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 .
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 1-2 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of copending Application No. 18/687,123 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because as set forth in the tables (differences in wording are in bold) and description below: 1) the removal of the limitations (“arranged on a first body part of the motor vehicle” and “arranged on a second body part”) made claim 1 of the application 18/686,698 a broader version of claim 1 of the copending Application No. 18/687,123 (see words in bold). Omission of an elements is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same. Rewording (e.g. “emitted” versus “transmitted”, “to be connected” versus “for connection”, “originating from” versus “transmitted by”, etc.) expresses a same functionality of a claimed element. 2) claim 2 is exactly the same. Repeating “in the second predetermined direction” repeats the functionality of the claimed element “second directional antenna”.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
18/686,698
18/687,123
1. A radar system for a motor vehicle comprising:
an electronic unit configured to transmit and receive an electromagnetic wave in a predetermined frequency range,
a first directional antenna comprising a first reflective cavity reflecting electromagnetic waves wherein a first metasurface is positioned, said first directional antenna is configured to be connected to the electronic unit via a first waveguide and to transmit the electromagnetic wave, emitted by the electronic unit and propagated via the first waveguide, in a first predetermined direction and/or to propagate the electromagnetic wave received from the first predetermined direction to the electronic unit via the first waveguide; and
a second directional antenna comprising a second reflective cavity reflecting the electromagnetic waves wherein a second metasurface is positioned, said second directional antenna is configured to be connected to the electronic unit via a second waveguide and to transmit an electromagnetic wave, emitted by the electronic unit and propagated via the second waveguide, in a second predetermined direction and/or to propagate the electromagnetic wave received from the second predetermined direction to the electronic unit via the second waveguide.
1. A radar system for a motor vehicle comprising:
an electronic unit configured to transmit and receive an electromagnetic wave in a predetermined frequency range;
a first directional antenna arranged on a first body part of the motor vehicle and comprising a first reflective cavity reflecting electromagnetic waves wherein a first metasurface is positioned, wherein said first directional antenna is configured to be connected to the electronic unit via a first waveguide, and wherein the first directional antenna is configured to transmit the electromagnetic wave, transmitted by the electronic unit and propagated via the first waveguide in a first predetermined direction and/or to propagate the electromagnetic wave received from the first predetermined direction to the electronic unit via the first waveguide; and
a second directional antenna arranged on a second body part that has a second cavity reflecting the electromagnetic waves wherein a second metasurface is positioned, wherein said second directional antenna is configured for connection to the electronic unit via a second waveguide and for transmitting the electromagnetic wave transmitted by the electronic unit and propagated via the second waveguide in a second predetermined direction and/or for propagating the received electromagnetic wave from the second predetermined direction to the electronic unit via the second waveguide.
2. The radar system according to claim 1, wherein
the first directional antenna is a transmitting antenna and is configured to emit the electromagnetic wave originating from the electronic unit and propagated via the first waveguide in the first predetermined direction and
the second directional antenna is a receiving antenna and is configured to receive the electromagnetic wave emitted by the transmitting antenna and reflected by an obstacle in the second predetermined direction and to propagate the received electromagnetic wave to the electronic unit via the second waveguide.
2. The radar system according to claim 1, wherein
the first directional antenna is a transmitting antenna and is configured to transmit the electromagnetic wave transmitted by the electronic unit and propagated via the first waveguide in the first predetermined direction and
the second directional antenna is a receiving antenna and is configured to receive the electromagnetic wave transmitted by the transmitting antenna and reflected by an obstacle and to propagate the received electromagnetic wave to the electronic unit via the second waveguide.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an electronic unit configured to” in claim 1 line 3, claim 13 line 4, claim 18 line 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 objected to because of the following informalities: “5°,” in line 3. It appears that “,” should be “.”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-25 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitations: 1) "the electromagnetic wave " in line 9. It is indefinite because it is not clear that "the electromagnetic wave " in line 9 represents the “an electromagnetic wave” mentioned in lines 3-4 or one of the “electromagnetic waves” mentioned in line 6. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as the “an electromagnetic wave” mentioned in lines 3-4 . 2) "the electromagnetic wave " in line 11. It is indefinite because it is not clear that "the electromagnetic wave " in line 11 represents the “an electromagnetic wave” mentioned in lines 3-4 or one of the “electromagnetic waves” mentioned in line 6. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as the “an electromagnetic wave” mentioned in lines 3-4. 3) “an electromagnetic wave” in line 18. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “an electromagnetic wave” in line 18 is the same as the “an electromagnetic wave” mentioned in lines 3-4. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as the “an electromagnetic wave” mentioned in lines 3-4. 4) "the electromagnetic wave " in line 21. It is indefinite because it is not clear that "the electromagnetic wave " in line 21 represents the “an electromagnetic wave” mentioned in lines 3-4, or one of the “electromagnetic waves” mentioned in line 6, or the “an electromagnetic wave” in line 18. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as the “an electromagnetic wave” mentioned in lines 3-4. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claims 2-12, 19-25 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1 because each of dependent claims 2-12, 19-25 is unclear, at least, in that it depends on unclear independent claim 1.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a predetermined frequency range” in line 2. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “a predetermined frequency range” in line 2 is the “a predetermined frequency range” mentioned in claim 1 line 4. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “the predetermined frequency range”. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a vehicle” in line 3. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “a vehicle” in line 3 relates to the “a motor vehicle” mentioned in claim 1 line 1. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “the motor vehicle” . Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “a vehicle” in line 5. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “a vehicle” in line 5 relates to the “a motor vehicle” mentioned in claim 1 line 1. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “the motor vehicle” . Appropriate clarification is required.
