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 6-18-2024 is being considered by the examiner.
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2, 10, 11, 12, 4-7 and 13-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 4, 5 and 9-15 respectively of copending Application No 18628757. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications provide for a sensor with active and passive layers and a corrugated structure for suppression and redirection of waves. The claims are extremely similar and simply vary by dependencies.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 10-12 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.
As per claims 10-12, the phrase “the maxima and minima” lack sufficient antecedent basis.
Examiner’s Note: For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 2 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ding, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2016/0268693, published September 15, 2016.
As per claim 1, Ding disclose a radar sensor comprising:
a layer including at least one active region and at least one passive region, the active region including a plurality of antenna elements being configured to transmit and to receive radar waves, and the passive region being free of antenna elements (Ding, Fig. 7B where 208A and B are the active),
wherein a respective dual-purpose structure is associated with each antenna element of the active region, each dual-purpose structure being configured to isolate the associated antenna element from the other antenna elements with respect to the transmitted and received radar waves and to suppress and redirect reflections of incident radar waves (Ding, Fig. 7B, 306 and ¶72).
As per claim 2, Ding further discloses the radar sensor according to claim 1, wherein each dual-purpose structure includes a respective set of corrugations, each corrugation including a protrusion and a depression, and each set of corrugations comprises at least one angled corrugation which includes at least one portion extending in a direction being different from a predefined alignment direction of the associated antenna element (Ding, Fig. 7B, 318 and ¶72).
As per claim 15, Ding further discloses a vehicle comprising: a vehicle component and a radar sensor according to claim 1 which is arranged in a vicinity of the vehicle component (Ding, ¶55).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding.
As per claims 4-7, Ding discloses the radar sensor of claim 2 with a configuration of the protrusions (Fig. 7B).
While Ding fails to expressly disclose each configuration, he teaches that various shapes, angles and directions can be used (¶9-12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to place the protrusions in a particular fashion as a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim(s) 3 and 8-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding in view of Chandler, U.S. Patent Number 6,285,332, published September 4, 2001.
As per claim 3, Ding discloses the radar of claim 2 but fails to explicitly disclose a dielectric layer.
Chandler teaches a dielectric layer on corrugations (Col 5, lines 10-17).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a dielectric layer in order to gain the benefit of providing better control over the reflected signals as taught by Chandler.
As per claim 8, Ding as modified by Chandler discloses the radar according to claim 1 wherein the passive region is provided with a diffraction grating profile (Ding, ¶77 and Chandler, Col. 5, lines 47-48).
It would have been obvious to use a diffraction grating in order to gain the benefit of providing better control over the signals and it is well within the skill of a person in the art to determine where to place it.
As per claims 9-12, Ding as modified by Chandler discloses the radar according to claim 8 and providing various configurations of the maxima and minima of the grating surface (Ding, ¶77 and Chandler, Col. 5, lines 47-48).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to place the maxima and minima in a particular fashion as a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
As per claims 13 and 14, Ding as modified by Chandler further discloses the radar sensor according to claim 2, wherein in the active region, the at least one set of corrugations comprises at least one angled corrugation for which the protrusions and the depressions of respective side portions of the angled corrugation are arranged at opposite angles/parallel, and the passive region is provided with a surface profile in which maxima and minima of the surface profile have the same periodicity/different periodicity for two directions being perpendicular to each other (Ding, Fig. 7B and ¶77 and Chandler, Col. 5, lines 47-48).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided on form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS E WINDRICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~7-3:30.
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 5712726878. 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.
/MARCUS E WINDRICH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646