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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species B in the reply filed on 2/23/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the species are not patentably distinct and do not require a substantially different search. This is not found persuasive because a second type cutout region per Species B and Figures 5 & 6, “having spatial dimensions smaller than the vertical feed lines”, which the specification (page 9, line 24) defines to mean “that no vertical feed lines… are disposed therein” is a substantially different search than a cutout region that does have vertical feed lines disposed therein, as is required per Species A and Figure 3B, these cutout regions excluding one another.
Concerning the assertion by Applicant that the species are not patentably distinct, this is not interpreted as an admission that the species are obvious variants. As indicated in the election requirement of 12/23/2025, should applicant traverse on the ground that the species are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 2, 3, 16, and 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2/23/2026.
Drawings
Figures 3A, 4, and 7A, 8A, 9A, and 10A should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. Per the specification: “Fig. 3A shows a horizontal cross-sectional view of a conventional adhesive layer” (page 15, line 15), etc. These figures are all described as showing “conventional” technology in order to contrast with embodiments of the invention in adjacent figures. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1, 4-15, and 18-20 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.
Independent claims 1 and 14 require the adhesive layer include “at least one cut-out region being structured by having a non-straight side boundary” at lines 9 and 6, respectively. The specification at page 13, line 9 describes the term:
PNG
media_image1.png
186
631
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Per MPEP § 2111, during patent examination, the pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. The meaning given to a claim term must be consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term (unless the term has been given a special definition in the specification), and must be consistent with the use of the claim term in the specification and drawings. Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims must be consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach.
The ordinary meaning of a region having “a non-straight side boundary” includes a rectangular boundary having rounded corners. Further, a rectangular boundary having rounded corners is also representative of “any irregular shape involving two or more different directions” described at lines 8-9 reproduced above. However, the specification then excludes a rectangular boundary having rounded corners from being considered a “non-straight side boundary” per lines 13-15.
The metes and bounds of “a non-straight side boundary” therefore cannot be determined by those skilled in the art, as the specification description is not consistent with itself or the ordinary meaning of the phrase.
Stated differently, the description specifies at line 13 that a rectangular boundary having rounded corners is not a “non-straight side boundary”, but this contradicts with both the ordinary meaning of the term and the description that a “a non-straight side boundary” may be “any irregular shape involving two or more different directions”. As such, the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification for the cutout region cannot be determined. The metes and bounds for what shapes do and do not qualify are unclear.
The claims are examined with respect to the prior art as best the scope can be determined. It is suggested that the shape(s) of the region which are positively disclosed be specified to define the region (e.g. Figure 5, claim 6).
Claims 4-13, 15, and 18-20 depend on claims 1 or 14 and are likewise indefinite.
Regarding claims 4 and 18, independent claims 1 and 14 introduce “at least one cut-out region”, with claims 4 and 18 then requiring “the at least one cut-out region includes a second-type cut-out region”. The claims later make reference to “a first cut-out region” and “a second cut-out region”. It is not clear if the latter “first” and “second” cut-out regions are also examples of “the at least one cut-out region”, or if they are separate, undefined cut-out regions.
Claims 5-13 and 19-20 depend on claims 4 or 18 and are likewise indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orime et al. (US 2013/0241778, cited on IDS) in view of Hayakawa et al. (JP 6095444B2).
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 15, Orime discloses a vehicle radar system ([0009]), comprising: an antenna printed circuit board (Fig. 26) including substrate (301) and at least one transmit antenna (303) and at least one receive antenna (304; not pictured in Figure 26 but note [0113]); a radar control module (RF circuit board 326); and
vertical feed lines (12) respectively connecting the at least one transmit antenna and the radar control module and respectively connecting the at least one receive antenna and the radar control module (again note [0113] concerning receive side);
Orime does not discuss how the layers are secured and therefore does not disclose an adhesive layer provided between the antenna printed circuit board and the radar control module including at least one cut-out region being structured by having a nonstraight side boundary to direct an electromagnetic wave emanating from a first vertical feed line away from arriving at one or more of the vertical feed lines.
Hayakawa also discloses a vehicle radar system comprising an antenna circuit board (Figure 9B, 10A) where an adhesive layer (14) with a cutout regions (grooves/slits 17/17S) having “a non-straight boundary” (Figures 9B, 10A, see also Figure 3B) are placed between transmit and receive antennas (12-1, 12-2) to direct waves emanating from one away from the other (“unnecessary radio waves propagating through the dielectric substrate 11 and the adhesive sheet 14 are radiated from the through hole H to the outside”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to employ an adhesive layer as taught by Hayakawa in the circuit board of Orime for the conventional advantage of securing the layers, and further, to include at least one cut-out region being structured by having a nonstraight side boundary as taught by Hayakawa in order to block radio waves from emanating from one feed line to the other with a reasonable expectation of success (“it is desired to prevent radio wave interference between adjacent antennas to maintain high isolation”).
Allowable Subject Matter
While the scope is indefinite as shown above, as best the intent can be determined claims 4-13 and 18-20 appear to be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shi discloses an irregularly shaped window for isolation among transmit and receive radar antennas.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew M Barker whose telephone number is (571)272-3103. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 8:00 AM-4:30 PM; Fri 8 AM-12 PM Eastern Time.
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 571-273-6878. 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.
/MATTHEW M BARKER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights