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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (Claims 1-13) in the reply filed on 18 June 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Information Disclosure Statement
This office acknowledges receipt of the following item(s) from the applicant:
Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 13 March 2024. The references have been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 3-6 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.
Claims 3 and 4 both recites the limitation "the at least one switch" in the first line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. At least one switch is not established in Claim 1 so there is no antecedent basis for this limitation, it is suggested that the claims be amended to depend on Claim 2.
Claims 5 and 6 are dependent on Claims 3 and 4 and subject to the same rejection
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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(s) 1 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roger et al. (Roger, US PGPub 2019/0041494).
Referring to Claim 1, Roger teaches a package ([0004]); a Monolithic Microwave Integrated Circuit (MMIC) housed within the package and configured to output raw radar data (Fig. 3 and 13 #100; [0028-0029) ; a microcontroller (Fig. 3 and 13 #50; [0029]) housed within the package, wherein the microcontroller includes a high- speed serial (HSS) interface (Fig. 13 #60; [0046]) configured to receive the raw radar data from the MMIC within the package and output the raw radar data to one or more processors of the microcontroller; and an input/output (I/O) port (implicit taught by communication bus #61; [0041]) of the package coupled to the HSS interface.
Referring to Claim 9, Roger teaches wherein the I/O port is coupled to an input of the HSS interface; implicitly taught by Fig. 7 and 13 and associated text, particularly with respect to communication link 61.
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.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roger in view of Saunders (EP2762913).
Referring to Claim 10, Roger teaches the I/O port, but does not explicitly disclose it is coupled to an I/O port of the microcontroller that couples the input of the HSS interface to a trace on a printed circuit board (PCB) coupled to an output of the MMIC.
However, Saunders teaches the integration of MMIC and microcontroller on a PCB being interconnected with traces to allow the components to be coupled together; See Fig.5 and associated text.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Roger with the trace coupling as taught by Saunders as it is well known and predictable to use signal lines (traces) to interconnect/couple components on a substrate and applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is well known in the technology.
Referring to Claim 11, Roger as modified by Saunders teaches wherein the MMIC comprises a first semiconductor substrate arranged on a printed circuit board (PCB) in the package, and the microcontroller comprises a second semiconductor substrate different from the first semiconductor substrate arranged adjacent to the first semiconductor substrate on the PCB in the package; see Fig. 5 and associated text and Claim 1 of Saunders.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roger in view of Su et al. (Su, CN111258504).
Referring to Claim 12, Roger teaches recording radar data, but does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein the I/O port is configured to be used to record raw radar data from the MMIC, and to input raw radar data to the microcontroller.
However, Su teaches wherein the I/O port is configured to be used to record raw radar data from the MMIC, and to input raw radar data to the microcontroller; See paragraph beginning with “Specifically, the upper computer storage system with high-speed storage plate…” as well as Claim 1.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Roger with the port configuration as taught by Su so as to predictably apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results thus improving high speed data transmission within the device.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roger in view of Brett et al. (Brett, US PGPub 2022/0197804).
Referring to Claim 13, Roger teaches the HSS interface, but does not explicitly disclose nor limit it is a mobile industry processor interface (MIPI) Camera Serial Interface 2 (CSI-2) or a MIPI Camera Serial Interface 3 (CSI-3).
However, Brett teaches the HSS interface is a mobile industry processor interface (MIPI) Camera Serial Interface 2 (CSI-2) or a MIPI Camera Serial Interface 3 (CSI-3); [0003] and [0022].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Roger with the interface type as taught by Brett as it is well known to apply simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results as the components are conventional radar data acquisition components.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 7 and 8 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 WHITNEY T MOORE whose telephone number is (571)270-3338. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 7am-4pm.
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 (571) 272-6878. 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.
/WHITNEY MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights