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 Amendment
The Amendment filed 08/15/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-8, 12-13 remain pending in the application. Claims 9-11 are canceled.
The amendment filed 08/15/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
1) “a controller configured to determine an overlapping range between the first angle range and the second angle range” in claim 1 lines 13-14.
2) “determining an overlapping range between the first angle range and the second angle range” in claim 12 lines 14-15.
3) “determine an overlapping range between the first angle range and the second angle range” in claim 13 line 15.
“overlapping portion of the ranges Ta and Tb” is mentioned 7 times in the Specification paragraphs [0045] and [0046] only. Fig.5 and Fig.8 in the Drawing also illustrated overlapping portions. However, There is no descriptions in the Specification or in the Drawing regarding “a controller configured to determine an overlapping range between the first angle range and the second angle range” or a step to “determine an overlapping range between the first angle range and the second angle range”.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/15/2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s argument (REMARKS page 8) about amended Claims 1 and 12-13 is moot based on the new ground rejections. For “Giere does not appear to disclose” “the controller is configured to transmit the first transmission wave at the first frequency and the second transmission wave at the second frequency in the overlapping range at a different time” (see page 8 lines 11, 16-18), Examiner disagrees because Giere (‘952) discloses “the controller is configured to transmit the first transmission wave at the first frequency and the second transmission wave at the second frequency in the overlapping range at a different time” {[0025] lines 1-6 (In the time-division multiplexing method, the sensor units are read out in a time-offset manner, i.e., the transmission channel is divided into time slices, and a time interval is allocated to each sensor unit for transmission. As a result, all sensor units may be read out sequentially at extremely short time intervals)}.
Claim Objections
Claims 12-13 objected to because of typographical error: “an object” in claim 12 line 13 and claim 13 line 14, respectively. It appears that “an” should be “the”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The following claimed language is not defined in the applicant’s specification:
1) “a controller configured to determine an overlapping range between the first angle range and the second angle range” in claim 1 lines 13-14.
2) “determining an overlapping range between the first angle range and the second angle range” in claim 12 lines 14-15.
3) “determine an overlapping range between the first angle range and the second angle range” in claim 13 line 15.
“overlapping portion of the ranges Ta and Tb” is mentioned 7 times in the Specification paragraphs [0045] and [0046] only. Fig.5 and Fig.8 in the Drawing also illustrated overlapping portions. However, There is no descriptions in the Specification or in the Drawing regarding “a controller configured to determine an overlapping range between the first angle range and the second angle range” or a step to “determine an overlapping range between the first angle range and the second angle range”. It is not clear how to “determine an overlapping range between the first angle range and the second angle range” and how the boundary of the “overlapping portion of the ranges Ta and Tb” is determined.
Claims 2-8 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1 because each of dependent claims 2-8 is unclear, at least, in that it depends on unclear independent claim 1.
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 12-13 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.
Claims 12-13 recite the limitations: 1) “an object” in claim 12 line 13 and claim 13 line 14, respectively. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “an object” in claim 12 line 13 and claim 13 line 14 is the same as the “an object” defined in claim 12 line 9 and claim 13 line 10. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, the limitation “an object” in claim 12 line 13 and claim 13 line 14 is being interpreted as “the object”. 2) "the object" in line 20. It is indefinite because it is not clear which “object” mentioned in claim 12 lines 9 and 13 and claim 13 lines 10 and 14 is “the object”. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, the limitation “an object” in claim 12 line 13 and claim 13 line 14 is being interpreted as “the object”. Appropriate clarifications are required.
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 1-5, 7-8, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giere et al. (US 2018/0313952, hereafter Giere) in view of Josef Buechler (DE 4406404, hereafter Buechler).
