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 Amendment
The Amendment filed 01/14/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-7 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 01/14/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (REMARKS page 6) about the rejections of claims 1 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the rejections have been overcome by the amendment.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (REMARKS pages 9-10) about amended claim 1, Examiner disagrees because Shinoda (‘500) does disclose that “the radio wave absorber includes a first radio wave absorber and a second radio wave absorber” {Fig.5 item 4; Fig.6 item 4; col.4 line 10 (the radio wave absorbers 4)} “that are disposed at only one end of the viewing angle” {Fig.6 item 4 (see mark below)}. Based on claimed language “the radar device detects an object by the reception antenna” in line 6, the two item 4 on left in Fig.6 can be interpreted as “that are disposed at only one end of the viewing angle”. If main beam in Fig.5 is considered as “a viewing angle”, the two item 4 on right in Fig.6 can be interpreted as “that are disposed at only one end of the viewing angle”. For more clarification, Examiner added explanations as well as marks on Shinoda (‘500) Fig.6 in this Office Action.
PNG
media_image1.png
523
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinoda et al. (US 7,408,500, Shinoda) in view of Schaaf (US 9,610,912, hereafter Schaaf).
Regarding claim 1, Shinoda (‘500) discloses that A radar device mounted on a vehicle {col.3 line 25 (automotive radar)}, the radar device comprising:
an antenna substrate on which a transmission antenna and a reception antenna are mounted { Fig.1 item 1 (transmitting array antenna) 2a, 2b (receiving array antennas); Fig.2; col.3 lines 58-60 (an antenna plate ( antenna conductor plate) 3 over which the transmitting array antenna 1 and the receiving array antennas 2a and 2b), 64-65 (A plurality of patch elements 12 and feeding lines 13 are configured over a dielectric substrate)}; and
a radio wave absorber { Fig.1 item 4 (radio wave absorbers); col.4 line 10 (the radio wave absorbers 4)},
wherein the radar device detects an object by the reception antenna receiving a reflected radio wave obtained by reflecting a radio wave transmitted from the transmission antenna by the object { Fig.5; Fig.6 items 1 (transmitting array antenna), 2a-b (receiving array antenna); Fig.11; col.3 lines 18-19 (the transmitter/ receiver apparatus), 33-35 (signals reflected by an obstacle are received by a receiving array antenna 2a and an receiving array antenna 2b), 51 (detects the azimuth of the object of detection); col.4 lines 25-26 (a transmitting array antenna 1 and receiving array antennas 2a and 2b.)},
a detection area that is a detection target range of the object { Fig.5 item mb (main beam); Fig.6 (see marks below); col.5 line 8 (main beam mb)} and a non-detection area that is not a detection target range of the object are set within a range of a viewing angle of the radar device {Fig.5 area except mb (main beam); Fig.6 (see marks below); col.1 lines 62-64 (unnecessary sidelobes (subbeams of weaker intensity radiating in different directions from the main beam).)},
PNG
media_image2.png
523
620
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the radio wave absorber includes a first radio wave absorber and a second radio wave absorber {Fig.5 item 4; Fig.6 item 4; col.4 line 10 (the radio wave absorbers 4)} that are disposed at only one end of the viewing angle {Fig.6 item 4 (see mark below); Examiner’s note: based on claimed language “the radar device detects an object by the reception antenna” in line 6, the two item 4 on left in Fig.6 can be interpreted as “that are disposed at only one end of the viewing angle”. If main beam in Fig.5 is considered as “a viewing angle”, the two item 4 on right in Fig.6 can be interpreted as “that are disposed at only one end of the viewing angle”},
PNG
media_image1.png
523
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the first radio wave absorber is disposed so as to at least partially reside within the non-detection area {Fig.5 item 4 in area except mb (main beam); col.1 lines 62-64 (unnecessary sidelobes (subbeams of weaker intensity radiating in different directions from the main beam); col.4 line 10 (the radio wave absorbers 4)}, and
the second radio wave absorber is disposed to face the first radio wave absorber { Fig.5 item 4}.