Claims 24-25 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 12 because each of dependent claims 24-25 is unclear, at least, in that it depends on unclear independent claim 12.
Claims 13 and 18 recites the limitations: 1) "the electromagnetic wave " in line 9. It is indefinite because it is not clear that "the electromagnetic wave " in line 9 represents the “an electromagnetic wave” mentioned in lines 4-5 or one of the “electromagnetic waves” mentioned in line 7. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as the “an electromagnetic wave” mentioned in lines 4-5 . 2) "the electromagnetic wave " in line 11. It is indefinite because it is not clear that "the electromagnetic wave " in line 11 represents the “an electromagnetic wave” mentioned in lines 4-5 or one of the “electromagnetic waves” mentioned in line 7. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as the “an electromagnetic wave” mentioned in lines 4-5. 3) “an electromagnetic wave” in lines 16-17. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “an electromagnetic wave” in lines 16-17 is the same as the “an electromagnetic wave” mentioned in lines 4-5. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as the “an electromagnetic wave” mentioned in lines 4-5. 4) "the electromagnetic wave " in line 19. It is indefinite because it is not clear that "the electromagnetic wave " in line 19 represents the “an electromagnetic wave” mentioned in lines 4-5, or one of the “electromagnetic waves” mentioned in line 7, or the “an electromagnetic wave” in lines 16-17. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as the “an electromagnetic wave” mentioned in lines 4-5. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claims 14-17 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 13 because each of dependent claims 14-17 is unclear, at least, in that it depends on unclear independent claim 13.
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.
Claims 1-2, 7-8, 13-15, 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stephan et al. (WO2020043633, hereafter Stephan).
Regarding claim 1, Stephan (‘633) discloses that A radar system for a motor vehicle {Fig.1 item 10 (body part); Fig.2 items 10 (body part), 50 (transceiver); page 1 abstract line 1 (a body part (10) for a motorized land vehicle (200)), 3 (one transceiver (50)); page 7 lines 10-12 from bottom (as a radar detection system suitable for locating objects in a space, the transceiver 50 is in particular capable of transmitting and / or receiving electromagnetic waves at 77 GHz.)} comprising:
an electronic unit configured to transmit and receive an electromagnetic wave in a predetermined frequency range { Fig.2 item 50 (transceiver); page 7 lines 10-12 from bottom (as a radar detection system suitable for locating objects in a space, the transceiver 50 is in particular capable of transmitting and / or receiving electromagnetic waves at 77 GHz.)},
a first directional antenna comprising a first reflective cavity reflecting electromagnetic waves wherein a first metasurface is positioned, said first directional antenna is configured to be connected to the electronic unit via a first waveguide and to transmit the electromagnetic wave, emitted by the electronic unit and propagated via the first waveguide, in a first predetermined direction { Fig.2 items 50 (transceiver), 60 (adaptable surface); Fig.4 100a, 80a (see mark below), 85 (reflective wall); page 3 line 13 from bottom (an adaptable surface (known as a meta-surface); page 5 lines 13-15 from bottom (the electromagnetic wave generated by the transceiver 50 is Reflected inside the electromagnetic cavity 80 and by the adaptable surface 60 several times before being emitted via the opening 100 ( direct or semi-reflecting opening) towards the outside of the wall 20.); page 6 lines 6-8 (the antenna is capable of transforming a any electromagnetic radiation from the transceiver simultaneously into radiation controllable in orientation), 12-14 (a reflective wall 85 capable of reflecting the electromagnetic waves. , cavity 80a, opening 100a); Examiner’s note: Fig.4 and Fig.2 are the same except adding item 85. “controllable in orientation” for “predetermined direction”} and/or to propagate the electromagnetic wave received from the first predetermined direction to the electronic unit via the first waveguide {Fig.2; Fig.4 100b, 80b; page 9 lines 2-4 from bottom (the cavity (80) comprises at least one opening (100), the electromagnetic wave being emitted towards the outside of the electromagnetic cavity (80) or being received from the outside of the electromagnetic cavity (80), through said opening (100).); Examiner’s note: Fig.2 and page 9 lines 2-4 for “and/or”.}; and
PNG
media_image1.png
388
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a second directional antenna comprising a second reflective cavity reflecting the electromagnetic waves wherein a second metasurface is positioned, said second directional antenna is configured to be connected to the electronic unit via a second waveguide and to transmit an electromagnetic wave, emitted by the electronic unit and propagated via the second waveguide, in a second predetermined direction and/or to propagate the electromagnetic wave received from the second predetermined direction to the electronic unit via the second waveguide { Fig.2 items 50 (transceiver), 60 (adaptable surface); Fig.4 100a-b, 80a-b (see mark below and above), 85 (reflective wall); page 3 line 13 from bottom (an adaptable surface (known as a meta-surface); page 5 lines 13-15 from bottom (the electromagnetic wave generated by the transceiver 50 is Reflected inside the electromagnetic cavity 80 and by the adaptable surface 60 several times before being emitted via the opening 100 ( direct or semi-reflecting opening) towards the outside of the wall 20.); page 6 lines 6-8 (the antenna is capable of transforming a any electromagnetic radiation from the transceiver simultaneously into radiation controllable in orientation), 12-14 (a reflective wall 85 capable of reflecting the electromagnetic waves. , cavity 80b, opening 100b); page 9 lines 2-4 from bottom (the cavity (80) comprises at least one opening (100), the electromagnetic wave being emitted towards the outside of the electromagnetic cavity (80) or being received from the outside of the electromagnetic cavity (80), through said opening (100).); Examiner’s note: “controllable in orientation” for “predetermined direction” . Fig.4 100a, 80a for “transmit”. Fig.4 100b, 80b for “receive”. Fig.2 and page 9 lines 2-4 for “and/or”.}.
