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 12-29-2025 have been fully considered.
With respect to applicant’s arguments that Wintermantel doesn’t disclose the advantages discussed with the oblique sides, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Wintermantel discusses the advantages of path length (¶39) as well as providing for a smaller footprint and reducing signal loss (¶28-29). During the interview, a shorter path length was discussed as perhaps providing a shorter delay in signal propagation and eventually vehicle response time however applicant has not provided any evidence that the oblique lines in Fig. 5 and 6 of the application provide a better time. In addition, the length of feed lines alone does not dictate overall response speed. The examiner sees no patentably distinct difference between the feed line angles of the application and the feed line angles of Wintermantel.
With respect to the amended claims, 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) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wintermantel, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0194115, published June 24, 2021 in view of Lee, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0072956, published March 5, 2020.
As per claim 1, Wintermantel discloses an electronic device comprising:
a plurality of transmission antennas each configured to transmit a transmission wave; a plurality of reception antennas each configured to receive a reflected wave that is the transmission wave having been reflected (Wintermantel, ¶27);
and an electronic component configured to output respective transmission signals to the plurality of transmission antennas and receive respective reception signals from the plurality of reception antennas (Wintermantel, ¶27-28),
wherein the electronic component has a first edge where a plurality of transmission terminals each configured to output a respective one of the transmission signals to a respective one of the plurality of transmission antennas is arranged, and a second edge where a plurality of reception terminals each configured to receive a respective one of the reception signals from a respective one of the plurality of reception antennas is arranged, and at least one of the first edge or the second edge is located relative to at least one of a direction in which respective feeding points of the plurality of transmission antennas are arranged or a direction in which respective feeding points of the plurality of reception antennas are arranged (Wintermantel, Fig. 1).
Wintermantel fails to expressly disclose an oblique relationship between the edge and the feed point.
Lee teaches oblique feed lines off a chip (Fig. 6, TX2 and RX2).
Wintermantel discusses the importance of path length, reducing loss and footprint therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the oblique lines of Lee in order to gain the benefit of achieving a desired phase shift as discussed by Lee (¶35).
As per claim 2, Wintermantel as modified by Lee discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the respective feeding points of the plurality of transmission antennas are each connected to a respective one of the plurality of transmission terminals by a transmission line, and the respective feeding points of the plurality of reception antennas are each connected to a respective one of the plurality of reception terminals by a transmission line (Wintermantel, ¶28).
As per claims 3 and 4, Wintermantel as modified by Lee further discloses the device of claim 2 but fails to expressly disclose the transmission line being the shortest path.
Wintermantel discusses various path lengths (¶47) and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the length limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
As per claims 5-9, Wintermantel as modified by Lee further discloses the device according to claim 2 including adjusting phases as desired (¶38).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use the various phase adjustments, 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 Wintermantel in providing for the correct phase shift at each antenna element.
As per claim 10, Wintermantel as modified by Lee further discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the direction in which the respective feeding points of the plurality of transmission antennas are arranged and the direction in which the respective feeding points of the plurality of reception antennas are arranged are parallel to each other (Wintermantel, Fig. 1).
As per claim 11, Wintermantel as modified by Lee further discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the first edge and the second edge of the electronic component are not parallel to each other (Wintermantel, Fig. 1).
As per claim 12, Wintermantel as modified by Lee further discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of transmission antennas and the plurality of reception antennas are disposed on a surface on an identical side to a surface on which the electronic component is disposed (Wintermantel, Fig. 1).
As per claim 13, Wintermantel and modified by Lee further discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of transmission antennas and the plurality of reception antennas are disposed on a surface on an opposite side to a surface on which the electronic component is disposed (Wintermantel, ¶29 using multiple layers).
As per claim 14, Wintermantel as modified by Lee further discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the electronic device is configured to detect an object that reflects the transmission wave, based on the transmission signals each transmitted as the transmission wave and the reception signals each received as the reflected wave (Wintermantel, ¶12).
As per claim 15, Wintermantel as modified by Lee further discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the first edge and the second edge are located obliquely relative to a direction in which respective feeding points of the plurality of transmission antennas are arranged and a direction in which respective feeding points of the plurality of reception antennas are arranged (Lee, Fig. 6 where both RX2 and TX2 feed lines are oblique to their respective edges).
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
Prosecution Insights