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 on 01/22/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-15 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouchi et al. (US 2008/0062038, hereby referred as Ouchi) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2001/0040524, hereby referred as Suzuki).
Regarding claim 1, Ouchi teaches the following:
a wireless module comprising:
a first board (element 4, figures 1-8) having an antenna, the antenna transmitting and receiving a high frequency signal (“radar”, paragraphs [0031]-[0032]);
a second board (element 5, figures 1-8); and
a housing (element 1-2, figures 1-8) including a cover (elements 2, figures 1-8) and a case (element 1, figures 1-8) combined with each other and accommodating the first board and the second board, wherein
a passage portion (element 21, figures 1-8) that allows electromagnetic waves transmitted and received by the antenna to pass through is provided in the cover (as shown in figures 1-8), and
the first board is fixed to the cover while being in contact with the cover (paragraphs [0044]),
and the housing accommodating the first board and the second board is formed by combining two members (elements 1 and 2, figures 1-8),
one of the two members is the cover (element 2, figures 1-8), and
the other of the two members is the case (element 1, figures 1-8).
Ouchi does not explicitly teach the high frequency signal being a millimeter wave band; the second board handling a baseband signal with a lower frequency than the high frequency signal.
However, Ouchi does mention the millimeter wave band (“using a mill wave band (60 to 77 GHz)”, paragraph [0002]).
Suzuki suggests the teachings of the high frequency signal being a millimeter wave band (element 6, figures 3-5, paragraph [0031]); the second board handling a baseband signal with a lower frequency than the high frequency signal (10, figures 3-5, paragraphs [0030]-[0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the high frequency signal of Ouchi to be a millimeter wave band, and the second board handling a baseband signal with a lower frequency than the high frequency signal as suggested by the teachings of Suzuki and Ouchi as the millimeter wave band is commonly used in radar systems which can have “small attenuation of an electric wave beam even in a bad weather in which a fog exists, and reaching a great distance” (Ouchi, paragraph [0002]), and since the signal processing of a millimeter wave signal is usually done in a lower baseband frequency since the baseband is needed to processes the data, translating it into a form that can be transmitted and received by the antennas (Suzuki, paragraphs [0030]-[0031]).
Regarding claim 2, Ouchi as modified in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein the first board (element 4, figures 1-8) is not fixed to the case (element 1, figures 1-8).
Regarding claim 3, Ouchi as modified in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein the first board includes a first connector (connected to element 81, figure 3), the second board includes a second connector (connected to element 82, figure 3), and the first connector and the second connector are directly electrically connected together (as shown in figure 3).
Regarding claim 4, Ouchi as modified in claim 1 teaches the wireless module with the exception for the following:
wherein the passage portion is provided so that a Fresnel zone of the antenna and the cover do not interfere with each other.
However, it is very well known in the antenna/radar art that the Fresnel zone of an antenna is desired to not interfere with a cover since that would create an obstruction and cause some signal loss.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the passage portion of Ouchi as modified to be provided so that a Fresnel zone of the antenna and the cover do not interfere with each other as well-known in the antenna/radar art in order to prevent any signal loss that would occur if the cover was in the Fresnel zone of the antenna.
Regarding claim 5, Ouchi as modified in claim 1 teaches the wireless module with the exception for the following:
wherein the first board has a plurality of positioning holes that position and fix the first board with respect to the cover.
However, Ouchi does teach that the first board is attached by a solder or the like or adhesive agent.
Suzuki suggests the teachings of wherein the first board has a plurality of positioning holes that position and fix the first board with respect to the cover (“The antenna base 3 is fixed to the housing 2 by, e.g., screws made of conductors”, paragraph [0049])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the first board of Ouchi as modified to have a plurality of positioning holes that position and fix the first board with respect to the cover as suggested by the teachings of Ouchi and Suzuki as this is just an alternative way to fix the first board to the cover which can provide a secure connection between the two (Suzuki, paragraph [0049]).
Regarding claim 6, Ouchi as modified in claim 1 teaches the wireless module with the exception for the following:
further comprising a through screw that passes through the case, the first board and the cover to fix the case to the cover.
However, Ouchi does teach that the first board is attached by a solder or the like or adhesive agent.
Suzuki suggests the teachings of further comprising a through screw that passes through the case, the first board and the cover to fix the case to the cover. (“The antenna base 3 is fixed to the housing 2 by, e.g., screws made of conductors”, paragraph [0049])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further comprising a through screw that passes through the case of Ouchi as modified the first board and the cover to fix the case to the cover as suggested by the teachings of Ouchi and Suzuki as this is just an alternative way to fix the first board to the cover which can provide a secure connection between the two (Suzuki, paragraph [0049]).
Regarding claim 8, Ouchi as modified in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein the second board has a first fixing hole that fixes the second board to at least one of the case and the cover, at least one of the case and the cover has a second fixing hole through which a fixing screw inserted into the first fixing hole is inserted, and at least one of the first fixing hole and the second fixing hole has a long hole shape (as shown in figure 2, both the case and cover have fixing holes in which a fixing screw 72 is used to attach to the second board 5).
Regarding claim 9, Ouchi as modified in claim 8 teaches the following:
wherein the second fixing hole (as shown in figure 2) is provided in the case (element 1, figure 2).
Regarding claim 10, Ouchi as modified in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein the second board has a first fixing hole that fixes the second board to at least one of the case and the cover, and a through hole tap is provided in the first fixing hole (as shown in figure 2, the second board 5 has fixing holes and the case and cover also have fixing holes, in which a fixing screw 72 is used to attach them together. A tap is inherent when using a screw into a hard material such as metal or plastic, which the case/cover is made out of (paragraph [0051])).