PNG
media_image2.png
388
530
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1, Stephan (‘633) discloses that in the radar system,
the first directional antenna is a transmitting antenna and is configured to emit the electromagnetic wave originating from the electronic unit and propagated via the first waveguide in the first predetermined direction { Fig.4 item 100a, 80a (see marks below)} and
PNG
media_image1.png
388
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the second directional antenna is a receiving antenna and is configured to receive the electromagnetic wave emitted by the transmitting antenna and reflected by an obstacle in the second predetermined direction and to propagate the received electromagnetic wave to the electronic unit via the second waveguide {Fig.4 item 100b, 80b (see marks below)}.
PNG
media_image2.png
388
530
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, which depends on claim 1, Stephan (‘633) discloses that in the radar system,
a predetermined frequency range is greater than 60 GHz { page 7 lines 10-12 from bottom (as a radar detection system suitable for locating objects in a space, the transceiver 50 is in particular capable of transmitting and / or receiving electromagnetic waves at 77 GHz.)}.
Regarding claim 8, which depends on claim 1, Stephan (‘633) discloses that in the radar system,
the first directional antenna and the second directional antenna are configured to be arranged on a bodywork part { Fig.1 item 10 (bumper), 20 (wall); Fig.2 item 10, 20, 100 (opening); Fig.4; page 5 lines 13-15 (the electromagnetic wave generated by the transceiver 50 is Reflected inside the electromagnetic cavity 80 and by the adaptable surface 60 several times before being emitted via the opening 100 ( direct or semi-reflecting opening) towards the outside of the wall 20.); page 6 line 16 (The wall 20 constitutes the main body of the bumper 10.); Examiner’s note: “opening” for “antenna” },
wherein the bodywork part comprises a wall made of a plastic material {page 6 line 16 (The wall 20 constitutes the main body of the bumper 10.), 20 (plastic as that of the wall 20 )}.
Regarding claim 13, Stephan (‘633) discloses that A bodywork part comprising a radar system {Fig.1 item 10 (body part); Fig.2 items 10 (body part), 50 (transceiver); page 1 abstract line 1 (a body part (10) for a motorized land vehicle (200)), 3 (one transceiver (50)); page 7 lines 10-12 from bottom (as a radar detection system suitable for locating objects in a space, the transceiver 50 is in particular capable of transmitting and / or receiving electromagnetic waves at 77 GHz.)}, wherein the radar system further comprises:
an electronic unit configured to transmit and receive an electromagnetic wave in a predetermined frequency range, a
first directional antenna comprising a first reflective cavity reflecting electromagnetic waves wherein a first metasurface is positioned, said first directional antenna is configured to be connected to the electronic unit via a first waveguide and to transmit the electromagnetic wave, emitted by the electronic unit and propagated via the first waveguide, in a first predetermined direction and/or to propagate the electromagnetic wave received from the first predetermined direction to the electronic unit via the first waveguide; and
a second directional antenna comprising a second reflective cavity reflecting the electromagnetic waves wherein a second metasurface is positioned, said second directional antenna is configured to be connected to the electronic unit via a second waveguide and to transmit an electromagnetic wave, emitted by the electronic unit and propagated via the second waveguide, in a second predetermined direction and/or to propagate the electromagnetic wave received from the second predetermined direction to the electronic unit via the second waveguide.
{The claim limitations above are the same or substantially the same scope as the corresponding claim limitations in claim 1. Therefore the claim limitations above are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 1. See the rejections of claim 1}.
Regarding claim 14, which depends on claim 13, Stephan (‘633) discloses that in the bodywork part,
the first directional antenna is a transmitting antenna { Fig.4 item 100a, 80a (see marks in the rejection of claim 2)} and the second directional antenna is a receiving antenna { Fig.4 item 100b, 80b (see marks in the rejection of claim 2)},
wherein the body part further comprises:
at least one wall made of a plastic material { Fig.1 item 10 (bumper), 20 (wall); Fig.2 item 10, 20, 100 (opening); page 6 line 16 (The wall 20 constitutes the main body of the bumper 10.), 20 (plastic as that of the wall 20 )},
the transmitting antenna connected to the electronic unit via the first waveguide and configured to emit the electromagnetic wave emitted by the electronic unit in the first predetermined direction { Fig.4 item 100a, 80a (see marks in the rejection of claim 2)},
the receiving antenna connected to the electronic unit via the second waveguide, said receiving antenna being configured to receive the electromagnetic wave emitted by the transmitting antenna and reflected by an obstacle and to propagate the received reflected electromagnetic wave toward the electronic unit { Fig.4 item 100b, 80b (see marks in the rejection of claim 2)},
said transmitting antenna and the receiving antenna are arranged behind the wall made of the plastic material {Fig.1 items 10 (body part), 20(wall); Fig.2 items 10 (body part), 20 (wall), 50 (transceiver); Fig.4a-b; page 1 abstract line 1 (a body part (10)), 3 (one transceiver (50)); page 5 line 4 ([fig.2] is a cross section A-A ’of the bumper of Figure 1;)}.
Regarding claim 15, which depends on claims 13-14, Stephan (‘633) discloses that in the bodywork part,
the transmitting antenna and the receiving antenna are arranged in a uniform area of the bodywork part {Fig.1; Fig.2; Fig.4 items 100a-b; page 5 lines 23-24 (the electromagnetic wave being emitted towards, or received from, the outside of the electromagnetic cavity 80 through said opening 100.)}.