However, Shinoda (‘500) does not explicitly disclose “the object outside the vehicle”. In the same field of endeavor, Schaaf (‘912) discloses that
wherein the radar device detects an object by the reception antenna receiving a reflected radio wave obtained by reflecting a radio wave transmitted from the transmission antenna by the object outside the vehicle { Fig.3 item 12a; col.2 lines 47-48 (direct path from the target objects into the reception antennas.); col.7 lines 2 (transmission antenna), 29-32 (detect a target object, emits, receives the waves reflected at the target object as radiation echoes,); col.8 line 39-40 (the radar sensors 5, 6 can detect (vehicle-external) target objects 12a), 49 (FIG. 3, the radar sensor 5), 58-59 (reception antennas , azimuthal direction a wide reception characteristic with)};
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying a known technique (e.g. radar sensor installed in a vehicle for detecting target surrounding the vehicle) to a known device (e.g. radar) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g. obtain target information surrounding the vehicle using transmission antenna and reception antenna) and result in an improved system (e.g. assist the driver in driving the motor vehicle in a variety of ways, as recognized by Schaaf (‘912) {col.1 lines 24-26 (Radar sensors are generally used to detect target objects and to assist the driver in driving the motor vehicle in a variety of ways. Radar sensors measure the distance between the target object and the vehicle. They measure both the relative Velocity with respect to the target object, and also the target angle, i.e. the angle between a virtual connecting line to the target object and a reference line, for example the longitudinal axis of the vehicle)}).
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Shinoda (‘500) and Schaaf (‘912) discloses that in the radar device,
a width of the second radio wave absorber is larger than a width of the first radio wave absorber when viewed from a front of the vehicle {see Shinoda (‘500) Fig.4 item 4 at middle is wider than on the left}.
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Shinoda (‘500) and Schaaf (‘912) discloses that in the radar device,
the first radio wave absorber is disposed in a direction in which a direction of reflecting the radio wave transmitted from the transmission antenna is a direction parallel to or a direction away from a center line of the viewing angle {see Shinoda (‘500) Fig.6 item 4 (see marks below)}.
PNG
media_image3.png
516
591
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Shinoda (‘500) and Schaaf (‘912) discloses that in the radar device,
the first radio wave absorber is disposed so that a direction in which the radio wave transmitted from the transmission antenna is reflected is parallel to the antenna substrate, and the second radio wave absorber is disposed parallel to a center line of the viewing angle {see Shinoda (‘500) Fig.6 (see marks below)}.
PNG
media_image4.png
517
606
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Shinoda (‘500) and Schaaf (‘912) discloses that in the radar device,
the second radio wave absorber is disposed in a direction in which an absorption amount of the radio wave reflected by the first radio wave absorber is maximized {see Shinoda (‘500) Fig.6 (see marks below); col.2 lines 29-30 (unnecessary waves can be thereby prevent from leaking to the receiving antennas), 47-49 (diffracted waves can be prevented from leaking from the grounding edge or leaks from the transmitting antenna to); col.6 lines 58-59 (unnecessary waves can be prevented from leaking to receiving antennas); Examiner’s note: reflection from left absorber to the middle absorber to achieve “maximized” “absorption amount” because the wave is absorbed twice.}.
PNG
media_image4.png
517
606
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinoda (‘500) and Schaaf (‘912) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pfitzenmaier et al. (US 9640873, hereafter Pfitzenmaier).
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1, Shinoda (‘500) and Schaaf (‘912) do not disclose “the first radio wave absorber and the second radio wave absorber are non-parallel to each other, and are disposed so that a first distance between the first radio wave absorber and the second radio wave absorber on a side close to the antenna substrate is larger than a second distance on a side far from the antenna substrate”. In the same field of endeavor, Pfitzenmaier (‘873) discloses that in the radar device,
the first radio wave absorber and the second radio wave absorber are non-parallel to each other, and are disposed so that a first distance between the first radio wave absorber and the second radio wave absorber on a side close to the antenna substrate is larger than a second distance on a side far from the antenna substrate { Fig.4 item 100; Fig.5 item 9; col.7 lines 36-38 (The embodiment according to FIG. 4 can be combined with that according to FIG. 1 or FIG. 5, of course, and the radar device 1 can have both absorption elements 9, 100.)}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Shinoda (‘500) and Schaaf (‘912) with the teachings of Pfitzenmaier (‘873) {use absorbers at bottom of antenna substrate and on part of a curved cover of antennas) to use absorbers at bottom of antenna substrate and on part of a curved cover of antennas. Doing so would use multiple absorption elements (e.g. on printed circuit board and in a housing of radar apparatus) to absorb the electromagnetic waves so as to minimizing the interference caused by high-frequency reflections at metallic structures of motor vehicle, as recognized by Pfitzenmaier (‘873) {col.1 lines 9-11 (at least one absorption element, which is formed from an absorption material which absorbs the electromagnetic waves.), 44-48 (high-frequency reflections at metallic structures of the motor vehicle cause interference at the radar apparatus, minimizing this interference by means of an absorption element), 63-65 (existing radar apparatuses the absorption element would have to be mounted on the printed circuit board.); col.2 lines 1-2 (the absorption element is also arranged in a housing of the radar apparatus)}.
