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 .
Remarks
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 11/08/23. Examiner acknowledged that claims 1-24 are canceled. Claims 25-44 are new.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/08/23 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wintermantel (US 2021/0194115).
PNG
media_image1.png
281
381
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
264
376
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Markup Fig. 5 Examiner’s Markup Fig. 8b
Regarding Claim 25, Wintermantel teaches an antenna device for automotive radar applications (abstract) comprising: a. an antenna assembly (Fig. 5) comprising a front face (Examiner markup Fig. 5: A) in which at least one antenna aperture (Examiner markup Fig. 5: B) is configured to receive an incoming signal in a form of primary rays (Fig. 8b: rays entering the radome) impacting the at least one antenna aperture, and
b. the front face comprising, adjacent to the at least one antenna aperture, scattering elements by which primary rays, impacting in an area of the scattering elements (Fig. 8b: slent antenna surfaces), are at least partially reflected by the scattering elements and thereby separated into first secondary rays (Examiner markup Fig. 8b: C) and second secondary rays (Examiner markup Fig. 8b: D).
Wintermantel does not explicitly teach in Fig. 8b that the first secondary rays and the second secondary rays cancel out each other at least partially by interference. However, Wintermantel (DE 102018215393 A1) teaches “receiving elements of the receiving antenna with different phase positions. Thus, they generally do not overlap coherently in each of the receiving antennas, but rather cancel each other out, so that these double-reflected interference components are reduced in their amplitude and thus in their effect”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wintermantel in order for the scattering elements to cancel out the secondary rays since this would reduce the amplitude and effect for improving sensor performance.
Regarding Claim 26, Wintermantel teaches the antenna device according to claim 25, wherein the scattering elements are with respect to the front face selected from the group of: indentations, protrusions (Fig. 8b: slent protrusions) or a combination thereof.
Regarding Claim 27, Wintermantel teaches the antenna device according to claim 25, wherein the scattering elements are arranged in at least two parallel rows (Fig. 8a showing at least 2 parallel rows).
Regarding Claim 28, Wintermantel teaches the antenna device according to claim 25, wherein the scattering elements of each row are periodically or quasi-periodically spaced apart from each other (Fig. 8b: rows are spaced apart).
Regarding Claim 29, Wintermantel teaches the antenna device according to claim 28, wherein the scattering elements of each row are periodically or quasi-periodically spaced apart from each other between each other and between the rows (Fig. 8b: rows are spaced apart).
Regarding Claims 30-32, Wintermantel teaches the antenna device according to claim 25, except wherein the scattering elements of two adjacent rows are offset to each other in a direction of the rows with a spatial displacement of essentially λ/2 in the direction of the rows such that a phase difference of 180* is achieved such that the reflected rays cancel out each other by interference. However, [0037] teaches “due to the irregular structuring, these interference components also vary across the individual antennas in amplitude and phase” and [0041] “the doubly reflected interference beams again result in a gradual phase offset of 72° between the five antenna elements so that they extinguish one another”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to understand the different phase offset of roughly 72 would achieve a phase different of 180 less or more in order to cancel out or extinguish the interference beams. [0041].
Regarding Claim 33, Wintermantel teaches the antenna device according to claim 32, wherein the displaced scattering element is arranged essentially perpendicular (Fig. 8b: scattering element are vertical and thus perpendicular to the direction of the row shown in Fig. 8a) with respect to the direction of the rows.
Regarding Claim 34, Wintermantel teaches the antenna device according to claim 25, wherein the scattering elements are arranged in a periodical (Fig. 8b scattering elements are periodical) or quasi-periodical pattern of scattering elements.
Regarding Claim 35, Wintermantel teaches the antenna device according to claim 25, wherein the scattering elements are having in the front face a layout which is at least one element out of the group of the following elements or a combination thereof: rectangle (Fig. 8a: the scattering element are rectangular shaped), square, circle, ellipse, C- shaped, ring-shaped, S-shaped, cross-shaped, T-shaped.