Regarding claim 18, Stephan (‘633) discloses that A land motor vehicle comprising a bodywork part {Fig.1 item 10}, wherein the bodywork part further comprises a radar system { Fig.1 item 10 (body part); Fig.2 items 10 (body part), 50 (transceiver); page 1 abstract line 1 (a body part (10) for a motorized land vehicle (200)), 3 (one transceiver (50)); page 7 lines 10-12 from bottom (as a radar detection system suitable for locating objects in a space, the transceiver 50 is in particular capable of transmitting and / or receiving electromagnetic waves at 77 GHz.) }, wherein the radar system further comprises:
an electronic unit configured to transmit and receive an electromagnetic wave in a predetermined frequency range,
a first directional antenna comprising a first reflective cavity reflecting electromagnetic waves wherein a first metasurface is positioned, said first directional antenna is configured to be connected to the electronic unit via a first waveguide and to transmit the electromagnetic wave, emitted by the electronic unit and propagated via the first waveguide, in a first predetermined direction and/or to propagate the electromagnetic wave received from the first predetermined direction to the electronic unit via the first waveguide; and
a second directional antenna comprising a second reflective cavity reflecting the electromagnetic waves wherein a second metasurface is positioned, said second directional antenna is configured to be connected to the electronic unit via a second waveguide and to transmit an electromagnetic wave, emitted by the electronic unit and propagated via the second waveguide, in a second predetermined direction and/or to propagate the electromagnetic wave received from the second predetermined direction to the electronic unit via the second waveguide.
{The claim limitations above are the same or substantially the same scope as the corresponding claim limitations in claim 1. Therefore the claim limitations above are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 1. See the rejections of claim 1}.
Regarding claim 20, which depends on claim 1, Stephan (‘633) discloses that in the radar system,
the predetermined frequency range is between 75 and 80 GHz { page 7 lines 10-12 from bottom (as a radar detection system suitable for locating objects in a space, the transceiver 50 is in particular capable of transmitting and / or receiving electromagnetic waves at 77 GHz.)}.
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 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephan (‘633) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kurono et al. (US 9,128,174, hereafter Kurono).
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claims 1-2, Stephan (‘633) discloses that in the radar system,
the first predetermined direction corresponds to an emission cone {Fig.4 (see mark below)} and
the second predetermined direction corresponds to a receiving cone {Fig.4 (see mark below)}.
PNG
media_image3.png
527
705
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, Stephan (‘633) does not explicitly disclose (see words with underline) “an emission cone around a central emitting axis” and “a receiving cone around a central receiving axis”. In the same field of endeavor, Kurono (‘174) discloses that
the first predetermined direction corresponds to an emission cone around a central emitting axis {Fig.6A (BP1, BP2); col.7 lines 62-63 (beam patterns BP1, BP2 of two electric waves that are transmitted from the transmission antennae 1A, 1B.)} and
the second predetermined direction corresponds to a receiving cone around a central receiving axis {Fig.6(B)}.
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 Stephan (‘633) with the teachings of Kurono (‘174) {transmit and receive signals with a shape of beam (e.g. cone)} to transmit and receive signals with a shape of beam (e.g. cone). Doing so would determine whether a target is a correct target, based on the strengths of the reception signals of the respective antennae due to the difference of the beam patterns of the transmission electric waves so as to improve the accuracy of the radar apparatus of the electronic scan method, as recognized by Kurono (‘174) {col.3 lines 6-11 (it is possible to determine whether a target is a correct target, based on the strengths of the reception signals of the respective antennae due to the difference of the beam patterns of the transmission electric waves, so that it is possible to improve the accuracy of the radar apparatus of the electronic scan method.)}.
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claims 1-3, Stephan (‘633) does not explicitly disclose that “an azimuth deviation between the central emitting axis and the central receiving axis is less than 30°”. In the same field of endeavor, Kurono (‘174) discloses that in the radar system,
an azimuth deviation between the central emitting axis and the central receiving axis is less than 30° {Fig.9A-B; Examiner’s note: Fig.9A-B show “azimuth deviation between the central emitting axis and the central receiving axis” is zero}.
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 Stephan (‘633) with the teachings of Kurono (‘174) {transmit and receive signals with a shape of beam (e.g. cone)} to transmit and receive signals with a shape of beam (e.g. cone). Doing so would determine whether a target is a correct target, based on the strengths of the reception signals of the respective antennae due to the difference of the beam patterns of the transmission electric waves so as to improve the accuracy of the radar apparatus of the electronic scan method, as recognized by Kurono (‘174) {col.3 lines 6-11 (it is possible to determine whether a target is a correct target, based on the strengths of the reception signals of the respective antennae due to the difference of the beam patterns of the transmission electric waves, so that it is possible to improve the accuracy of the radar apparatus of the electronic scan method.)}.
Claims 5-6, 19, 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephan (‘633) and Kurono (‘174) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Jeong et al. (US 2011/0285571, hereafter Jeong).
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claims 1-3, Stephan (‘633) and Kurono (‘174) do not explicitly disclose that “a first difference in elevation between the central emitting axis and a horizontal direction and a second difference in elevation between the central receiving axis and the horizontal direction are less than 5°”. In the same field of endeavor, Jeong (‘571) discloses that in the radar system,
a first difference in elevation between the central emitting axis and a horizontal direction and a second difference in elevation between the central receiving axis and the horizontal direction are less than 5° {Fig.6 (see mark below); Examiner’s note: Fig.6(a) shows that the “first difference” and the “ second difference” are zero.}.
