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 .
Examiner’s Note
For applicant’s benefit, portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) See MPEP 2123.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 9 February, 2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are provisionally rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7, 9, 11, 13-18, and 20 of co-pending US App. No. 18/202,032. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both encompass sustainably the same structure for radar sensor and housing enhanced for radar wave scatterings, and the same basic invention is unequivocally claimed among the dependent claims of both the application and the reference application. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
US App. No. 18/437,661
US App. No. 18/202,032
1. A radar structure comprising:
a radome including a bottom surface; and
a radio wave absorber including a top surface, wherein:
the bottom surface and the top surface each include a complementing spatial structure configured to allow an interaction between the radome and the radio wave absorber, and
the complementing spatial structures are adapted to increase radar wave scattering interactions between at least one of the bottom surface or the top surface.
2. The radar structure of claim 1 wherein:
the complementing spatial structure is provided with:
at least one first region having a recess or protrusion, and
at least one second region having a recess or protrusion; and
the at least one second region is provided within the at least one first region.
3. The radar structure of claim 2 wherein:
the complementing spatial structure is provided with at least one third region having a recess or protrusion, and
the at least one third region is provided separate to the at least one first region.
4. The radar structure of claim 3 wherein:
the complementing spatial structure is provided with at least one fourth region having a recess or protrusion, and
the at least one fourth region is provided to connect the recess or protrusion of the at least one first region with the recess or protrusion of the at least one third region.
5. The radar structure of claim 4 wherein the recess or protrusion of the at least one second region and the recess or protrusion of the at least one third region have a complementary geometrical shape.
6. The radar structure of claim 2 wherein the recess or protrusion has a cross-sectional shape of a semi-circle, a sinusoid, or a polygon.
7. The radar structure of claim 6 wherein the polygon is a triangular or rectangular shape.
8. The radar structure of claim 2 wherein the recess or protrusion has a three-dimensional shape of a semi-sphere, a cylinder, a pyramid, an extruded semi-circle, a sinusoidal wave, or an extruded polygon.
9. The radar structure of claim 8 wherein the polygon is a triangular or rectangular shape.
10. The radar structure of claim 1 wherein at least a portion of the complementing spatial structures is provided with a bevel, a chamfer, or a fillet.
11. The radar structure of claim 1 wherein a portion of the complementing spatial structures is provided with a three-dimensional shape of a semi-sphere, a cylinder, a pyramid, an extruded semi-circle, a sinusoidal wave, or an extruded polygon.
12. The radar structure of claim 11 wherein the polygon is a triangular or rectangular shape.
13. The radar structure of claim 1 wherein the complementing spatial structures are tapering towards an end portion of the complementing spatial structure.
14. The radar structure of claim 1 wherein a dimension at an end portion of the complementing spatial structures is different to a corresponding dimension at a start portion of the complementing spatial structure.
15. A radar sensor comprising: the radar structure of claim 1; and at least one antenna with a predetermined field of view, wherein: the at least one antenna is provided next to the radar wave absorber, and the radome is configured to cover the at least one antenna.
16. The radar sensor of claim 15 wherein the complementing spatial structure of at least one of the bottom surface or the top surface includes a radio wave scattering structure configured to: redirect radar waves out the field of view; and increase radar wave scattering interactions with the radome and the radio wave absorber.
17. The radar sensor of claim 15 wherein the top surface is at least partially embedded into the radome.
18. A method for manufacturing a radar structure, the method comprising:
providing a radome with a bottom surface;
providing a radio wave absorber with a top surface, wherein:
the bottom surface and the top surface each include a complementing spatial structure configured to allow an interaction between the radome and the radio wave absorber, and
the complementing spatial structures are adapted to increase radar wave scattering interactions between and/or with at least one of the top surface or the bottom surface; and
assembling the radio wave absorber and the radome.
1. A radar sensor comprising:
at least one antenna having a field of view;
at least one RF absorber; and
a radome covering the at least one antenna and the at least one RF absorber, wherein the at least one RF absorber is provided with a top surface comprising at least one scattering structure configured to redirect radar waves out of the field of view and to increase radar wave scattering interactions with the radome and the at least one RF absorber.
2. The radar sensor according to claim 1, wherein the top surface of the at least one RF absorber is at least partially embedded into the radome.
3. The radar sensor according to claim 1, wherein scattering structure comprises at least one structure being a recess and/or a protrusion.