Regarding claim 11, Ouchi as modified in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein an external terminal (elements 13/15, figures 2-3) is provided on the second board, among components provided on the first board or the second board (various components on second board 5, as shown in figure 2), components other than the antenna and the external terminal are located between the case and the cover in a facing direction in which the case and the cover face each other, and among the components provided on the first board or the second board, the components other than the antenna and the external terminal overlap both the case and the cover when seen in the facing direction (as shown in figures 2-3).
Regarding claim 12, Ouchi as modified in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein the cover and the case are made of a metal (“The front cover 2 … is structured in a rectangular shape by metal such as aluminum or the like”, “housing 1 is structured by resin and metal. The housing is structured by … a housing 1C formed by metal”, paragraphs [0039], [0051]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouchi et al. (US 2008/0062038, hereby referred as Ouchi) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2001/0040524, hereby referred as Suzuki), and further in view of Gottwald (US 2005/0224246).
Regarding claim 7, Ouchi as modified in claim 6 teaches the wireless module with the exception for the following:
wherein the first board has an avoidance portion that prevents interference between the through screw and the first board.
However, Ouchi does teach using a screw that is formed by synthetic resin to prevent any interference from the screw to the first board (paragraph [0044]).
Gottwald suggests the teachings of a radar device for a motor vehicle wherein the first board (element 1, figures 1-2) has an avoidance portion (elements 9, figures 1-2) that prevents interference between the through an attachment portion (element 10, figures 1-2) and the first board.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the first board of Ouchi as modified to have an avoidance portion that prevents interference between the through screw and the first board as suggested by the teachings of Gottwald as this is an alterative way to reduce the interference (paragraph [0017]) that may occur from using an attachment means that is composed of steel or other metals, which common screws are made of, near a board that uses high frequency signals.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouchi et al. (US 2008/0062038, hereby referred as Ouchi) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2001/0040524, hereby referred as Suzuki), and further in view of Ohara et al. (US 2023/0273295, hereby referred as Ohara).
Regarding claim 13, Ouchi as modified in claim 12 teaches the following:
wherein a power feeding element (element 81, figure 3) that supplies a high frequency signal to the antenna is mounted on the first board (as shown in figure 3), and the power feeding element is surrounded by the case (element 1 and 3, figures 1-8).
Ouchi does not teach the power feeding element is surrounded by a GND of the first board.
Ohara suggests the teachings of wherein a power feeding element (6b, figures 5, 7, 12) that supplies a high frequency signal to the antenna is mounted on the first board (element 6, figures 5, 7, 12), and the power feeding element is surrounded by a GND of the first board (element 6c, figures 5, 7, 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the power feeding element of Ouchi as modified to be surrounded by a GND of the first board as suggested by the teachings of Ohara in order to provide a ground to the first board which can be used to reduce noise and interference by providing a stable reference and therefore improve the performance of the antenna, and shield the components “against unnecessary radio waves from the outside” (paragraph [0042]).
Regarding claim 14, Ouchi as modified in claim 12 teaches the wireless module with the exception of the following:
wherein a metal portion is exposed on at least a portion of a surface of the first board, and the metal portion is in electrical contact with the case.
Ohara suggests the teachings of wherein a metal portion (6c, figures 5, 7, 12) is exposed on at least a portion of a surface of the first board (element 6, figures 5, 7, 12), and the metal portion is in electrical contact with the case (“The first ground pattern (6c) abuts and is electrically connected to one or both of the heat sink (4) and the inner cover (5)”, abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the first board of Ouchi as modified to include a metal portion exposed on at least a portion of a surface of the first board, and the metal portion is in electrical contact with the case as suggested by the teachings of Ohara in order to provide a ground to the first board which can be used to reduce noise and interference by providing a stable reference and therefore improve the performance of the antenna, and shield the components “against unnecessary radio waves from the outside” (paragraph [0042]).
Regarding claim 15, Ouchi as modified in claim 14 teaches the wireless module with the exception of the following:
wherein the metal portion is a GND of the first board.
Ohara suggests the teachings of wherein the metal portion (6c, figures 5, 7, 12) is a GND of the first board.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the metal portion of Ouchi as modified to be a GND of the first board as suggested by the teachings of Ohara in order to provide a ground to the first board which can be used to reduce noise and interference by providing a stable reference and therefore improve the performance of the antenna, and shield the components “against unnecessary radio waves from the outside” (paragraph [0042]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/22/2026 regarding the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the housing relied on by the examiner included 4 members, rather than the 2 members now claimed, and that it would be teaching away if one were to have multiple members be combined into one member.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding applicants’ arguments that Ouchi teaches away from using two members to create the housing since the housing is resin and the rear and front covers are metal, Ouchi teaches that the cover 2 is made of metal (paragraph [0039]), and that only a portion 1a/1b of the housing 1 is composed of resin, while the other portion 1c is composed of metal (paragraph [0051]). Therefore, it would be plausible to have the 1C portion and the member 3 to be composed of one part as they are both created from metal, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to make plural parts unitary as a matter of engineering design choice. In re Larson, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965); In re Lockart 90 USPQ 214 (CCPA 1951). While the examiner relied on 4 members in the previous rejection, only 2 members (elements 1 and 2) are being relied on as teaching the housing as these two members would accommodate the first board and the second board as claimed, which would make the arguments moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on how the reference was applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Furthermore, the claims use “comprising” which is open ended, which means more than what is claimed can be included.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the double patenting rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The double patenting rejection of claims 1 and 11 has been withdrawn.
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 AB SALAM ALKASSIM JR whose telephone number is (571)270-0449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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, Dameon Levi can be reached at (571) 272-2105. 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.
/AB SALAM ALKASSIM JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845