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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/22/2023 and 10/25/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Note
To help the reader, examiner notes in this detailed action claim language is in bold, strikethrough limitations are not explicitly taught and language added to explain a reference mapping are isolated from quotations via square brackets.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. An explanation is provided below.
With regards to the double patenting rejection, Examiner maintains the rejection and suggests filing the terminal disclaimer to overcome the nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Applicant alleges on p.4:
The claims recite the feature of the signal generation circuit is arranged on or in the waveguide coupling device. In contrast, Hasch et al disclose the signal generation circuit (oscillator within the integrated circuit) is electrically connected to a coupling element via intermediate layers and is not arranged on or in the waveguide coupling device. In addition, Brandenburg's waveguide structure is integrated on a printed circuit board and interfaces with electrical contacts, not with a signal generation circuit disposed on or within the coupling device itself.
In view of all of the foregoing, withdrawal of this rejection is respectfully requested.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI), the signal generation circuit being ‘arranged on or in the waveguide coupling device’ does not necessitate there may not be other layers between the arrangement. Hasch teaches the oscillator 16 is laterally connected with the waveguides 18 (0050 “Coupling elements 42 of respective waveguides 18 are connected to the send and receive circuit of integrated circuit 14, in order to input radar signals, based on a signal generated by HF oscillator 16, into respective waveguides 18.”), which under BRI substantially means ‘arranged on’ to one of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, Branden teaches in para 0028 “A second main part of the air waveguide antenna 106 consists of a portion of the circuit board 108” and in para 0032 “the floor 124 of the channels 114 may include a connection to a wire, a pad, or a trace that electrically couples the air waveguide antenna 106 to other components of the radar system 102, for instance, other components (not shown) that are integrated on or otherwise attached to the circuit board 108” which together illustrate that the signal generation circuit is arranged on the waveguide via a circuit board and its connections.
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) 11 and 20 is/are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11 and 20 of copending Application No. 18715770 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because as set forth in the tables and description below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant Claim 1 (and similarly claim 20)
Application No. 18715770
11. (New) A radar device, comprising: a printed circuit board;
a signal generation circuit, which is arranged at least indirectly on the printed circuit board, is electrically coupled to the printed circuit board, and is configured to generate a radar signal;
a waveguide antenna device, which is arranged at least indirectly on the printed circuit board; and
a waveguide coupling device, wherein the signal generation circuit is arranged on or in the waveguide coupling device, and
wherein the waveguide coupling device is configured to couple the radar signal generated by the signal generation circuit, into the waveguide antenna device.
11. (New) A radar apparatus, comprising: a printed circuit board;
a signal generating circuit, which is disposed at least indirectly on the printed circuit board, is electrically coupled to the printed circuit board, and is configured to generate a radar signal;
a waveguide antenna device, which is disposed at least indirectly on the printed circuit board and is at least partly formed on the basis of injection-molded plastic; and
a waveguide coupling device, wherein the signal generating circuit is disposed on or in the waveguide coupling device, and
wherein the waveguide coupling device is configured to couple the radar signal generated by the signal generating circuit into the waveguide antenna device.
20. (New) A method for producing a radar device, comprising the following steps: providing a printed circuit board; arranging a signal generation circuit at least indirectly on the printed circuit board,
wherein the signal generation circuit is electrically coupled to the printed circuit board and is configured to generate a radar signal;
forming a waveguide coupling device at least indirectly on the printed circuit board,
wherein the signal generation circuit is arranged on or in the waveguide coupling device; and arranging a waveguide antenna device at least indirectly on the printed circuit board; wherein the waveguide coupling device is configured to couple the radar signal generated by the signal generation circuit, into the waveguide antenna device.
20. (New) A method for producing a radar apparatus, comprising the following steps: providing a printed circuit board, wherein a signal generating circuit is disposed at least indirectly on the printed circuit board,
wherein the signal generating circuit is electrically coupled to the printed circuit board and is configured to generate a radar signal;
at least partially overmolding the printed circuit board including the signal generating circuit with plastic in an injection mold structured with waveguide channels; removing the injection mold; metallizing the waveguide channels to form a waveguide antenna device; and exposing coupling elements of a waveguide coupling device,
wherein the waveguide coupling device is configured to couple the radar signal generated by the signal generating circuit into the waveguide antenna device via the coupling elements.