4. The radar sensor according to claim 3, wherein the shape of the recess and/or protrusion is an omnidirectional scattering shape.
5. The radar sensor according to claim 3, wherein the shape of the recess and/or protrusion is a non-specular reflection shape.
6. The radar sensor according to claim 3, wherein the shape of the recess is concave and the shape of the protrusion is convex.
7. The radar sensor according to claim 3, wherein an inside surface of the recess and/or an outside surface of the protrusion comprises a predefined surface texture roughness or indentation.
9. The radar sensor according to claim 3, wherein the scattering structure comprises a plurality of structures, wherein some of the plurality of structures have different shapes and/or different dimensions.
11. The radar sensor according to claim 10, wherein the radome has a first area facing the at least one antenna and a second area facing the at least one RF absorber; and wherein a first thickness of the radome of the first area is larger than a second thickness of the radome of the second area.
13. The radar sensor according to claim 1, wherein the RF absorber is placed outside the field of view of the at least one antenna.
14. The radar sensor according to claim 1, wherein the RF absorber is interfacing with the radome.
15. A vehicle comprising a radar sensor, the radar sensor comprising:
at least one antenna having a field of view;
at least one RF absorber; and
a radome covering the at least one antenna and the at least one RF absorber, wherein the at least one RF absorber is provided with a top surface comprising at least one scattering structure configured to redirect radar waves out of the field of view and to increase radar wave scattering interactions with the radome and the at least one RF absorber.
16. A method of manufacturing a radar sensor, comprising:
shaping a radome with a surface comprising at least one location with an inverse scattering structure;
shaping at least one RF absorber with a top surface comprising a scattering structure having a complementing shape corresponding to the inverse scattering structure; and
providing each of the at least one RF absorber onto the corresponding at least one location of the surface of the radome, wherein the scattering structure and the inverse scattering structure have at least one structure being a recess and/or a protrusion.
17. The vehicle according to claim 15, wherein the top surface of the at least one RF absorber is at least partially embedded into the radome.
18. The radar sensor according to claim 15, wherein scattering structure comprises at least one structure being a recess and/or a protrusion.
20. The radar sensor according to claim 15, wherein the RF absorber is placed outside the field of view of the at least one antenna.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Para. 0031 recites “a bottom surface BRS” which appears to be a typographical error, as the bottom surface is referred to as RBS for the rest of the disclosure and drawings.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ding et al. (US 2016/0268693 A1 “DING”).
Regarding claim 1, DING discloses a radar structure comprising: a radome including a bottom surface (an EMI shield 106 and a radome or cover 108 disposed in a stacked configuration and assembled together [0055]); and a radio wave absorber including a top surface (EMI shield 106 [0055 & FIG. 4C]), wherein: the bottom surface and the top surface each include a complementing spatial structure configured to allow an interaction between the radome and the radio wave absorber, and the complementing spatial structures are adapted to increase radar wave scattering interactions between at least one of the bottom surface or the top surface (one or more sidewalls 126 a and 126 b of apertures 124 a and 124 b, respectively, can be formed with a texture to enhance EMI shielding. The texture is illustrated in FIGS. 1-3C on some sidewalls 126 a and 126 b. The texture can be a plurality of protrusions protruding from the surfaces of one or more of sidewalls 126 a and 126 b, or the texture can be a plurality of indentations protruding into the surfaces of one or more of sidewalls 126 a and 126 b, or the texture can be a combination of protrusions protruding from surfaces of one or more of sidewalls 126 a and 126 b and indentations protruding into surfaces of one or more of sidewalls 126 a and 126 b. The texture can be formed integrally with shield 106, and can be absorptive, reflective or a combination of absorptive and reflective portions. The configuration and properties of the texture are selected based on the desired EMI shielding performance in the operational environment in which radar module 100 is to be used [0061]).