Regarding claim 1, Giere (‘952) discloses that An electronic device {[0001] line 2-4 (device for improving and tracking objects, imaging radar sensors)} comprising:
a first sensor { Fig.1; Fig.3 item 31; [0053] lines 2 (two sensor units (31, 32))} comprising:
a first transmission antenna configured to transmit a first transmission wave over a first angle range centered perpendicular to a first surface of the first sensor {Fig.1 items 1(antenna), 2 (Tx-chip); Fig.3 items 31, 311; [0019] lines 1-4 (The antennas are designed to be able to be operated in a frequency band from 1 GHz up to 1 THz; preferably, the operating frequency range is in a frequency band from 5 to 150 GHz, in particular in the range from 75 to 85 GHz. Millimeter wave); [0050] line 2 (Two transmitting antennas (1)); [0053] line 2 (two sensor units (31, 32))}; and
a first reception antenna configured to receive a first reflected wave that is the first transmission wave reflected from an object {Fig.1 items 3 (antenna), 4 (Rx-chip); Fig.3 items 31, 311; Fig.8 (Object path through the individual FOVs); [0001] lines 3-4 (imaging radar sensor); [0002] line 2 (object detection); [0017] lines 3-4 (object lists from the received signals of the individual sensor units by controlling); [0018] line 4 (receiving antennas); [0050] line 3-4 (an array (3), receiving antennas); [0053] line 2 (two sensor units (31, 32)); Examiner’s note: “imaging radar sensors”, “object detection”, and “object lists from the received signals of the individual sensor units by controlling” implied or inherent the claimed language “receive a first reflected wave that is the first transmission wave reflected from an object” because radar sensor detects target using received transmitted signal that is reflected from target.}; and
a second sensor { Fig.1; Fig.3 item 32 [0053] lines 2 (two sensor units (31, 32))} comprising:
a second transmission antenna configured to transmit a second transmission wave over a second angle range centered perpendicular to a second surface of the second sensor { Fig.1 items 1(antenna), 2 (Tx-chip); Fig.3 items 32, 321; [0019] lines 1-4 (The antennas are designed to be able to be operated in a frequency band from 1 GHz up to 1 THz; preferably, the operating frequency range is in a frequency band from 5 to 150 GHz, in particular in the range from 75 to 85 GHz. Millimeter wave); [0050] line 2 (Two transmitting antennas (1)); [0053] line 2 (two sensor units (31, 32))}; and
a second reception antenna configured to receive a second reflected wave that is the second transmission wave reflected from the object { Fig.1 items 3 (antenna), 4 (Rx-chip); Fig.3 items 32, 321; Fig.8 (Object path through the individual FOVs); [0001] lines 3-4 (imaging radar sensor); [0002] line 2 (object detection); [0017] lines 3-4 (object lists from the received signals of the individual sensor units by controlling); [0018] line 4 (receiving antennas); [0050] line 3-4 (an array (3), receiving antennas); [0053] line 2 (two sensor units (31, 32)); Examiner’s note: “imaging radar sensors”, “object detection”, “object lists from the received signals of the individual sensor units by controlling”, and Fig.8 item 4 implied or inherent the claimed language “receive a second reflected wave that is the second transmission wave reflected from the object” because radar sensor detects target using received transmitted signal that is reflected from target. If an object is located at overlap area of the two field of views of two radar sensor, the two radar sensor will receive reflected signal from the object}; and
a controller configured to determine an overlapping range between the first angle range and the second angle range {Fig.8 item 4 (Overlap FOV RF1 & RF2)}, , and detect the object based on the first reflected wave and the second reflected wave { [0001] lines 3-4 (imaging radar sensors); [0002] lines 1-6 (for millimeter-wave radar sensors for use in object detection, for example, for automotive and aeronautical applications, the individual sensor units or front ends are respectively linked separately to a control unit and data evaluation device, and the collective view of the front end takes place only at the tracker level.); [0017] lines 3-5 (object lists from the received signals of the individual sensor units by controlling, reading out, and evaluating the individual sensor units.)},
wherein the first sensor and the second sensor are disposed in respective directions that are not parallel to each other {Fig.3 items 31 and 32}, and
the controller is configured to transmit the first transmission wave at the first frequency and the second transmission wave at the second frequency in the overlapping range at a different time {[0025] lines 1-6 (In the time-division multiplexing method, the sensor units are read out in a time-offset manner, i.e., the transmission channel is divided into time slices, and a time interval is allocated to each sensor unit for transmission. As a result, all sensor units may be read out sequentially at extremely short time intervals)}.
