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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9-22-2025 have been fully considered.
With respect to the applicant’s argument that the prior art doesn’t “redirect radar waves” and “increase wave scattering interactions”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Ding discloses in para. 72 and 73 that the structure can be adjusted to provide for increased scattering of multipath signals. The examiner notes that multipath signals are still radar signals and so the arrangement of Ding provides for the redirection and scattering of radar waves with the radome and absorber.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Europe on 6-1-2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 § 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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7, 9, 13, 15, 16, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ding, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2016/0268693, published September 15, 2016.
As per claims 1 and 15, Ding discloses a radar sensor comprising:
at least one antenna having a field of view; at least one RF absorber (Ding, Fig. 7B, items 208 and 306 and ¶72);
and a radome covering the at least one antenna and the at least one RF absorber (Ding, Fig. 4, 108 and ¶55),
wherein the at least one RF absorber is provided with a top surface comprising at least one scattering structure configured to redirect radar waves out of the field of view and to increase radar wave scattering interactions with the radome and the at least one RF absorber (Ding, ¶72 and Fig. 7B, 318 where multipath signals are radar signals).
As per claim 3, Ding further discloses the radar sensor according to claim 1, wherein scattering structure comprises at least one structure being a recess and/or a protrusion (Ding, Fig. 7B, 318).
As per claim 7, Ding further discloses the radar sensor according to claim, wherein an inside surface of the recess and/or an outside surface of the protrusion comprises a predefined surface texture roughness or indentation (Ding, ¶10).
As per claim 9, Ding further discloses the radar sensor according to claim 3, wherein the scattering structure comprises a plurality of structures, wherein some of the plurality of structures have different shapes and/or different dimensions (Ding, ¶10).
As per claims 13 and 20, Ding further discloses the radar sensor according to claim 1, wherein the RF absorber is placed outside the field of view of the at least one antenna (Ding, Fig. 7B).
As per the limitations of claim 16, please see the rejection and rationale of claims 1 and 3 above.
As per the limitations of claim 18, please see the rejection and rationale of claims 3 above.
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.
Claim(s) 4-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding.
As per claims 4-6, Ding discloses the sensor of claim 3 but fails to expressly disclose omnidirectional, concave, convex recesses.
Ding teaches multiple shapes and reflection angles (¶10 and ¶13).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to create the recesses as described 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 Ding. Examiner notes that the applicant’s specification also supports various shapes and dimensions.
As per claim 8, Ding further discloses the radar sensor according to claim 7, wherein the predefined surface texture roughness or indentation is of a scale smaller than or equal to 1/10 of a wavelength of the radar wave emitted by the at least one antenna (Ding, ¶73).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the wavelength limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 2, 14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding in view of Kowalewski, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2024/0243465, filed May 19, 2021.
As per claims 2, 14 and 17, Ding discloses the radar sensor but fails to disclose the absorber being embedded or interfacing with the radome.
Kowalewski teaches an absorber embedded in a radome (¶24).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to embed the absorber material in order to gain the benefit of saving space. It is well within the skill of a person in the art to determine a preferred location for the absorber.
Claim(s) 10-12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding in view of Buzinkai, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0403713, published December 30, 2021.
As per claims 10-12 and 19, Ding discloses the sensor of claim 1 but fails to disclose the radome variable thickness and placement in relation the absorber and antenna.
Buzinkai teaches variable radome thickness based on location of the sensor (¶217).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust thickness in order to gain the benefit of variable transmissibility as taught by Buzinkai.
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.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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