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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1-16-2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1-16-2026 have been fully considered.
With respect to applicant’s argument that Wintermantel sends a signal through a permeable circuit board, the examiner notes that the hollow waveguide is fed from the permeable location (abstract). So Wintermantel is sending the RF signal through a hollow waveguide.
With respect to applicant’s argument that Kurvathodil transmits the LO signal using a MMIC instead of a hollow waveguide, the examiner fails to see a difference. It is well within the skill of a person in the art to choose from various well known signal transmission methods. Applicant has provided no reason why using a hollow waveguide, such as the one in Wintermantel, is new or novel over the LO transmission of Kurvathodil.
Examiner’s Note: 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wintermantel, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0275336, filed August 16, 2021 in view of Kurvathodil, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0181326, published June 17, 2021.
As per claim 1, Wintermantel discloses a radar sensor, comprising: an antenna device which at least emits a radar signal; an integrated high frequency component configured to generate the radar signal; a waveguide structure configured to transmit the radar signal between the antenna device and the integrated high frequency component, and including at least one waveguide; and a signal transmission path configured to transmit a signal, on which the generated radar signal is based, within the radar sensor, at least portions of the signal transmission path being disposed within the waveguide structure (Wintermantel, ¶14-15);
Wherein the signal transmission path includes a further waveguide embodied as a hollow conductor to transmit the signal to the high frequency component (Wintermantel, ¶51).
Wintermantel fails to expressly disclose a local oscillator signal as well as an amplifier and splitter.
Kurvathodil teaches an LO signal (¶36) and use of an amplifier and splitter (¶37).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use an LO in order to gain the obvious benefit of providing ease of signal analysis through up and down conversion. In addition, amplifiers and splitters signal path hardware are well-known components in the art and it is well within the skill of a person in the art to determine what well known and understood components to use to create a desired signal.
As per claim 2, Wintermantel as modified by Kurvathodil discloses the radar sensor according to claim 1, wherein the radar sensor includes at least two integrated high frequency components which are connected to the signal transmission path and which both configured to process a common local oscillator signal (Wintermantel, ¶25 where using “at least one” high frequency component means more may be used).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use multiple, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skilled the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
As per claim 3, Wintermantel as modified by Kurvathodil further discloses the radar sensor according to claim 1, wherein the radar sensor includes a local oscillator which generates the local oscillator signal (Kurvathodil, ¶36).
As per claim 4, Wintermantel as modified by Kurvathodil further discloses the radar sensor according to claim 2, wherein the radar sensor includes a central integrated high frequency component as a local oscillator configured to generate a coherent distribution of the local oscillator signal to the at least two integrated high frequency components (Kurvathodil, Fig. 3 providing distribution of the LO).
As per claim 5, Wintermantel as modified by Kurvathodil further discloses the radar sensor according to claim 1, wherein the waveguide structure is embodied as a hollow conductor structure and the waveguide is embodied as a hollow conductor channel configured to transmit the radar signal (Wintermantel, ¶15).
As per claim 9, Wintermantel as modified by Kurvathodil further discloses the radar sensor according to claim 1, wherein the radar sensor includes a carrier plate which accommodates the integrated high frequency component and the waveguide structure (Wintermantel, ¶55).
As per claim 10, Wintermantel as modified by Kurvathodil further discloses the radar sensor according to claim 1, further comprising at least one connector connected to the signal transmission path for guiding the local oscillator signal out of the radar sensor (Wintermantel, ¶14).
As per claims 11-13, Wintermantel as modified by Kurvathodil further discloses the radar sensor according to claim 1, wherein the signal transmission path includes at least one amplifier and/or signal splitter and/or power splitter combination (Kurvathodil, ¶36-37).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a combination of the three known components, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by Wintermantel in providing the desired signal routing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided on form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS E WINDRICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~7-3:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jack Keith can be reached at 5712726878. 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.
/MARCUS E WINDRICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646