Regarding claim 2, DING discloses the radar structure of claim 1 wherein: the complementing spatial structure is provided with: at least one first region having a recess or protrusion, and at least one second region having a recess or protrusion; and the at least one second region is provided within the at least one first region (one or more sidewalls 126 a and 126 b of apertures 124 a and 124 b, respectively, can be formed with a texture to enhance EMI shielding. The texture can be a plurality of protrusions protruding from the surfaces of one or more of sidewalls 126 a and 126 b, or the texture can be a plurality of indentations protruding into the surfaces of one or more of sidewalls 126 a and 126 b, or the texture can be a combination of protrusions protruding from surfaces of one or more of sidewalls 126 a and 126 b and indentations protruding into surfaces of one or more of sidewalls 126 a and 126 b. The texture can be formed integrally with shield 106 [0061 & FIG. 4C], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1). It is further noted that the limitation is in alternative form; therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 3, DING discloses the radar structure of claim 2 wherein: the complementing spatial structure is provided with at least one third region having a recess or protrusion, and the at least one third region is provided separate to the at least one first region (Examiner’s note: as shown in at least FIG. 4D (elements 126a, 126b)). It is further noted that the limitation is in alternative form; therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 4, DING discloses the radar structure of claim 3 wherein: the complementing spatial structure is provided with at least one fourth region having a recess or protrusion, and the at least one fourth region is provided to connect the recess or protrusion of the at least one first region with the recess or protrusion of the at least one third region (Examiner’s note: as shown in at least FIG. 4D (elements 126a, 126b, 110)). It is further noted that the limitation is in alternative form; therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 5, DING discloses the radar structure of claim 4 wherein the recess or protrusion of the at least one second region and the recess or protrusion of the at least one third region have a complementary geometrical shape (Examiner’s note: as shown in at least FIG. 4D (elements 126a, 126b, 110)). It is further noted that the limitation is in alternative form; therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 6, DING discloses the radar structure of claim 2 wherein the recess or protrusion has a cross-sectional shape of a semi-circle, a sinusoid, or a polygon (the protruding elements are pyramid-shaped and cone-shaped, respectively. However, it will be understood that other shapes can be used according to the exemplary embodiments. For example, the shapes of the elements can be pyramid-shaped, cone-shaped, triangular, circular, rectangular, hexagonal, or any other shape that would provide the desired scattering effect [0076]). It is further noted that the limitation is in alternative form; therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 7, DING discloses the radar structure of claim 6 wherein the polygon is a triangular or rectangular shape (the protruding elements are pyramid-shaped and cone-shaped, respectively. However, it will be understood that other shapes can be used according to the exemplary embodiments. For example, the shapes of the elements can be pyramid-shaped, cone-shaped, triangular, circular, rectangular, hexagonal, or any other shape that would provide the desired scattering effect [0076], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 6). It is further noted that the limitation is in alternative form; therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 8, DING discloses the radar structure of claim 2 wherein the recess or protrusion has a three-dimensional shape of a semi-sphere, a cylinder, a pyramid, an extruded semi-circle, a sinusoidal wave, or an extruded polygon (the protruding elements are pyramid-shaped and cone-shaped, respectively. However, it will be understood that other shapes can be used according to the exemplary embodiments. For example, the shapes of the elements can be pyramid-shaped, cone-shaped, triangular, circular, rectangular, hexagonal, or any other shape that would provide the desired scattering effect [0076]). It is further noted that the limitation is in alternative form; therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 9, DING discloses the radar structure of claim 8 wherein the polygon is a triangular or rectangular shape (the protruding elements are pyramid-shaped and cone-shaped, respectively. However, it will be understood that other shapes can be used according to the exemplary embodiments. For example, the shapes of the elements can be pyramid-shaped, cone-shaped, triangular, circular, rectangular, hexagonal, or any other shape that would provide the desired scattering effect [0076], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 8). It is further noted that the limitation is in alternative form; therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 10, DING discloses the radar structure of claim 1 wherein at least a portion of the complementing spatial structures is provided with a bevel, a chamfer, or a fillet (Examiner’s note: as shown in at least FIG. 4D (elements 126a, 126b)). It is further noted that the limitation is in alternative form; therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 11, DING discloses the radar structure of claim 1 wherein a portion of the complementing spatial structures is provided with a three-dimensional shape of a semi-sphere, a cylinder, a pyramid, an extruded semi-circle, a sinusoidal wave, or an extruded polygon (the protruding elements are pyramid-shaped and cone-shaped, respectively. However, it will be understood that other shapes can be used according to the exemplary embodiments. For example, the shapes of the elements can be pyramid-shaped, cone-shaped, triangular, circular, rectangular, hexagonal, or any other shape that would provide the desired scattering effect [0076]). It is further noted that the limitation is in alternative form; therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 12, DING discloses the radar structure of claim 11 wherein the polygon is a triangular or rectangular shape (the protruding elements are pyramid-shaped and cone-shaped, respectively. However, it will be understood that other shapes can be used according to the exemplary embodiments. For example, the shapes of the elements can be pyramid-shaped, cone-shaped, triangular, circular, rectangular, hexagonal, or any other shape that would provide the desired scattering effect [0076], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 11). It is further noted that the limitation is in alternative form; therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 13, DING discloses the radar structure of claim 1 wherein the complementing spatial structures are tapering towards an end portion of the complementing spatial structure (the protruding elements are pyramid-shaped and cone-shaped, respectively. However, it will be understood that other shapes can be used according to the exemplary embodiments. For example, the shapes of the elements can be pyramid-shaped, cone-shaped, triangular, circular, rectangular, hexagonal, or any other shape that would provide the desired scattering effect [0076]).
