DETAILED NON-FINAL OFFICE 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 .
Comments
This office action is in response to the preliminary amendment of March 11, 2024.
The drawings of March 11, 2024 are hereby accepted as FORMAL.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) of March 11, 2024 has been considered during examination.
The copy of foreign patent document JP 5269902 B2 (foreign patent citation #16 on the IDS of March 11, 2024) is missing most of the image of the text. So, the citation has been lined-through. Please see 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2)(i).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Please note that any mention of a line number of a claim in this office action refers to the claims as they appear in the official claim listing in the image file wrapper (IFW), not to any claim as it may be reproduced below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
On lines 10 and 11 of independent claim 1, the uses of “the first antennas” (plural) lacks antecedent basis in that it cannot take “one or more first antennas” on line 6 (encompasses a singular sense) as antecedent. Further, in claims 2 and 7, the uses of “the first antennas” lack antecedent basis.
Similarly, on line 9 of independent claim 1, the use of “the second antennas” (plural) lacks antecedent basis in that it cannot take “one or more second antennas” on line 8 (encompasses a singular sense) as antecedent. Further, in claims 2 and 3, “the second antennas” lacks antecedent basis.
In independent claim 14 and in dependent claim 15, the uses of “the first antennas” lacks antecedent basis in that it cannot take “one or more first antennas” on line 7 of claim 14 as antecedent.
In independent claim 14 and in dependent claim 15, the uses of “the second antennas” lacks antecedent basis in that it cannot take “one or more second antennas” on line 9 of claim 14 as antecedent.
Overall, independent claim 14 is indefinite and unclear in that it is presented in its preamble as being directed to claiming “A vehicle” (line 1), but the body of the claim fails to recite even a single claim feature/element directed to a “vehicle” in the usual and ordinary sense of the word, “vehicle.”
The term “medium” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “medium” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “long-range” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “long-range” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “short-range” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “short-range” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Each of dependent claims 2-13 is unclear, at least, in that it depends from unclear, independent claim 1.
Dependent claim 15 is unclear, at least, in that it depends from unclear, independent claim 14.
Prior Art Rejections
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barnes et al (US 4,323,899 A), hereinafter Barnes et al (‘899).
The text of independent claim 1 is as follows:
“1. (original) A radar system comprising: a feed portion configured to propagate electromagnetic energy along an energy path; a divider portion connected to the feed portion that splits the energy path into a first energy path and a second energy path; a first antenna portion comprising one or more first antennas connected to the first energy path; and a second antenna portion comprising one or more second antennas connected to the second energy path, the second antennas having one or more of: different operating frequencies than the first antennas, different polarizations than the first antennas, or different fields of view than the first antennas.”
Independent claim 1 is presented as being directed to claiming, “A radar system” (line 1), which is met in Barnes et al (‘899) by the disclosed radar system, noting, for example, column 1, line 7.
The claim 1, “feed portion configured to propagate electromagnetic energy along an energy path” (lines 2-3) is met in Barnes et al (‘899), at least, by the “FMCW TRANSMITTER” 13 in Figure 1a.
The claim 1, “divider portion connected to the feed portion that splits the energy path into a first energy path and a second energy path” (lines 4-5) is met in Barnes et al (‘899) by the disclosed “POWER DIVIDER” 14 and the directional couplers 15 and 27, noting Figure 1a, and, column 2 at lines 13-14.
The claim 1, “first antenna portion comprising one or more first antennas connected to the first energy path” (lines 6-7) is met in Barnes et al (‘899) by either of antennas 21 or 25.
The claim 1, “second antenna portion comprising one or more second antennas connected to the second energy path, the second antennas having one or more of: different operating frequencies than the first antennas, different polarizations than the first antennas, or different fields of view than the first antennas” (lines 8-11) is met in Barnes et al (‘899) by the other of antennas 21 or 25, noting Figure 1a, and, column 2 at lines 52-59.
In that each and every claimed feature recited in independent claim 1 is plainly disclosed in Barnes et al (‘899), independent claim 1 is anticipated by Barnes et al (‘899).
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.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes et al (‘899) in view of the article “Understanding FMCW Automotive Radar: And How to Obtain Precise Measurements for Mission-Critical Radar Devices,” hereinafter the Keystone article.
A person of ordinary skill-in-the-art would be a person having a degree in some form of engineering or in physics with several years of practical experience the design and/or testing radar systems.
The remarks with respect to independent claim 14 are substantially those made above in section 11 with respect to independent claim 1. Barnes et al (‘899) discloses a “radar detection system” generally, noting, for example, column 1 at lines 6-10; however, Barnes et al (‘899) does not disclose the claim 14, “A vehicle” (line 1).
The Keystone article teaches the use of radar in a vehicle for the advantage of vehicle safety and other listed advantages, noting, for example, pages 2 and 3.
So, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the Barnes et al (‘899) device in a vehicle, as taught by the Keystone article, in order to obtain the advantages taught by the Keystone article, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
In that each and every claimed feature recited in independent claim 14 is plainly present in the applied combination of Barnes et al (‘899) in view of the Keystone article as set forth above, independent claim 14 is obvious over the applied combination as set forth above.
As for the further limitations of dependent claim 15, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the device of the applied combination in a short, medium, or long range radar application to optimize the operation of the vehicle in driving on a road or in parking.
Claims 1-4, 7, 8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vollbracht et al (‘821).