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 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.
Claim(s) 11-17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasch et al. (US 20150048471 hereinafter Hasch) in view of Brandenburg et al. (US 20220302570 hereinafter Brandenburg).
Regarding claim 11, Hasch teaches A radar device, comprising (title):
a printed circuit board (0005 “It may be suitable, for instance, for surface mounting on a printed circuit board as in a Ball-Grid Array (BGA).”);
a signal generation circuit, which is arranged at least indirectly on the printed circuit board (0014 “The integrated circuit may include an oscillator for generating a radar signal”; fig 1),
is electrically coupled to the printed circuit board (fig 1), and
is configured to generate a radar signal (0040 “In particular, integrated circuit 14 may have an HF oscillator 16 for generating a radar signal.”);
a waveguide antenna device (0041 “Semiconductor module 10 further includes wafer-integrated waveguides 18”),
a waveguide coupling device (0044 “Respective waveguide 18 is provided with a coupling element 42 for signal coupling, particularly for the signal coupling of waveguide 18 to integrated circuit 14.”),
wherein the signal generation circuit is arranged on or in the waveguide coupling device (fig 1), and
wherein the waveguide coupling device is configured to couple the radar signal generated by the signal generation circuit, into the waveguide antenna device (0010 “A waveguide integrated in such a way makes it possible to output radar frequency signals directly as an electromagnetic wave from the semiconductor module and/or to input it into the semiconductor module. The at least one waveguide may be coupled, for instance, to a correspondingly configured external waveguide or to an external waveguide in the form of a hollow conductor. Thus, radar signals may be input or output without a high-frequency-suitable printed circuit board substrate being required for it.”).
Hasch does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Brandenburg teaches
a waveguide antenna device, which is arranged at least indirectly on the printed circuit board (0003 “This document describes a single-layer air waveguide antenna integrated on a circuit board . . . The air waveguide includes an electrical interface to a circuit board and a single layer of material having conductive surfaces positioned atop the electrical interface. The electrical interface configures a portion of a surface of the circuit board to act as a floor of the channels filled with air. The single layer of material defines walls and a ceiling of the channels filled with air.”)
wherein the waveguide coupling device is configured to couple the radar signal generated by the signal generation circuit, into the waveguide antenna device (0038 “the circuit board 108 may include one or more electrical contacts that align with the channels 114 of the air waveguide antenna 106 so that the interface 126 also electrically couples the two materials. For example, an input or output of a transceiver or other component of the radar system 102 may be electrically coupled to the air waveguide antenna 106 through the interface 126 with the circuit board 108.”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Brandenburg with the teachings of Hasch. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve radar antennas and air waveguide antennas (Brandenburg 0098). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Brandenburg merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular waveguide features. Since both Hasch and Brandenburg disclose similar waveguide antennas on a circuit board, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 12, the cited prior art teaches The radar device according to claim 11, wherein the waveguide coupling device includes a mold compound which at least partially surrounds the signal generation circuit (Hasch 0042 “a housing molding compound layer in the form of a housing layer 34, in which semiconductor chip 14 and waveguides 18 are embedded”).
Regarding claim 13, the cited prior art teaches The radar device according to claim 11, wherein the waveguide coupling device includes an interposer which is configured to conduct the radar signal generated by the signal generation circuit, to the waveguide antenna device (Hasch 0013 “The semiconductor module may have a wafer unit and an interface layer, the wafer unit having a semiconductor chip which forms the integrated circuit and a housing layer which is formed by the housing material named of the semiconductor module and in which the semiconductor chip and the at least one waveguide are situated, and the interface layer having the rewiring layer which connects the integrated circuit to the external terminals of the interface layer.”; 0004 “Wafer modules are known in which the module is produced with a rewiring layer (RDL, redistribution layer) for an IC component on a wafer level.” [the interface layer having the rewiring layer corresponds to an interposer because both are an electrical interface that connects two or more components]).