Regarding claim 14, DING discloses the radar structure of claim 1 wherein a dimension at an end portion of the complementing spatial structures is different to a corresponding dimension at a start portion of the complementing spatial structure (the protruding elements are pyramid-shaped and cone-shaped, respectively. However, it will be understood that other shapes can be used according to the exemplary embodiments. For example, the shapes of the elements can be pyramid-shaped, cone-shaped, triangular, circular, rectangular, hexagonal, or any other shape that would provide the desired scattering effect [0076]).
Regarding claim 15, DING discloses a radar sensor (automotive radar module 100 [0055]) comprising: the radar structure of claim 1 (Examiner’s note: as rejected in claim 1); and at least one antenna with a predetermined field of view, wherein: the at least one antenna is provided next to the radar wave absorber (antenna patch patterns 120 a and 120 b [0057 & FIG. 1]), and the radome is configured to cover the at least one antenna (Examiner’s note: as shown in at least FIG. 4B).
Regarding claim 16, DING discloses the radar sensor of claim 15 wherein the complementing spatial structure of at least one of the bottom surface or the top surface includes a radio wave scattering structure configured to: redirect radar waves out the field of view (the reflection field can be minimized or reduced by applying some predetermined geometric, i.e., shape, alterations/modifications to the EMI shield [0069]); (the intensity of multipath signals into the effective radar aperture can also be reduced and, therefore, their effects on the radar system can be mitigated, by field scattering [0076]); and increase radar wave scattering interactions with the radome and the radio wave absorber (the texture can be formed integrally with shield 106, and can be absorptive, reflective or a combination of absorptive and reflective portions. The configuration and properties of the texture are selected based on the desired EMI shielding performance in the operational environment in which radar module 100 is to be used [0061], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 17, DING discloses the radar sensor of claim 15 wherein the top surface is at least partially embedded into the radome (Examiner’s note: as shown in at least FIG. 1 and FIG. 4A).
Regarding claim 18, DING discloses a method for manufacturing a radar structure, the method comprising: providing a radome with a bottom surface (an EMI shield 106 and a radome or cover 108 disposed in a stacked configuration and assembled together [0055]); providing a radio wave absorber with a top surface (EMI shield 106 [0055 & FIG. 4C]), wherein: the bottom surface and the top surface each include a complementing spatial structure configured to allow an interaction between the radome and the radio wave absorber, and the complementing spatial structures are adapted to increase radar wave scattering interactions between and/or with at least one of the top surface or the bottom surface; and assembling the radio wave absorber and the radome (one or more sidewalls 126 a and 126 b of apertures 124 a and 124 b, respectively, can be formed with a texture to enhance EMI shielding. The texture is illustrated in FIGS. 1-3C on some sidewalls 126 a and 126 b. The texture can be a plurality of protrusions protruding from the surfaces of one or more of sidewalls 126 a and 126 b, or the texture can be a plurality of indentations protruding into the surfaces of one or more of sidewalls 126 a and 126 b, or the texture can be a combination of protrusions protruding from surfaces of one or more of sidewalls 126 a and 126 b and indentations protruding into surfaces of one or more of sidewalls 126 a and 126 b. The texture can be formed integrally with shield 106, and can be absorptive, reflective or a combination of absorptive and reflective portions. The configuration and properties of the texture are selected based on the desired EMI shielding performance in the operational environment in which radar module 100 is to be used [0061]); (different textures can be added to angled surfaces to scatter, deflect, and/or attenuate the multipath signals, and, therefore, minimize their impact on the effective radiation aperture [0072]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAILEY R LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4910. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, WILLIAM J KELLEHER can be reached at (571) 272-7753. 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.
/Hailey R Le/Examiner, Art Unit 3648 December 15, 2025
/William Kelleher/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648