However, Giere (‘952) does not explicitly disclose “control the first transmission antenna to transmit the first transmission wave at a first frequency in the overlapping range and the second transmission antenna to transmit the second transmission wave at a second frequency in the overlapping range, the second frequency being different from the first frequency”. In the same field of endeavor, Buechler (‘404) discloses that
a controller configured to control the first transmission antenna to transmit the first transmission wave at a first frequency in the overlapping range and the second transmission antenna to transmit the second transmission wave at a second frequency in the overlapping range, the second frequency being different from the first frequency {Fig.1 overlap; page 3 10-13 from bottom (A method for determining the position and movement of an object relative to a transceiver with two differently oriented transceiver modules, characterized in that of the two modules (1, 2) at least partially overlapping areas of the object under Different aspect angles are illuminated, that signals of different transmission frequencies fs1, fs2 are emitted by the two modules and that the reflected signals); page 4 line 15 (Radar arrangement for performing the method)}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Giere (‘952) with the teachings of Buechler (‘404) {use two different transmit frequencies from two radar transceiver modules transmit to an overlap area for determining the position and movement of an object relative to a transceiver } to use two different transmit frequencies from two radar transceiver modules transmit to an overlap area for determining the position and movement of an object relative to a transceiver. Doing so would determine the direction of movement of the angles of inclination and the distance of the object relative to the transceiver with little effort to obtain much more extensive information acquisition, as recognized by Buechler (‘404) {page 1 line 2 from bottom (with little effort the extraction of these and white enables more information); page 2 lines 22-23 (a enables much more extensive information acquisition); page 3 lines 4-5 from bottom (the direction of movement of the angles of inclination and the distance h of the object relative to the transceiver are determined)}.
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Giere (‘952) and Buechler (‘404) discloses that in the electronic device,
the first sensor and the second sensor are disposed in respective directions that form a predetermined angle with respect to each other {see Giere (‘952) Fig.3; Examiner’s note: structure in Fig.3 for “predetermined angle”}.
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Giere (‘952) and Buechler (‘404) discloses that in the electronic device,
the first sensor is disposed on a first inclined surface, and the second sensor is disposed on a second inclined surface different from the first inclined surface { see Giere (‘952) Fig.3}.
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Giere (‘952) and Buechler (‘404) discloses that in the electronic device,
a surface on which the first sensor is disposed and a surface on which the second sensor is disposed form two inclined surfaces having a common ridgeline { see Giere (‘952) Fig.3}.
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Giere (‘952) and Buechler (‘404) discloses that in the electronic device,
the first sensor and the second sensor are disposed in proximity to each other { see Giere (‘952) Fig.3}.
Regarding claim 7, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Giere (‘952) and Buechler (‘404) discloses that in the electronic device,
each of a surface on which the first sensor is disposed and a surface on which the second sensor is disposed is covered with a cover member that is parallel to the surface { see Giere (‘952) Fig.2 item 20 (sensor housing), 21-23 (sensor units); [0052] lines 2 (three sensor units (21, 22, 23)), 4 (a sensor housing (20))}.
Regarding claim 8, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Giere (‘952) and Buechler (‘404) discloses that in the electronic device,
the first sensor and the second sensor are electrically connected to each other { see Giere (‘952) Fig.7; [0002] lines 3-4 (the individual sensor units or front ends are respectively linked separately to a control unit)}.
Regarding claim 12, as modified above, Giere (‘952) discloses that A method for controlling an electronic device {[0001] lines 1-2 (a method, device for improving and tracking objects, imaging radar sensors); [0002] line 4 (control unit); [0010] lines 1-6 (individual control readout, and method steps, combined centrally on the signal processing device; the required data memory, centrally controlled)} including a first sensor and a second sensor disposed in respective directions that are not parallel to each other, the method comprising:
transmitting, by the first sensor, a first transmission wave over a first angle range centered perpendicular to a first surface of the first sensor;
receiving, by the first sensor, a first reflected wave that is the first transmission wave reflected from an object;
transmitting, by the second sensor, a second transmission wave over a second angle range centered perpendicular to a second surface of the second sensor;
receiving, by the second sensor, a second reflected wave that is the second transmission wave reflected from an object;
determining an overlapping range between the first angle range and the second angle range;
controlling the first sensor to transmit the first transmission wave at a first frequency in the overlapping range and the second sensor to transmit the second transmission wave at a second frequency in the overlapping range, the second frequency being different from the first frequency; and
detecting the object based on the first reflected wave and the second reflected wave,
wherein the controlling comprises controlling the first sensor to transmit the first transmission wave at the first frequency and controlling the second sensor to transmit the second transmission wave at the second frequency in the overlapping range at a different time.
{The claim limitations above are the same or substantially the same scope as the corresponding claim limitations in claim 1. Therefore the claim limitations above are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 1. See the rejections of claim 1}.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giere (‘952) and Buechler (‘404) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fetterman (US 10,408,931, hereafter Fetterman).