PNG
media_image4.png
530
726
media_image4.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 Stephan (‘633) and Kurono (‘174) with the teachings of Jeong (‘571) {use transmit and receive beams with zero offset in radar system} to use transmit and receive beams with zero offset in radar system. Doing so would provide an antenna structure of a sensor which enables the alignment of the sensor to be simply and accurately adjusted so as to accurately sense the target, as recognized by Jeong (‘571) {[0006] lines 2-3 (to accurately sense the target); [0008] lines 2-3 (provide an antenna structure of a sensor which enables the alignment of the sensor to be simply and accurately adjusted)}.
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claims 1-3, Stephan (‘633) discloses that in the radar system,
a section of the emission cone and a section of the receiving cone each has an elongated shape {Fig.4 (see mark below)}, and
PNG
media_image3.png
527
705
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, Stephan (‘633) and Kurono (‘174) do not explicitly disclose (see words with underline) “wherein the first directional antenna and the second directional antenna are arranged so that a pitch angle is less than 30°”, “wherein the pitch angle is an angular gap between a large axis of the elongated shapes and a horizontal direction for each of the first directional antenna and the second directional antenna”, and “wherein an angular deviation between a pitch angle of the first directional antenna and a pitch angle of the second directional antenna is less than 30°”. In the same field of endeavor, Jeong (‘571) discloses that
wherein the first directional antenna and the second directional antenna are arranged so that a pitch angle is less than 30° {Fig.6a-b},
wherein the pitch angle is an angular gap between a large axis of the elongated shapes and a horizontal direction for each of the first directional antenna and the second directional antenna {Fig.6a-b},
wherein an angular deviation between a pitch angle of the first directional antenna and a pitch angle of the second directional antenna is less than 30° {Fig.6a-b}.
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 Stephan (‘633) and Kurono (‘174) with the teachings of Jeong (‘571) {use transmit and receive beams with zero offset (e.g. zero pitch angle) in radar system} to use transmit and receive beams with zero offset (e.g. zero pitch angle) in radar system. Doing so would provide an antenna structure of a sensor which enables the alignment of the sensor to be simply and accurately adjusted so as to accurately sense the target, as recognized by Jeong (‘571) {[0006] lines 2-3 (to accurately sense the target); [0008] lines 2-3 (provide an antenna structure of a sensor which enables the alignment of the sensor to be simply and accurately adjusted)}.
Regarding claim 19, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claim 5. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 5, shown above.
Regarding claim 22, which depends on claims 1-3 and 6, Stephan (‘633) and Kurono (‘174) do not explicitly disclose “the first directional antenna and the second directional antenna are arranged so that the pitch angle is less than 5°”. In the same field of endeavor, Jeong (‘571) discloses that in the radar system,
the first directional antenna and the second directional antenna are arranged so that the pitch angle is less than 5° {Fig.6 a (Tx2, RECEPTION ANTENNA BEAM REGION) (see mark below); Examiner’s note: Fig.6a shows pitch angle is zero }.
PNG
media_image4.png
530
726
media_image4.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 Stephan (‘633) and Kurono (‘174) with the teachings of Jeong (‘571) {use transmit and receive beams with zero offset (e.g. zero pitch angle) in radar system} to use transmit and receive beams with zero offset (e.g. zero pitch angle) in radar system. Doing so would provide an antenna structure of a sensor which enables the alignment of the sensor to be simply and accurately adjusted so as to accurately sense the target, as recognized by Jeong (‘571) {[0006] lines 2-3 (to accurately sense the target); [0008] lines 2-3 (provide an antenna structure of a sensor which enables the alignment of the sensor to be simply and accurately adjusted)}.
Regarding claim 23, which depends on claims 1-3 and 6, Stephan (‘633) and Kurono (‘174) do not explicitly disclose “the angular deviation between the pitch angle of the first directional antenna and the pitch angle of the second directional antenna is less than 5°”. In the same field of endeavor, Jeong (‘571) discloses that in the radar system,
the angular deviation between the pitch angle of the first directional antenna and the pitch angle of the second directional antenna is less than 5° {Fig.6 a (Tx2, RECEPTION ANTENNA BEAM REGION); Examiner’s note: Fig.6a shows pitch angle is zero }.
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 Stephan (‘633) and Kurono (‘174) with the teachings of Jeong (‘571) {use transmit and receive beams with zero offset (e.g. zero pitch angle) in radar system} to use transmit and receive beams with zero offset (e.g. zero pitch angle) in radar system. Doing so would provide an antenna structure of a sensor which enables the alignment of the sensor to be simply and accurately adjusted so as to accurately sense the target, as recognized by Jeong (‘571) {[0006] lines 2-3 (to accurately sense the target); [0008] lines 2-3 (provide an antenna structure of a sensor which enables the alignment of the sensor to be simply and accurately adjusted)}.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephan (‘633) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Hammerschmidt et al. (US 10,884,118 , hereafter Hammerschmidt).
Regarding claim 9, which depends on claims 1 and 8, Stephan (‘633) does not explicitly disclose “the electronic unit is positioned remotely from the bodywork part”. In the same field of endeavor, Hammerschmidt (‘118) discloses that in the radar system,
the electronic unit is positioned remotely from the bodywork part { Fig.3 items 110-1, 110-2, 110-3 (antenna), 140 (radar system), 302 (bumper of a car) }.
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 Stephan (‘633) with the teachings of Hammerschmidt (‘118) {separate antennas and processors in different locations} to separate antennas and processors in different locations. Doing so would install antennas at outer shell of the vehicle and communicate with a radar circuit via the dielectric waveguide so as to safe production costs and/or ease space requirements when installing the radar system in a vehicle, as recognized by Hammerschmidt (‘118) {col.1 lines 41-44 (an antenna element installable at an outer shell of the vehicle, a dielectric waveguide, and a radar circuit configured to communicate with the antenna element via the dielectric waveguide); col.6 lines 2-4 (which can safe production costs and/or ease space requirements when installing the radar system 100 in a vehicle.)}.