The text of independent claim 1 is as follows:
“1. (original) A radar system comprising: a feed portion configured to propagate electromagnetic energy along an energy path; a divider portion connected to the feed portion that splits the energy path into a first energy path and a second energy path; a first antenna portion comprising one or more first antennas connected to the first energy path; and a second antenna portion comprising one or more second antennas connected to the second energy path, the second antennas having one or more of: different operating frequencies than the first antennas, different polarizations than the first antennas, or different fields of view than the first antennas.”
The ”radar system” limitation on line 1 of claim 1 is met in Vollbracht et al (‘821) by, for example, paragraph [0002].
The claim 1, “feed portion configured to propagate electromagnetic energy along an energy path” (lines 2-3) is met in Vollbracht et al (‘821) by item 130 in Figure 27.
The claim 1, “divider portion connected to the feed portion that splits the energy path into a first energy path and a second energy path” (lines 4-5) is met in Vollbracht et al (‘821) by the T-junction connected to port 130 in Figure 27.
The claim 1, “first antenna portion comprising one or more first antennas connected to the first energy path” (lines 6-7) is met in Vollbracht et al (‘821), at least, by item 318 in Figure 27.
The claim 1, “second antenna portion comprising one or more second antennas connected to the second energy path, the second antennas having one or more of: different operating frequencies than the first antennas, different polarizations than the first antennas, or different fields of view than the first antennas” (lines 8-11) is met in Vollbracht et al (‘821), at least, by the disclosure in paragraph [0024] (radiation pattern, directivity, polarization); page 3, right column at lines 4-5 (single antenna element or array antenna); paragraph [0028] (frequency, radiation pattern, polarization); and, paragraph [0030] (“frequency bands … mutually differ from each other”; “first frequency band”; “second frequency band”).
In that each and every claim limitation recited in independent claim 1 is plainly disclosed in Vollbracht et al (‘821), independent claim 1 is anticipated by Vollbracht et al (‘821).
The further limitations of dependent claim 2 are met by Vollbracht et al (‘821) as applied above to independent claim 1, noting, for example, paragraph [0030].
As for the further limitations of dependent claims 3, 4, 7, and 8, these are met in Vollbracht et al (‘821), at least, by paragraph [0224], noting, for example, items 310 and 311.
The remarks with respect to independent claim 14 are substantially those made above in this section with respect to independent claim 1. In addition, regarding line 1 of claim 14, please note paragraph [0244] at lines 1-2 and Figure 32.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vollbracht et al (‘821) in view of the article “Understanding FMCW Automotive Radar: And How to Obtain Precise Measurements for Mission-Critical Radar Devices,” hereinafter the Keystone article.
A person of ordinary skill-in-the-art would be a person having a degree in some form of engineering or in physics with several years of practical experience the design and/or testing radar systems.
Vollbracht et al (‘821) does not disclose the further limitations of dependent claim 15.
The Keystone article teaches the use of radar in a vehicle for the advantage of vehicle safety and other listed advantages, noting, for example, pages 2 and 3.
So, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the Vollbracht et al (‘821) device in a vehicle, as taught by the Keystone article, in order to obtain the advantages taught by the Keystone article, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
In that each and every claimed feature recited in independent claim 15 is plainly present in the applied combination of Vollbracht et al (‘821) in view of the Keystone article as set forth above, independent claim 15 is obvious over the applied combination as set forth above.
As for the further limitations of dependent claim 15, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the device of the applied combination in a short, medium, or long range radar application to optimize the operation of the vehicle in driving on a road or in parking.
Claims 5, 6, 9, and 11-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vollbracht et al (‘821).
A person of ordinary skill-in-the-art would be a person having a degree in some form of engineering or in physics with several years of practical experience the design and/or testing radar systems.
Due to the general disclosure of filters in Vollbracht et al (‘821), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art to try filters as set forth in claims 5, 6, and 9, from among the large number of types of filters, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in an effort to optimize the operation of the radar system, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
As for the further limitations of dependent claim 11, Vollbracht et al (‘821) plainly discloses that the “first antenna portion” and the “second antenna portion” can be waveguides, noting, for example, paragraphs {0023], [0168], [0170], [0219], [0220], [0226], and [0227]; however, Vollbracht et al (‘821) does not disclose that the “feed portion” or the “divider portion” are waveguides. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the ”divider portion” and the “feed portion” to be waveguides for the advantage of eliminating the need for conversion for signals going to and from the waveguides, and, eliminating extra bulk, weight, and cost, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
Next, looking to the further limitations of dependent claim 12, the remarks are substantially those made above with respect to dependent claim 11. In addition, please note that Vollbracht et al (‘821) discloses the claimed “substrate-integrated waveguide.” However, Vollbracht et al (‘821) does not disclose the claim 12 “air waveguide.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try an “air waveguide” in Vollbracht et al (‘821) from among the many types of waveguides in an effort to optimize the operation of the radar system, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
With reference to the further limitations of dependent claim 13, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try various angles in the connection described, including a right angle, in an effort to optimize the operation of the radar system, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
Potentially-Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Prior Art of General Interest
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bonthron et al (‘499) is of general interest for the illustrated vehicle using a divider and a splitter in a radar.
Jenabi (‘932) is of general interest for the disclosure concerning different polarizations and scan angles.
Sletten et al (‘945) is of general interest for the disclosure of transmit and receive channels of different frequencies.
Sarcione et al (‘427) is of general interest for the disclosure of “splitter/combiners” and for drawing Figure 5.
Root, Jr. (‘689) is of general interest for the disclosure related to the use of different frequencies and different polarizations.
Wagner (‘365) is of general interest for the disclosure related to the use of splitters in a multiple-beam radar system.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARR E GREGORY whose telephone number is (571)272-6972. The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays through Fridays from 7:30 am to 3:30 pm eastern time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648