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claim 1, Giere (‘952) and Buechler (‘404) does not explicitly disclose that “an angle at which the object is detectable by the first sensor and the second sensor is greater than 180°”. In the same field of endeavor, Fetterman (‘931) discloses that in the electronic device,
an angle at which the object is detectable by the first sensor and the second sensor is greater than 180° {Fig.8A-B; col.7 lines 29-31 (FIG. SA, antennas 202,204 may each comprise linear arrays of eight (8) equispaced antenna elements), 34-36 (each antenna 202, 204 may form five (5) directional beams as illustrated in FIG. 8B.), 39-41 (antenna elements 1-8 may cover a FOY from about 70° to about - 70°, while antenna elements 9-16 may cover from about -60° to about -200°)};
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Giere (‘952) and Buechler (‘404) with the teachings of Fetterman (‘931) {arrange antenna arrays to achieve ultra-wide field of view (e.g. from -200° to 70°) } to arrange antenna arrays to achieve ultra-wide field of view (e.g. from -200° to 70°). Doing so would provide a compact radar module that provides a cost effective approach to obtaining relatively high performance characteristics, including an ultra-wide azimuthal FOV so as to meet challenging design requirements (e.g. low cost, small size, high performance parameters), as recognized by Fetterman (‘931) {col.1 lines 42-44 (Competing design requirements (e.g. low cost, small size, high performance parameters)), 49-52 (provide a compact radar module that provides a cost effective approach to obtaining relatively high performance characteristics, including an ultra-wide azimuthal FOY.)}.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giere (‘952) in view of Buechler (‘404) and Melzer (‘870).
Regarding claim 13, as modified above, the combination of Giere (‘952) and Buechler (‘404) discloses that and a second sensor disposed in respective directions that are not parallel to each other, cause the electronic device to:
transmit, by the first sensor, a first transmission wave over a first angle range centered perpendicular to a first surface of the first sensor;
receive, by the first sensor, a first reflected wave that is the first transmission wave reflected from an object;
transmit, by the second sensor, a second transmission wave over a second angle range centered perpendicular to a second surface of the second sensor;
receive, by the second sensor, a second reflected wave that is the second transmission wave reflected from an object;
determine an overlapping range between the first angle range and the second angle range;
control the first sensor to transmit the first transmission wave at a first frequency in the overlapping range and the second sensor to transmit the second transmission wave at a second frequency in the overlapping range, the second frequency being different from the first frequency; and
detect the object based on the first reflected wave and the second reflected wave,
wherein the electronic device controls the first sensor to transmit the first transmission wave at the first frequency and controls the second sensor to transmit the second transmission wave at the second frequency in the overlapping range at a different time.
{The claim limitations above are the same or substantially the same scope as the corresponding claim limitations in claim 1. Therefore the claim limitations above are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 1. See the rejections of claim 1}.
However, Giere (‘952) and Buechler (‘404) do not explicitly disclose “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing computer program instructions, which when executed by an electronic device”. In the same field of endeavor, Melzer (‘870) disclose that
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing computer program instructions, which when executed by an electronic device including a first sensor and a second sensor {Fig.3 (radar device 1 (MMIC)); Fig.5 items MMIC 1, MMIC 2, 50 (controller); [0035] lines 3-5 (The controller 50 can have a memory and a processor that is designed to load and execute software instructions stored in the memory)}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Giere (‘952) and Buechler (‘404) with the teachings of Melzer (‘870) {use a controller having a memory and a processor that is designed to load and execute software instructions stored in the memory for radar device (e.g. MMIC) control} to use a controller having a memory and a processor that is designed to load and execute software instructions stored in the memory for radar device (e.g. MMIC) control. Doing so would implement at least some of the functionality of the controller using software and communication bus so as to synchronizing the operation of the slave MMIC ( s ) 2 with the master MMIC 1, as recognized by Melzer (‘870) {[0035] lines 5-9 (At least some of the functionality of the controller 50 can be implemented using software. The controller 50 can use a bus 51 to communicate with the MMICs 1 and 2); [0037] lines 2-3 (synchronizing the operation of the slave MMIC ( s ) 2 with the master MMIC 1.)}.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONGHONG LI whose telephone number is (571)272-5946. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (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.
/YONGHONG LI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/DAVID R DUNN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3636