Claims 10-12, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephan (‘633) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shiozaki et al. (US 2019 / 0302227 , hereafter Shiozaki).
Regarding claim 10, which depends on claim 1, Stephan (‘633) discloses that in the radar system,
the first directional antenna is a transmitting antenna { Fig.4 item 100a, 80a (see mark below)} and the second directional antenna is a first receiving antenna { Fig.4 item 100b, 80b (see mark below)},
PNG
media_image1.png
388
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
388
530
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the radar system further comprises:
the transmitting antenna configured to emit the electromagnetic wave emitted by the electronic unit in the first predetermined direction { Fig.4 item 100a, 80a (see mark above); page 6 lines 6-8 (the antenna is capable of transforming a any electromagnetic radiation from the transceiver simultaneously into radiation controllable in orientation); Examiner’s note: “controllable in orientation” for “predetermined direction”}, the first receiving antenna{Fig.2 item 100; Fig.4 item 100b, 80b (see mark above); page 5 lines 23-24 (the electromagnetic wave being emitted towards, or received from, the outside of the electromagnetic cavity 80 through said opening 100.)},
wherein the transmitting antenna, the first receiving antenna, {Fig.1 item 10 (wall); Fig.2 item 100; Fig.4 item 100a-b; page 5 line 4 ([fig.2] is a cross section A-A ’of the bumper of Figure 1)},
wherein the bodywork part comprises a wall made of a plastic material {Fig.1 item 20 (wall); Fig.2 item 20 (wall); page 6 line 16 (The wall 20 constitutes the main body of the bumper 10), 20 (plastic as that of the wall 20 ) }.
However, Stephan (‘633) does not explicitly disclose (see words with underline) “the first receiving antenna and a second receiving antenna” and “the transmitting antenna, the first receiving antenna, and the second receiving antenna are arranged on a bodywork part”. In the same field of endeavor, Shiozaki (‘227) discloses that
the first receiving antenna and a second receiving antenna {Fig.19 items RX1, RX2};
the transmitting antenna, the first receiving antenna, and the second receiving antenna are arranged on a bodywork part {Fig.3; Fig.19 items Tx1-2, RX1, RX2; [0014] lines 1-2 (Fig.3, an onboard radar system); [0031] lines 1-2 (Fig.19, radar system)};
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 Stephan (‘633) with the teachings of Shiozaki (‘227) {use multiple transmit antennas and receive antennas in a radar system onboard a vehicle} to use multiple transmit antennas and receive antennas in a radar system onboard a vehicle. Doing so would cover mutually – separated areas in multiple directions so as to perform object detections and obtain highly accurately a position where the target exists using a single radar system, as recognized by Shiozaki (‘227) {[0005] lines 2-9 (single radar system, cover mutually – separated areas in multiple directions, as areas in which to perform the object detection, not only whether a target exists in the areas in which to perform the object detection , but also highly accurately a position where the target exists)}.
Regarding claim 11, which depends on claims 1 and 10, Stephan (‘633) discloses that in the radar system,
the bodywork part extends along a width of a vehicle {Fig.1} and
wherein the transmitting antenna, the first receiving antenna, and the second receiving antenna are arranged in different areas of the bodywork part {Fig.2 item 100; Fig.4; page 5 lines 4 ([fig.2] is a cross section A-A ’of the bumper of Figure 1), 23-24 (the electromagnetic wave being emitted towards, or received from, the outside of the electromagnetic cavity 80 through said opening 100.)},
However, Stephan (‘633) does not explicitly disclose (see words with underline) that “wherein the transmitting antenna, the first receiving antenna, and the second receiving antenna are arranged in different areas of the bodywork part”, “wherein the different areas are offset from one another along the width of the vehicle” and “wherein the transmitting antenna is arranged in a central area relative to areas associated with the first receiving antenna and the second receiving antenna”. In the same field of endeavor, Shiozaki (‘227) discloses that
wherein the transmitting antenna, the first receiving antenna, and the second receiving antenna are arranged in different areas of the bodywork part { Fig.3; Fig.19 items Tx1-2, RX1, RX2};
wherein the different areas are offset from one another along the width of the vehicle {Fig.3; Fig.19 items Tx1-2, RX1, RX2; [0014] lines 1-2 (Fig.3, an onboard radar system)};
wherein the transmitting antenna is arranged in a central area relative to areas associated with the first receiving antenna and the second receiving antenna { Fig.19 items Tx1-2, RX1, RX2}.
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 Stephan (‘633) with the teachings of Shiozaki (‘227) {use multiple transmit antennas and receive antennas in a radar system onboard a vehicle} to use multiple transmit antennas and receive antennas in a radar system onboard a vehicle. Doing so would cover mutually – separated areas in multiple directions so as to perform object detections and obtain highly accurately a position where the target exists using a single radar system, as recognized by Shiozaki (‘227) {[0005] lines 2-9 (single radar system, cover mutually – separated areas in multiple directions, as areas in which to perform the object detection, not only whether a target exists in the areas in which to perform the object detection , but also highly accurately a position where the target exists)}.