Regarding Claim 37, Wintermantel teaches an antenna device for automotive radar applications (abstract) comprising: a. an antenna assembly (Fig. 5) comprising a front face (Examiner markup Fig. 5: A) in which at least one antenna aperture (Examiner markup Fig. 5: B) is configured to receive an incoming signal in form of primary rays (Fig. 8b: rays entering the radome) impacting the at least one antenna aperture, and b. the front face comprising, adjacent to the at least one antenna aperture, scattering elements (Fig. 8b: slent antenna surfaces) by which primary rays, impacting in an area of the scattering elements, are at least partially reflected by the scattering elements and thereby separated into first secondary rays (Examiner markup Fig. 8b: C) and second secondary rays (Examiner markup Fig. 8b: D), c. the antenna assembly in the area of the scattering elements is at least partially covered (Fig. 8b shows a cover that the primary rays enter) or consists of a material absorbing the primary rays at least partially.
Wintermantel does not explicitly teach in Fig. 8b that the first secondary rays and the second secondary rays cancel out each other at least partially by interference. However, Wintermantel (DE 102018215393 A1) teaches “receiving elements of the receiving antenna with different phase positions. Thus, they generally do not overlap coherently in each of the receiving antennas, but rather cancel each other out, so that these double-reflected interference components are reduced in their amplitude and thus in their effect”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wintermantel in order for the scattering elements to cancel out the secondary rays since this would reduce the amplitude and effect for improving sensor performance.
Regarding Claim 38, Wintermantel teaches the antenna device according to claim 37, wherein the absorbing material is arranged at the antenna assembly which at least partially covers (Fig,. 8b: a cover covers the antenna assembly for absorbing the rays into the antenna) the front face configured to absorb impacting primary rays.
Regarding Claim 39, Wintermantel teaches an antenna device for automotive radar applications (abstract) comprising a. an antenna assembly (Fig. 5) comprising a front face (Examiner markup Fig. 5: A) in which at least one antenna aperture (Examiner markup Fig. 5: B) is configured to receive an incoming signal in form of primary rays (Fig. 8b: rays entering the radome) impacting in the at least one antenna aperture, and b. the front face comprising, adjacent to the at least one antenna aperture, scattering elements (Fig. 8b: slent antenna surfaces) by which primary rays, impacting in an area of the scattering elements, are at least partially reflected by the scattering elements and thereby separated into first secondary rays (Examiner markup Fig. 8b: C) and second secondary rays (Examiner markup Fig. 8b: D), and c. the antenna device comprises a radome which is at least partially covering (Fig. 8b shows a cover that the primary rays enter) the front face of the antenna assembly.
Wintermantel does not explicitly teach in Fig. 8b that the first secondary rays and the second secondary rays cancel out each other at least partially by interference. However, Wintermantel (DE 102018215393 A1) teaches “receiving elements of the receiving antenna with different phase positions. Thus, they generally do not overlap coherently in each of the receiving antennas, but rather cancel each other out, so that these double-reflected interference components are reduced in their amplitude and thus in their effect”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wintermantel in order for the scattering elements to cancel out the secondary rays since this would reduce the amplitude and effect for improving sensor performance.
Regarding Claim 40, Wintermantel teaches the antenna device according to claim 39, wherein the radome includes a back face (Fig. 3: 3.6) which is at least partially flush mounted to the front face (Fig. 3: 3.2) of the antenna assembly.
Claim(s) 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wintermantel as applied to claim 39 in view of Seidel (US 2010/0238068).
Regarding Claim 43, Wintermantel teaches he antenna device according to claim 39, wherein the radome comprises, in an area of the at least one antenna aperture (Fig. 8a).
Wintermantel does not teach a dome-shaped lens such that incoming primary rays are focused with respect to the antenna aperture.
Seidel is in the field of radar (abstract) and teaches a dome-shaped lens such that incoming primary rays are focused with respect to the antenna aperture (Fig. 1: 37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wintermantel with dome shaped lens as taught by Seidel in order to focus the beams into the antenna since this allows for bundling/scattering the rays in the desired directions as required [0015].
Regarding Claim 44, Wintermantel teaches the antenna device according to claim 39, wherein the antenna assembly is on a back side (Fig. 3: 3.6) at least partially covered by an absorbing material ([0031] “3.6 made of aluminum housing”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 36, 41-42 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY T LUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7008. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 8:00-6:00.
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, Regis Betsch can be reached at (571) 270-7101. 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.
/Henry Luong/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2844