rout. Thus, the dielectric lens-integrated curved stacked structural body 200W allows millimeter electromagnetic waves to be emitted at a wide angle because of the integration with the dielectric lens 21 made of a concave lens, and also can be entirely further thinned).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the detection apparatus of Nakano et al. (‘102) with the teaching of Yamada et al. (‘452) for improved radar detection (Yamada et al. (‘452) – paragraph 28). In addition, all of the prior art references, (Nakano et al. (‘102) and Yamada et al. (‘452)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, transmitting frames of chirps, radar device with circuit boards with antenna within a housing or cover or skin.
Regarding claim 8, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Nakano et al. (‘102) discloses the detection device of claim 1. Nakano et al. (‘102) does not explicitly disclose “the first cavity comprises the first antenna board, the first digital apparatus, and the first shielding apparatus; and one or more of: a first apparatus selected from the first antenna board, the first digital apparatus, or the first shielding apparatus is fastened onto the skin structure, and a second apparatus selected from first antenna board, the first digital apparatus, or the first shielding apparatus other than the first apparatus is fastened onto the housing; or the first antenna board, the first digital apparatus, and the first shielding apparatus are fastened onto the housing; or the first antenna board, the first digital apparatus, and the first shielding apparatus are fastened onto the skin structure.”
Yamada et al. (‘452) relates to millimeter-wave radar cover housing a millimeter-wave radar for automotive application. Yamada et al. (‘452) teaches “the first cavity comprises the first antenna board, the first digital apparatus, and the first shielding apparatus; and one or more of: a first apparatus selected from the first antenna board, the first digital apparatus, or the first shielding apparatus is fastened onto the skin structure, and a second apparatus selected from first antenna board, the first digital apparatus, or the first shielding apparatus other than the first apparatus is fastened onto the housing; or the first antenna board, the first digital apparatus, and the first shielding apparatus are fastened onto the housing; or the first antenna board, the first digital apparatus, and the first shielding apparatus are fastened onto the skin structure (Figures 1-2; paragraph 23: a millimeter-wave radar cover housing a millimeter-wave radar including an antenna and an electronic circuit configured to drive the antenna, the millimeter-wave radar cover being characterized by including: a first site provided in front of the millimeter-wave radar to protect the millimeter-wave radar and transmit millimeter electromagnetic waves emitted from the antenna… second site including a housing space in which the antenna and the electronic circuit except for the first site are housed…the stacked structural body is curved in a convex shape in a direction centered at an emission source of the millimeter electromagnetic waves and departing from the emission source).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the detection apparatus of Nakano et al. (‘102) with the teaching of Yamada et al. (‘452) for improved radar detection (Yamada et al. (‘452) – paragraph 28). In addition, all of the prior art references, (Nakano et al. (‘102) and Yamada et al. (‘452)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, transmitting frames of chirps, radar device with circuit boards with antenna within a housing or cover or skin.
Regarding claim 11, which is dependent on independent device claim 10 and which is a corresponding method claim of device claim 2, Nakano et al. (‘102)/Yamada et al. (‘452) discloses all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 2.
Regarding claim 12, which is dependent on claim 11 and which is a corresponding method claim of device claim 3, Nakano et al. (‘102)/Yamada et al. (‘452) discloses all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 3.
Regarding claim 17, which is dependent on independent claim 10 and which is a corresponding method claim of device claim 8, Nakano et al. (‘102)/Yamada et al. (‘452) discloses all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 8.
Regarding claim 18, which is dependent on independent device claim 10 and which is a corresponding method claim of device claim 9, Nakano et al. (‘102)/Yamada et al. (‘452) discloses all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 9.
Claims 4, 6, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano et al. (US 2007/0115102 A1)/Yamada et al. (US 2020/0295452 A1), and further in view of Andreas et al. (DE 102013100554 A1) [English Translation].
Regarding claim 4, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Nakano et al. (‘102)/Yamada et al. (‘452) discloses the detection apparatus of claim 1. Nakano et al. (‘102)/Yamada et al. (‘452) does not explicitly disclose “a second cavity is formed between the first antenna board and the skin structure.”
Andreas et al. (‘554) relates to a radar device. Andreas et al. (‘554) teaches “a second cavity is formed between the first antenna board and the skin structure (Figure 4).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the detection apparatus of Yamada et al. (‘452)/Emanuelsson (‘456) with the teaching of Andreas et al. (‘554) for improved radar detection (Andreas et al. (‘554) – page 2). In addition, all of the prior art references, (Nakano et al. (‘102), Yamada et al. (‘452) and Andreas et al. (‘554)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, transmitting frames of chirps, radar device with circuit boards with antenna within a housing and cover or skin.
Regarding claim 6, which is dependent claim 4, Nakano et al. (‘102)/Yamada et al. (‘452) discloses the detection apparatus of claim 4. Nakano et al. (‘102)/Yamada et al. (‘452) does not explicitly disclose “an inner surface of the second cavity has a planar design or a non-planar design.”
Andreas et al. (‘554) relates to a radar device. Andreas et al. (‘554) teaches “an inner surface of the second cavity has a planar design or a non-planar design (Figure 4).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the detection apparatus of Nakano et al. (‘102)/Yamada et al. (‘452) with the teaching of Andreas et al. (‘554) for improved radar detection (Andreas et al. (‘554) – page 2). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Nakano et al. (‘102), Yamada et al. (‘452) and Andreas et al. (‘554)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, radar device with circuit boards with antenna within a housing and cover or skin.