Regarding claim 12, which depends on claims 1 and 10, Stephan (‘633) does not explicitly disclose that “the first receiving antenna defines a first receiving cone around a first central receiving axis forming a first azimuth angle of less than 5° relative to a direction of a forward movement of a vehicle, wherein the second receiving antenna defines a second receiving cone around a second central receiving axis forming a second azimuth angle greater than 20° relative to the direction of the forward movement of the vehicle, and the transmitting antenna defines anemission cone around a central emitting axis forming a third azimuth angle between 0° and 10° with respect to the direction of the forward movement of the vehicle”. In the same field of endeavor, Shiozaki (‘227) discloses that in the radar system {Fig.3; [0014] line 2 (an onboard radar system)},
the first receiving antenna defines a first receiving cone around a first central receiving axis forming a first azimuth angle of less than 5° relative to a direction of a forward movement of a vehicle { Fig.4; Fig.19 (Rx1, 2R); [0038] lines 12-15 (the radar system is arranged , for example , in four corners of a vehicle body , and is used for multi - directional monitoring , such as front monitoring , front side monitoring); Examiner’s note: Rx1 azimuth =0 based on Fig.4},
wherein the second receiving antenna defines a second receiving cone around a second central receiving axis forming a second azimuth angle greater than 20° relative to the direction of the forward movement of the vehicle { Fig.19 (RX2, 3R); [0038] lines 12-15 (the radar system is arranged , for example , in four corners of a vehicle body , and is used for multi - directional monitoring , such as front monitoring , front side monitoring); Examiner’s note: azimuth is 90° }, and
the transmitting antenna defines an emission cone around a central emitting axis forming a third azimuth angle between 0° and 10° with respect to the direction of the forward movement of the vehicle {Fig.19 (see Tx1 direction); [0038] lines 12-15 (the radar system is arranged , for example , in four corners of a vehicle body , and is used for multi - directional monitoring , such as front monitoring , front side monitoring); Examiner’s note: azimuth of TX1 is 0°. }.
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 Stephan (‘633) with the teachings of Shiozaki (‘227) {use multiple transmit antennas and receive antennas in a radar system onboard a vehicle} to use multiple transmit antennas and receive antennas in a radar system onboard a vehicle. Doing so would cover mutually – separated areas in multiple directions so as to perform object detections and obtain highly accurately a position where the target exists using a single radar system, as recognized by Shiozaki (‘227) {[0005] lines 2-9 (single radar system, cover mutually – separated areas in multiple directions, as areas in which to perform the object detection, not only whether a target exists in the areas in which to perform the object detection , but also highly accurately a position where the target exists); [0038] lines 12-15 (the radar system is arranged , for example , in four corners of a vehicle body , and is used for multi - directional monitoring , such as front monitoring , front side monitoring)}.
Regarding claim 24, which depends on claims 1, 10, and 12, Stephan (‘633) does not explicitly disclose that “the first azimuth angle is 0° relative to the direction of the forward movement of the vehicle”. In the same field of endeavor, Shiozaki (‘227) discloses that in the radar system,
the first azimuth angle is 0° relative to the direction of the forward movement of the vehicle {Fig.4; Fig.19 (RX1); [0038] lines 12-15 (the radar system is arranged , for example , in four corners of a vehicle body , and is used for multi - directional monitoring , such as front monitoring , front side monitoring); Examiner’s note: Rx1 azimuth =0 based on Fig.4}.
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 Stephan (‘633) with the teachings of Shiozaki (‘227) {use multiple transmit antennas and receive antennas in a radar system onboard a vehicle} to use multiple transmit antennas and receive antennas in a radar system onboard a vehicle. Doing so would cover mutually – separated areas in multiple directions so as to perform object detections and obtain highly accurately a position where the target exists using a single radar system, as recognized by Shiozaki (‘227) {[0005] lines 2-9 (single radar system, cover mutually – separated areas in multiple directions, as areas in which to perform the object detection, not only whether a target exists in the areas in which to perform the object detection , but also highly accurately a position where the target exists); [0038] lines 12-15 (the radar system is arranged , for example , in four corners of a vehicle body , and is used for multi - directional monitoring , such as front monitoring , front side monitoring)}.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephan (‘633) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of and Hammerschmidt (‘118) and Shiozaki (‘227)
Regarding claim 16, which depends on claims 13-14, Stephan (‘633) discloses that in the bodywork part,
the bodywork part is a front bumper of a vehicle {Fig.1 item 10; page 5 line 10 (bodywork part 10 is a front bumper)},
wherein the receiving antenna is a first receiving antenna {Fig.4 items 100b},
However, Stephan (‘633) does not explicitly disclose (see words with underlines) “wherein the bodywork part further comprises: the first receiving antenna arranged in a central area of the bumper, wherein a central axis of a receiving cone of the first receiving antenna is oriented in a direction of a forward movement of the vehicle, a second receiving antenna arranged in a lateral area of the bumper, wherein a central axis of a receiving cone of the second receiving antenna is oriented at a first azimuth angle greater than 30* relative to the direction of the forward movement of the vehicle, and the transmitting antenna is arranged in an intermediate area located between the central area and the lateral area, wherein a central axis of an emission cone of the transmitting antenna forms a second azimuth angle between 0 and 30° relative to the direction of the forward movement of the vehicle”. In the same field of endeavor, Hammerschmidt (‘118) discloses that
wherein the bodywork part further comprises:
the first receiving antenna arranged in a central area of the bumper { Fig.3 item 110-2} ,
a second receiving antenna arranged in a lateral area of the bumper { Fig.3 item 110-3},
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 Stephan (‘633) with the teachings of Hammerschmidt (‘118) {separate antennas and processors in different locations} to separate antennas and processors in different locations. Doing so would install antennas at outer shell of the vehicle and communicate with a radar circuit via the dielectric waveguide so as to which can safe production costs and/or ease space requirements when installing the radar system in a vehicle, as recognized by Hammerschmidt (‘118) {col.1 lines 41-44 (an antenna element installable at an outer shell of the vehicle, a dielectric waveguide, and a radar circuit configured to communicate with the antenna element via the dielectric waveguide); col.6 lines 2-4 (which can safe production costs and/or ease space requirements when installing the radar system 100 in a vehicle.)}.
