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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12-30-2025 have been fully considered. As the arguments are directed towards the claims as amended, please see below.
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-15 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schrabler, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2016/0001728, published January 7, 2016 in view of Sakamoto, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0015180, published January 19, 2017.
As per claim 1, Schrabler discloses a vehicular radar sensing system, the vehicular radar sensing system comprising:
a radar sensor disposed at a vehicle, wherein the radar sensor has a field of sensing within an interior cabin of the vehicle; wherein the radar sensor comprises a plurality of transmitters that transmit radio signals and a plurality of receivers that receive radio signals (Schrabler, ¶27 and 69 and Fig. 3);
an electronic control unit (ECU) comprising electronic circuitry and associated software; wherein the electronic circuitry comprises a processor operable to process outputs of the receivers (Schrabler, ¶69);
wherein the plurality of transmitters comprises a plurality of transmitting antennas, and wherein the plurality of receivers comprises a plurality of receiving antennas (Schrabler, Fig. 3);
wherein the plurality of transmitting antennas is established on a surface of a glass panel of the vehicle in a transmitting antenna pattern; wherein the plurality of receiving antennas is established on the surface of the glass panel of the vehicle in a receiving antenna pattern (Schrabler, ¶31-32);
and wherein the vehicular radar sensing system, responsive to processing at the ECU of outputs of the plurality of receivers, detects presence of an occupant within the cabin of the vehicle (Schrabler, ¶35).
Schrabler fails to explicitly disclose the use of radar, instead using a V2X device and fails to disclose antenna elements printed directly on the glass.
It has been held that a mere omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184. In this case, the V2X performs the same function as the radar.
Sakamoto teaches antenna elements printed onto glass (¶123).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to print on the glass, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
As per claims 2-6, Schrabler as modified by Sakamoto discloses the system of claim 1 wherein the glass panel is a windshield (Schrabler, ¶36).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to place the sensor in various locations, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by Schrabler in providing presence detection. It is well within the skill of a person in the art to determine where best to locate the sensor.
As per claims 9 and 10, Schrabler as modified by Sakamoto further discloses the system of claim 1 with the ECU disposed at an overhead (Schrabler, Fig. 2).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to place the ECU in various locations, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by Schrabler in providing presence detection. It is well within the skill of a person in the art to determine where best to locate the ECU.
As per claim 11, please see the rejection and rationale of claim 1 above. Examiner notes that having the sensor inside or outside the vehicle as well where to print the elements are obvious variants of each other. Schrabler as modified by Sakamoto discloses a sensor external to the vehicle (¶3 and 37).
As per claims 12-15, 18 and 19, please see the rejection and rationale of claims 2-6, 9 and 10 above.
As per claim 20, Schrabler as modified by Sakamoto further discloses the vehicular radar sensing system of claim 11, wherein the transmitting antenna pattern is the same as the receiving antenna pattern (Schrabler, Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 7, 8, 16, 17 and 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schrabler and Sakamoto as applied to claims 1-6, 9-15 and 18-20 above and further in view of Smith, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0342035, published October 27, 2022.
As per claims 7, 8, 16 and 17, Schrabler as modified by Sakamoto discloses the system of claim 1 but fails to disclose a serpentine pattern.
Smith teaches a serpentine pattern for a vehicle radar (¶63).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use a serpentine shape, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by Schrabler in providing presence detection.
As per claim 21, please see the rejection and rationale of claims 1, 7 and 8 above.
As per claims 22-25, please see the rejection and rationale of claims 2-5 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided on form PTO-892.
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 MARCUS E WINDRICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~7-3:30.
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 5712726878. 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.
/MARCUS E WINDRICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646