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 .
Drawings
Replacement drawings were received on 12/3/2025. These drawings are accepted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/3/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the claims are amended to address concerns concerning 35 U.S.C. 112(b). However, while claim 1 has been amended accordingly, no amendment is made to claim 13 and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues on page 6 that Gerding’s antenna is not described as providing adaptation between different RF interfaces, so it cannot be interpreted as the claimed RF adapter. The argument is not persuasive at least because the only claimed component of the “RF adapter” in claims 1 and 13 is the absorber itself, which is present in Gerding and arranged as required by the claims.
Applicant argues on page 7 that there is no disclosure in Gerding that the absorber layers would be rigid or provide mechanical support. It is acknowledged that Gerding does not specify that the absorber is “rigid” and the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 is withdrawn. It is noted that claim 13 was not amended to include these requirements and the rejection is maintained.
However, the claimed “mechanical support” as described in the instant specification is broad, described as a function “to provide mechanical stability to the sensor” (the sensor being the entire disclosed assembly 100). As seen in Figure 5 of Gerding, the presence of absorber(s) 13/14 provide mechanical support/stability to the assembly at least laterally, though it is apparent it also provides vertical support/stability to at least element 11.
At pages 8-10 of the Remarks Applicant argues against the combination of references in general, alleging impermissible hindsight reasoning. The arguments do not address any particular claimed feature or the reasoning presented in the office action. The arguments are unpersuasive at least for this reason.
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.
Claim 13 is 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.
Claim 13 requires the absorber “at least partially surround” a waveguide. The term “partially surround” is a term of degree which renders the claims indefinite. The term “partially surround” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The figures and specification instead appear to suggest and illustrate that absorber (200) fully surrounds the waveguide, in particular the 3D view of Figure 6. In the event that the absorber instead may only “partially” surround the waveguide, it is not clear how the scope of such could be ascertained, e.g. what percentage of the waveguide must be “surrounded” in order to qualify as “partially” surrounded? Would an absorber covering only 25% of the waveguide circumference “partially surround”? Or 1%? If it is the intent that the language require surrounding the waveguide along a partial length of the waveguide, this is not is what is claimed. For example, the sectional view of Figure 4 demonstrates that the absorber completely surrounds the waveguide, even if not along the entire length.
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 1-12 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.
Claim 1 is amended to require that the absorber be “rigid”. The specification is not found to use this term to describe the absorber, nor is the absorber as illustrated found to necessarily be “rigid”. The most relevant portion of the specification (page 2, line 32- page 3, line 2) describes the absorber as having a “sufficiently high density and strength for this purpose”, the purpose referring to for example, “provide mechanical stability to the sensor, to protect parts of the sensor, to hold parts of the sensor together, to position parts, to provide sealing, etc.” The disclosure of “sufficient” density and strength for these purposes does not require the absorber to be “rigid”, but rather these may be achieved by semirigid or flexible materials as well. As such, the claim fails to comply with the written description requirement and contains new matter. Claims 2-12 depend on claim 1 and likewise also fail to comply with the written description requirement.
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) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gerding et al. (US 2009/0262038).
Regarding claim 13, Gerding discloses an RF adapter for a radar sensor (e.g. Figure 5), comprising an absorber (13/14) configured to at least partially surround a waveguide (10) of the radar sensor, wherein the absorber is an electrical component configured to absorb electromagnetic waves and is also a mechanical component of the radar sensor ([0046]).
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 and 6-9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerding et al. (US 2009/0262038) in view of Mejean et al. (US 2019/0103679).
Regarding claim 1 Gerding discloses a radar sensor (e.g. Figure 5) , comprising a waveguide (10) configured to guide electromagnetic waves; and an RF adapter comprising an absorber (13/14), wherein the absorber completely surrounds the waveguide along a partial length, and is an electrical component configured to absorb electromagnetic waves, and is also a mechanical component of the radar sensor configured to provide mechanical support ([0046]; the absorber provides at least lateral mechanical support).
Gerding discloses broadly the absorber is “formed using synthetics, in which inherently conducive materials are embedded”, which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize to include both rigid and non-rigid (e.g. foam) options. Gerding is not found to indicate whether the absorber is rigid or not. Mejean discloses a rigid electromagnetic wave absorbing composite material which is machinable into various shapes (Abstract, [0054]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to implement the absorber of Gerding with a rigid material as suggested by Mejean in order to achieve light weight and good strength while avoiding machining problems of non-rigid options, resulting in good reproducibility in production ([0018]-[0019]).
Regarding claim 6, sidewall (8) of Gerding represents an “insulating sleeve” as claimed. Separately, Gerding discloses an insulating sleeve (20) in an embodiment, illustrated in Figure 10.
Regarding claims 7-8, the absorber of Gerding has an interface and fit for a housing (8).
Regarding claim 9, Gerding shows surfaces of the absorber are planar (illustration is a cross section of cylindrical structure).
Regarding claim 11, Gerding does not disclose that the absorber comprises a circumferential groove configured to receive a sealing ring. However, Gerding does disclose that dielectric body (2) comprises a circumferential groove configured to receive a sealing ring at [0050] for securing the body to the waveguide. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to modify the radar sensor of Gerding to likewise employ a sealing ring and groove in the absorber (13) in the same manner as the dielectric body in order secure the absorber, therefore providing additional mechanical support.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerding (US 2009/0262038) in view of Mejean et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Winfried et al. (US 2022/0049984).
Gerding is concerned with the radar antenna and does not discuss the electronics to provide the signal to the supply section (4) of the antenna. Winfried also discloses a fill level radar (Fig. 2) where an electronics unit comprising a circuit board (15) and RF component (primary emitter) to supply a waveguide is attached to the top of the antenna (12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate an electronics unit including circuit board and RF component with the antenna of Gerding as shown by Winfried mounted on top of the antenna in order to supply the required signal to the waveguide feed in a compact package with predictable results. Accordingly, the sheath (3) of Gerding would represent the claimed “adapter element” with the electronics unit on a first side and absorber (13) on a second.
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 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
