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 .
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, 5, 7, 9-10, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bae (US 20200292669).
Regarding claim 1 and 10, Bae teaches a radar device for Autonomous Driving (AD), AD, or Advanced Driver Assistant Systems (ADAS), ADAS, applications for vehicles (para 3), the device comprising: a housing comprising a base (fig 2, item 400) and a cover (fig 2, item 100); a radar unit mounted on a Printed Circuit Board (fig 3, items 220 and 210 and para 83 and 91), PCB, and a shielding covering the radar unit and configured to provide EMC, Electro Magnetic Compatibility shielding to the radar unit (fig 2 and 3); wherein: the shielding is fixedly attached to an inner bottom of the base (fig 5, item 110 attached to bottom of 420); and the base is provided with a supporting structure, the supporting structure comprising a plurality of supporting elements configured to provide support for the PCB and/or the shielding (fig 5, part sticking out of item 420).
Regarding claim 5, Bae teaches shielding is fixedly attached to the inner bottom of the base by a plurality of fastening means (fig 4, item 120).
Regarding claim 7, and 12 Bae teaches the housing is made of plastic (para 143, “the housing 40 is made of a general plastic material, and then coupled to the cover 10”).
Regarding claim 9, Bae teaches the base and the supporting structure are formed in one piece (fig 1).
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) 2-4, 11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae as applied to claim 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Ludwig et al (DE 102021212702A1).
Regarding claim 2 and 11, Ludwig teaches the shielding is a stamped metal spring (page 3, para 4, “then the slots can be made in the side surfaces in order to form the spring contacts. Alternatively, the slits can already be made during the stamping process, so that the spring contacts are formed, and the metal sheet with the spring contacts can then be formed into a trough. Finally, the shielding plate is connected to a heat-conducting plate via its bottom surface”). It would have been obvious to modify Bae to include the shielding is a stamped metal spring because it is merely a substitution of well-known shielding of Bae for the shield of Ludwig to yield a predictable shielding.
Regarding claim 3 and 13, Ludwig teaches the shielding is in contact with the inner bottom of the base (fig 3). It would have been obvious to modify Bae to include the shielding is in contact with the inner bottom of the base because it is merely a substitution of the design of the Shielding of Bae with the design of the shielding of Ludwig to yield a predictable shielding.
Regarding claim 4, Bae teaches at least 70% of an outer surface of the shielding on an opposite side of the PCB is in direct contact with the inner bottom of the base (fig 2).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yu et al (US 20230203271).
Regarding claim 6, Yu teaches plurality of fastening means is formed by a plurality of heat staked joints (para 80). It would have been obvious to modify Bae to include plurality of fastening means is formed by a plurality of heat staked joints because it is merely a substitution of a method to fasten the housing together.
Claim(s) 8 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae as applied to claim 7 and 12 above, and further in view of Gao (CN 110596648A).
Regarding claim 8 and 19, Gao teaches the housing is made of thermally conductive plastic (page 6, para 4, “the housing 7 is thermally conductive plastic, and the lower shielding cover 3“). It would have been obvious to modify Bae to include the housing is made of thermally conductive plastic because one of multiple implementation of the conductive plastic of Bae with the conductive plastic of Gao to yield a predictable conductive plastic.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Klett et al (DE102020206044).
Regarding claim 14, Klett teaches the inner bottom of the base is provided with a plurality of plastic pins, wherein the shielding is provided with a plurality of corresponding openings, and wherein the shielding is inserted into the interior of the base by inserting the plurality of openings in the plurality of corresponding plastic pins (fig 4 and page 2, para 11, “The connector module can be molded from an electrically insulating plastic, the electrically conductive parts of the connector arrangement and the contact elements can be injected directly into the plastic. However, since according to the invention the connector module is not connected to the housing in a uniform manner, a different plastic material can be used for the housing, in particular a plastic material which has been made electrically conductive in a known manner by suitable additives.”). It would have been obvious to modify Bae to include the inner bottom of the base is provided with a plurality of plastic pins, wherein the shielding is provided with a plurality of corresponding openings, and wherein the shielding is inserted into the interior of the base by inserting the plurality of openings in the plurality of corresponding plastic pins because it is merely a substitution of the design of the Shielding of Bae with the design of the shielding of Klett to yield a predictable shielding.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae in view of Klett as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Yu et al (US 20230203271).
Regarding claim 15, Yu teaches the shielding is fixedly attached to the inner bottom of the base by heat staking of the plastic pins after the shielding is inserted into the interior of the base (para 80). It would have been obvious to modify Bae in view of Klett to include the shielding is fixedly attached to the inner bottom of the base by heat staking of the plastic pins after the shielding is inserted into the interior of the base because it is merely a substitution of a method to fasten the housing together.
Claim(s) 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae in view of Ludwig as applied to claim 2 and 11 above, and further in view of 冨永 潤(JP 4807695 B2).
Regarding claim 16 and 18, 冨永 潤(JP 4807695 B2) teaches the stamped metal spring is a stamped steel spring (para 56, “As the leaf springs 24a and 24b, a thin leaf spring material such as beryllium copper, phosphor bronze, or stainless steel formed by stamping or etching may be used.”). It would have been obvious to modify Bae in view of Ludwig to include the stamped metal spring is a stamped steel spring because it is merely a substitution of well-known spring of Bae for the shield of 冨永 潤 to yield a predictable spring.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae in view of Goa as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Klett et al (DE102020206044).
Regarding claim 17, Klett teaches the thermally conductive plastic has a thermal conductivity of at least 5 W/mK (page 4, para 3, “Radar sensor according to one of the preceding claims, in which the housing (10) made of a plastic with a thermal conductivity of at least 5 W / mK, preferably at least 8 W / mK”). It would have been obvious to modify Bae in view of Goa to include the thermally conductive plastic has a thermal conductivity of at least 5 W/mK because one of multiple implementation of the conductive plastic of Bae with the conductive plastic of Klett to yield a predictable conductive plastic.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY A BRAINARD whose telephone number is (571)272-2132. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.
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, William Kelleher can be reached at 571-272-7753. 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.
TIMOTHY A. BRAINARD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/TIMOTHY A BRAINARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648