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claims 1-2, Shinoda (‘500) and Schaaf (‘912) do not disclose “the radio wave absorber further includes a third radio wave absorber between the first radio wave absorber and the second radio wave absorber, and the third radio wave absorber connects the first radio wave absorber and the second radio wave absorber”. In the same field of endeavor, Pfitzenmaier (‘873) discloses that in the radar device,
the radio wave absorber further includes a third radio wave absorber between the first radio wave absorber and the second radio wave absorber, and the third radio wave absorber connects the first radio wave absorber and the second radio wave absorber {Fig.1 vertical part of item 9 for the “third radio wave absorber”; Fig.4 item 100; Fig.5 connect item 9 and item 100 in Fig.4; col.7 lines 36-38 (The embodiment according to FIG. 4 can be combined with that according to FIG. 1 or FIG. 5, of course, and the radar device 1 can have both absorption elements 9, 100.); Examiner’s note: 1) vertical part of item 9 is the “third radio wave absorber”. 2) the vertical part of item 9 in Fig.1 connects the top part of item 9, which is first absorber in claim 2. 3) the vertical part of item 9 in Fig.1 connects to item 100 in Fig.4 after combining Fig.4 with FIG. 1 because item 14 in Fig.1 and Fig.4 are the same. }.
PNG
media_image5.png
435
593
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Shinoda (‘500) and Schaaf (‘912) with the teachings of Pfitzenmaier (‘873) {use absorbers at bottom of antenna substrate, on side wall around antenna substrate, and on part of a curved cover of antennas} to use absorbers at bottom of antenna substrate, on side wall around antenna substrate, and on part of a curved cover of antennas. Doing so would use multiple absorption elements (e.g. on printed circuit board, on side wall, and in a housing of radar apparatus) to absorb the electromagnetic waves so as to minimizing the interference caused by high-frequency reflections at metallic structures of motor vehicle, as recognized by Pfitzenmaier (‘873) {col.1 lines 9-11 (at least one absorption element, which is formed from an absorption material which absorbs the electromagnetic waves.), 44-48 (high-frequency reflections at metallic structures of the motor vehicle cause interference at the radar apparatus, minimizing this interference by means of an absorption element), 63-65 (existing radar apparatuses the absorption element would have to be mounted on the printed circuit board.); col.2 lines 1-2 (the absorption element is also arranged in a housing of the radar apparatus), 59-60 (the absorption element bears against all the side walls of the housing)}.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 10,516,217 discloses that “the radio wave absorber includes a first radio wave absorber and a second radio wave absorber that are disposed at only one end of the viewing angle” {Fig.1 items 41a-b and 42a-b; col.4 lines 27-28 (The sidewall part 41b and the roof part 42b configure a directional characteristic control member 40b); col.11 lines 48-54 (the directional characteristic control member may be, r a member which absorbs electromagnetic waves. one of a conductive radiowave absorbing material, a dielectric radio-wave absorbing material, and a magnetic radio-wave absorbing material, or a composite material thereof may be used)}, which further support the rejection of claim 1.
US 9,991,604 also discloses that “the radio wave absorber includes a first radio wave absorber and a second radio wave absorber that are disposed at only one end of the viewing angle” {Fig.1 items 3 (absorber), 4 (absorber), 5 (receiving area); col.5 lines 33-34 (receiving areas 5, individual absorber 3 , 4)}, which also further support the rejection of claim 1.
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 YONGHONG LI whose telephone number is (571)272-5946. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571)270-5144. 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.
/YONGHONG LI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3648