Regarding claim 13, which is dependent on independent device claim 10 and which is a corresponding method claim of device claim 4, Nakano et al. (‘102)/Yamada et al. (‘452)/Andreas et al. (‘554) discloses all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 4.
Regarding claim 15, which is dependent on device claim 13 and which is a corresponding method claim of device claim 6, Nakano et al. (‘102)/Yamada et al. (‘452)/Andreas et al. (‘554) discloses all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 6.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano et al. (US 2007/0115102 A1)/Yamada et al. (US 2020/0295452 A1)/Andreas et al. (DE 102013100554 A1) [English Translation], and further in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2004/0227663 A1).
Regarding claim 7, which is dependent on claim 6, Nakano et al. (‘102)/Yamada et al. (‘452)/Andreas et al. (‘554) discloses the detection apparatus of claim 1. Nakano et al. (‘102)/Yamada et al. (‘452) does not explicitly disclose “the inner surface of the second cavity is covered by a wave-absorbing material, or the second cavity is made of a wave-absorbing material.”
Suzuki et al. (‘663) relates to a radar device. Suzuki et al. (‘663) teaches “the inner surface of the second cavity is covered by a wave-absorbing material, or the second cavity is made of a wave-absorbing material (paragraph 33: Figures 2-3: in the millimeter-wave radar of FIG. 2, layers with a larger dielectric loss than that of the radome 2 or magnetic loss layers are installed on a part of the side surfaces of the radome 2 (including inner surfaces, inner layers or outer surfaces thereof) in the form of radio wave absorbing layers 10; paragraph 33: the radio wave absorbing layers 10 are arranged as shown in FIG. 3 by insert-molding or double-molding only a layer tilted at a predetermined angle of .theta.1 to the surface of the transmission/reception antenna or a composite structure made up of the layer tilted at the angle .theta.1 and a plurality of layers tilted at an angle .theta.2 toward the normal of the antenna base 3).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the detection apparatus of Nakano et al. (‘102)/Yamada et al. (‘452)/Andreas et al. (‘554) with the teaching of Suzuki et al. (‘663) for improved radar detection (Suzuki et al. (‘663) – paragraph 6). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Nakano et al. (‘102), Yamada et al. (‘452), Andreas et al. (‘554) and Suzuki et al. (‘663)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, radar device with circuit boards with antenna within a housing and cover or skin.
Regarding claim 16, which is dependent on claim 15, and which is a corresponding method claim of device claim 7, Nakano et al. (‘102)/Yamada et al. (‘452)/Andreas et al. (‘554)/Suzuki et al. (‘663) discloses all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if corresponding 112(b) rejection is overcome.
Allowable subject matter:
“the second cavity includes first opening on a side of the first antenna board, and a first opening of the second cavity, on a side of the first antenna board, is smaller than a second opening of the second cavity on a side of the skin structure.”
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if corresponding 112(b) rejection is overcome.
Allowable subject matter:
“the second cavity includes a first opening on a side of the first antenna board, and a first opening of the second cavity, on a side of the first antenna board, is smaller than a second opening of the second cavity on a side of the skin structure.”
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Inada et al. (US 2014/0070982 A1) describes the shield plate 7 may be made of a metal, or may be made of a synthetic resin…it may have a structure in which a metal tape is bonded to a surface of a synthetic resin plate or may have a structure in which a metal layer is formed on a surface of a synthetic resin by vapor deposition or chemical plating…it may be formed as a radio wave absorbing body (e.g., a material obtained by mixing carbon in a rubber material) (paragraph 72: Figures 11-12); a vehicle obstacle detection device for detecting an obstacle by transmitting a radio wave, from a radar unit provided between a back surface of a bumper and another vehicle component, toward an outside of an own vehicle through the bumper (paragraph 1).
Wintermantel (US 12,009,584 B2) describes radar system for detecting the surroundings of a motor vehicle includes a plastic-based antenna, wherein the plastic antenna, on a front side facing a sensor- and/or vehicle-side cover, has a plurality of individual antennas for transmitting and/or receiving radar signals and the plurality of individual antennas are utilized for detecting objects and/or determining angles thereof…the front side of the plastic antenna between the individual antennas is configured to be at least partially not reflective, that is to say in particular not metallized, on the surface thereof and is configured at least partially from plastic material which partially or wholly absorbs radar waves, and/or the front side of the plastic antenna has passive antennas, so-called blind antennas, between the individual antennas, which do not reflect back at least a part of the power received by them again, but rather absorb it into the plastic material, and/or the front side of the plastic antenna between the individual antennas is configured to be at least partially not reflective, that is to say in particular not metallized, on the surface thereof, wherein in particular the structures and/or metallization inside the antenna are not universally homogeneous, and/or the front side of the plastic antenna has at least in part a non-planar, reflective surface, that is to say in particular a non-planar, metallized surface, and/or the edges of the front side of the plastic antennas do not lie parallel, in particular they lie obliquely, to the individual antennas (column 2 lines 38-64).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NUZHAT PERVIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9795. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, William J Kelleher can be reached at 571-272-7753. 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.
/NUZHAT PERVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights