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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 6, 7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Waelde et al. (Waelde, US PGPub 2020/0386601).
Referring to Claim 6, Waelde teaches a plurality of transceiver units (Fig. 4A #301; [0060] and [0074-0075]), which are situated on separate installation supports for installation in different locations in the motor vehicle and are connected to one another by a synchronization network, each of the transceiver units includes a scanning module (Fig. 4A #ADC; [0024], [0068] and [0079]) for scanning radar signals received on a plurality of channels in the form of time signals; wherein each of the installation supports has a raw-data interface (Fig. 4A #304; [0073]) for transmitting the time signal of the transceiver unit to a central evaluation instance (Fig. 4A #FPGA; [0079]), and the central evaluation instance is configured to jointly evaluate the time signals from the plurality of transceiver units; [0065] and [0067].
Referring to Claim 7, Waelde teaches wherein, the central evaluation instance is a processor in a control device which is separate from the installation supports; Fig. 4A #310; [0079].
Referring to Claim 10, Waelde teaches wherein each transceiver unit of the transceiver units has a local oscillator for generation of a transmit signal for the transceiver unit, and the local oscillators are synchronized with one another via the synchronization network; [0075].
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) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waelde in view of Seler et al. (Seler, US PGPub 2018/0372865).
Referring to Claim 8, Waelde teaches an oscillator, but does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein an oscillator is situated at a location of the central evaluation instance for generation of a transmit signal for all of the transceiver units.
However, Seler teaches wherein an oscillator is situated at a location of the central evaluation instance for generation of a transmit signal for all of the transceiver units; Fig. 5 #130; [0040] and [0042].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Waelde with oscillator being placed with the CPU as taught by Seler as it allows for further control of the signal being generated at the evaluation unit for optimizing the outputted signal.
Referring to Claim 9, Waelde as modified by Seler teach wherein an oscillator is disposed on one of the installation supports for generation of a transmit signal for all of the transceiver units; [0087] of Waelde and citations of Seler.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 28 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Waelde does not disclose “a plurality of transceiver units, which situation on separate installation supports for installation in different locations in the motor vehicle and are connected to one another by a synchronization network”. Applicant states the transmitters described by Waelde lie on the same radar…though there may be more than one radar chip. It is not clear what the Applicant is arguing with that statement and it appears to be contradictory as it states that the transmitters are on the same radar chip meaning there are not different radar chips, but then says there may be more than one which would imply the transmitters are not one the same radar chip. Applicant also argues that Waelde describes the radar as being located inside a singular level measurement device. While the Examiner agrees that there is description of a level measurement device, Waelde also teaches the chips may be used in fields such as driver assistance systems, traffic surveillance, object surveillance in industrial facilities, drones, and many further fields; [0060]. This teaching clearly shows that the radar chips of Waelde are not limited to singular type of device. The Examiner also interprets the claim in a manner different than the Applicant with respect to the limitation “…for installation in different locations in the motor vehicle…” While the claim states that there are separate installation supports, it just states that they are “for” installation in different locations, the claim does not state or inherently require the supports be at different locations. Waelde teaches in [0074] “…said transmitters and/or receivers are physically located on different RSoCs.” This shows that that the transmitters are do not lie on same radar chip but on different chips. It is also disclosed that there more than one printed circuit boards with which the separate RSoCs are installed on. [0097] and [0113] both refer to the printed circuit board, i.e. #904 represented in Fig. 10 and 11, in the plurality as they describe printed circuit boards. This is interpreted as being more than one circuit board, which is also implicit in the fields described in [0060]. It is the Examiners position that the claim does explicitly it implicitly state that the separate installations are located at different locations, just that they are capable of being installed in different locations based on the language “for” being used. Also, as the Examiner has shown that the prior art teaches separate installation supports, and teaches use in driver assistance systems, the implication would be that there would be multiple chips placed in different locations of the vehicle allowing for coverage of the vehicle to provide assistance with any advanced braking system for example. The Examiner maintains the rejection is proper as currently applied.
Conclusion
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 WHITNEY T MOORE whose telephone number is (571)270-3338. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 7am-4pm.
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) 272-6878. 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.
/WHITNEY MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646