Regarding claim 14, the cited prior art teaches The radar device according to claim 13, wherein the interposer includes an integrated waveguide portion or an impedance adjustment portion, to conduct the radar signal generated by the signal generation circuit to the waveguide antenna device (Brandenburg 0039 “Generally, the interface 126 enables an inexpensive manufacturing process for the air waveguide antenna 106 without the need for solder to physically connect and electrically couple the layer 104 to the circuit board 108.” [corresponds to an integrated waveguide portion]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Brandenburg with the teachings of Hasch. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve radar antennas and air waveguide antennas (Brandenburg 0098). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Brandenburg merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular waveguide features. Since both Hasch and Brandenburg disclose similar waveguide antennas on a circuit board, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 15, the cited prior art teaches The radar device according to claim 11, wherein an air gap is formed at least in sections between the waveguide coupling device and the waveguide antenna device (Brandenburg Abstract “This document describes a single-layer air waveguide antenna integrated on a circuit board. The waveguide guides electromagnetic energy through channels filled with air.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Brandenburg with the teachings of Hasch. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve radar antennas and air waveguide antennas (Brandenburg 0098). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Brandenburg merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular waveguide features. Since both Hasch and Brandenburg disclose similar waveguide antennas on a circuit board, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 16, the cited prior art teaches The radar device according to claim 11, further comprising: a connection layer, which connects the waveguide coupling device at least in sections to the waveguide antenna device (Hasch 0013 “at least one waveguide are situated, and the interface layer having the rewiring layer which connects the integrated circuit to the external terminals of the interface layer.”).
Regarding claim 17, the cited prior art teaches The radar device according to claim 11, wherein the waveguide antenna device includes a substrate, and a cover arranged on the substrate (Brandenburg 0028 “A second main part of the air waveguide antenna 106 consists of a portion of the circuit board 108 (e.g., a substrate or other circuit board).”), wherein at least one waveguide is formed at least in sections between the substrate and the cover (Brandenburg 0003 “The air waveguide includes an electrical interface to a circuit board and a single layer of material having conductive surfaces positioned atop the electrical interface. The electrical interface configures a portion of a surface of the circuit board to act as a floor of the channels filled with air. The single layer of material defines walls and a ceiling of the channels filled with air.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Brandenburg with the teachings of Hasch. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve radar antennas and air waveguide antennas (Brandenburg 0098). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Brandenburg merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular waveguide features. Since both Hasch and Brandenburg disclose similar waveguide antennas on a circuit board, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 19, the cited prior art teaches The radar device according to claim 11, wherein the signal generation circuit is a system-on-a-chip circuit or a monolithic microwave integrated circuit (Hasch 0040 “Semiconductor module 10 includes an integrated circuit 14 in the form of a semiconductor chip, particularly an MMIC chip (Monolithic Microwave Integrated Circuit). Integrated circuit 14 may, for instance, have the HF part of a send and/or receive circuit for radar signals. In particular, integrated circuit 14 may have an HF oscillator 16 for generating a radar signal.”).
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 11. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 11.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasch et al. (US 20150048471 hereinafter Hasch) in view of Brandenburg et al. (US 20220302570 hereinafter Brandenburg) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Vincent et al. (US 20210183797 hereinafter Vincent).
Regarding claim 18, the cited prior art teaches The radar device according to claim 11,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Vincent teaches
further comprising: at least one heat sink, which is at least indirectly connected to the signal generation circuit and/or the printed circuit board to dissipate heat (Abstract “A mechanism is provided to remove heat from an integrated circuit (IC) device die by directing heat through a waveguide to a heat sink. Embodiments provide the waveguide mounted on top of a package containing the IC device die. The waveguide is thermally coupled to the IC device die. The waveguide transports the heat to a heat sink coupled to the waveguide and located adjacent to the package on top of a printed circuit board on which the package is mounted.”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Vincent with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve the performance of antenna circuitry (Vincent 0012). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Vincent merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular PCB features. Since both the previous cited art and Vincent disclose similar waveguide antennas on a circuit board, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to application’s disclosure:
Schmalenberg et al. (US20150346322) discloses “An integrated circuit for processing transmitted and received signals is positioned on a first printed circuit board. A second printed circuit board is provided which has a plurality of antenna elements and at least one transmission line. The first printed circuit board is bonded to a first side of a metal housing and the second printed circuit board is bonded to a second side of the metal housing, so that the integrated circuit is sealed from environmental exposure between the first printed circuit board and the metal housing (See abstract)”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571) 272-3896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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 Kelleher can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648