However, Hammerschmidt (‘118) does not explicitly disclose (see words with underlines) “wherein a central axis of a receiving cone of the first receiving antenna is oriented in a direction of a forward movement of the vehicle”, “wherein a central axis of a receiving cone of the second receiving antenna is oriented at a first azimuth angle greater than 30° relative to the direction of the forward movement of the vehicle”, and “the transmitting antenna is arranged in an intermediate area located between the central area and the lateral area, wherein a central axis of an emission cone of the transmitting antenna forms a second azimuth angle between 0 and 30° relative to the direction of the forward movement of the vehicle”. . In the same field of endeavor, Shiozaki (‘227) discloses that
wherein a central axis of a receiving cone of the first receiving antenna is oriented in a direction of a forward movement of the vehicle {Fig.19 RX1},
wherein a central axis of a receiving cone of the second receiving antenna is oriented at a first azimuth angle greater than 30° relative to the direction of the forward movement of the vehicle { Fig.19 RX2; Examiner’s note: Rx1 vs. RX2 is 90°}, and
the transmitting antenna is arranged in an intermediate area located between the central area and the lateral area { Fig.19 Tx between Rx1 and RX2}, wherein a central axis of an emission cone of the transmitting antenna forms a second azimuth angle between 0 and 30° relative to the direction of the forward movement of the vehicle { Fig.19 (see mark below)}.
PNG
media_image5.png
447
623
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 Stephan (‘633) and Hammerschmidt (‘118) with the teachings of Shiozaki (‘227) {use multiple transmit antennas and receive antennas in a radar system onboard a vehicle} to use multiple transmit antennas and receive antennas in a radar system onboard a vehicle. Doing so would cover mutually – separated areas in multiple directions so as to perform object detections and obtain highly accurately a position where the target exists using a single radar system, as recognized by Shiozaki (‘227) {[0005] lines 2-9 (single radar system, cover mutually – separated areas in multiple directions, as areas in which to perform the object detection, not only whether a target exists in the areas in which to perform the object detection , but also highly accurately a position where the target exists)}.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephan (‘633) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Takano et al. (US 7,570,197, hereafter Takano).
Regarding claim 17, which depends on claim 13, Stephan (‘633) discloses that in the bodywork part,
the first directional antenna and the second directional antenna each has an elongated shape { Fig.2 item 100; Fig.4 item 100a-b; page 5 line 26 (the size of the opening 100 is adjustable)} and
.
However, Stephan (‘633) does not explicitly disclose (see words with underline) “lengths of the first directional antenna and the second directional antenna are different from one antenna to another”. In the same field of endeavor, Takano (‘197) discloses that
lengths of the first directional antenna and the second directional antenna are different from one antenna to another {Fig.12 items 513 (), 521; col.3 line 60 (transmitting antenna 513); col.5 lines 8-9 (two receiving antennas 521a, 521a)}.
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 Stephan (‘633) with the teachings of Takano (‘197) {use antenna with different sizes} to use antenna with different sizes. Doing so would expand field-of-view with short total length of antennas so as to obtain a compact radar system, as recognized by Takano (‘197) {col.5 lines 40-44 (the field-of-view θ of the mmWave Bo from the transmitting antenna 513 is expanded, the total length W of the arrangement of the three antennas 513, 521a, 52.1a becomes short, and the overall size of the radar device can be made compact.)}.
Claims 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephan (‘633), Kurono (‘174), and Jeong (‘571) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Boontje (EP 0704714 A1, hereafter Boontje).
Regarding claim 21, which depends on claims 1-3 and 6, Stephan (‘633), Kurono (‘174), and Jeong (‘571) do not explicitly disclose “the section of the emission cone and the section of the receiving cone each has an oblong shape”. In the same field of endeavor, Boontje (‘714) discloses that in the radar system,
the section of the emission cone and the section of the receiving cone each has an oblong shape {col.3 lines 52-55 ( Detection will take place only within the rectangular cone with the transmitting antenna or, as the case may be, the receiving antenna) }.
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 Stephan (‘633), Kurono (‘174), and Jeong (‘571) with the teachings of Boontje (‘714) {use antennas with rectangular cone for detection} to use antennas with rectangular cone for detection. Doing so would provide transmitting and receiving antenna with a higher signal yield and little perturbing radiation so that a clear indication of the passing of an object through the measurement beam is provided, as recognized by Boontje (‘714) {abstract lines 12-18 (Thanks to this cross-polarization system the receiving antenna has a higher signal yield and there is little perturbing radiation. When a passing object interrupts the path (8, 9) of the beam, then the signal of the receiving antenna is significantly reduced, so that a clear indication of the passing of an object through the measurement beam is provided)}.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 25 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claims 1, 10, and 12 but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) of claims 1 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The closest prior art of record is represented by Stephan (‘633), Shiozaki (‘227), Hammerschmidt (‘118), Kurono (‘174), and Kitamori et al. (US 6,933,900, hereafter Kitamori).
Regarding claim 25, which depends on claims 1, 10, and 12, Stephan (‘633), Shiozaki (‘227), Hammerschmidt (‘118), Kurono (‘174), and Kitamori (‘900), either alone or in combination, do not disclose (see words with underline)
the second azimuth angle is 40° relative to the direction of the forward movement of the vehicle.
Conclusion
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