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 § 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 1-12 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.
Regarding claims 1, 5, 6, and 12, claim 1 concludes with the limitation: “with the exit surface of the primary layer is computed depending on the at least one predetermined shape, so that return waves reach the at least two receive antennas with the same angle of incidence regardless of the position of the target object.” Claim 12 concludes similarly, except “wherein” is used. It is apparent the term “with” is intended to be “wherein” in claim 1, as the wording is not grammatically correct as presented. In either case, the limitation imposed by “the exit surface…is computed” is indefinite. Is “computing” a function of the claimed device? What is doing the computing? What does it mean to “compute” a surface itself? Is this a determination of some parameter of the existing surface, or a computation to establish the surface? The specification contains numerous references to computations. It appears most likely that the intent is to compute the “shape” of the surface ([87]) in a design process of the device. Claim 5 introduces an equation for such computation but is undefined itself, i.e. there is no indication what “A” is. Claim 6 adds that the shape is determined by a “finite difference method”, which is likewise undefined and unclear what physical limitation this would impose on the claimed structure. The claims are examined as best can be determined; however it is noted in general that the limitations appear to define the process by which the shape of the surface was determined rather than by defining the shape itself. It is suggested if the intent is to establish the shape of the surface, that the claims be reworded to require the shape satisfies fully defined equation(s). Claims 2-11 depend on claim 1 and are likewise indefinite.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the phase difference" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the phase difference" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 7-8, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takao et al. (US 2016/0248152).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Takao discloses a vehicular assembly (Fig. 3) for a vehicle, the vehicular assembly being configured to detect a target object in the environment of the vehicle ([0004], [00039] and comprising:
- a radar sensor (6) including at least one transmit antenna (inherent for radar transmission) configured to transmit radar waves ([0074]) and at least two receive antennas configured to receive return radar waves reflected by the target object ([0022]),
- a layered arrangement including:
(i) a primary layer (2 or 5) placed facing the radar sensor and including an exit surface for the return radar waves, and
(ii)
at least one secondary layer (4) comprising an entrance surface of the return radar waves, and
(iii) at least one non-planar predetermined shape present in the primary layer or in at least one secondary layer (illustrated Fig. 3), with the exit surface of the primary layer is computed depending on the at least one predetermined shape, so that return waves reach the at least two receive antennas with the same angle of incidence (θ) regardless of the position of the target object (Fig. 5; [0023], [0088]-[0089]).
Regarding claim 2, Takao discloses the primary and secondary layers are merged into a single layer ([0101]).
Regarding claim 3, Takao discloses the primary and secondary layers are distinct and each has a different refractive index (the result of different permittivities, [0025]).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, as addressed above, the limitation imposed by claims 4 and 5 is indefinite. As best can be determined, the claims do not impose any particular limitation on the surface because what is needed to satisfy the equation or method is not defined and therefore could produce essentially any shape. As Takao discloses the surface itself to the extent it is defined, the claims are anticipated.
Regarding claim 7, Takao discloses the layered arrangement forms a logo ([0012]).
Regarding claim 8, Takao discloses the predetermined shape is a relief formed from planar or conical surfaces (Fig. 3 as illustrated, also [0045]).
Regarding claim 10, Takao discloses the primary layer (2) has a primary refractive index, and the layered arrangement includes two secondary layers (4, 5) each with a secondary refractive index and a tertiary refractive index, respectively, one layer (4) of the layers including the entrance surface of the return radar waves and possessing the tertiary refractive index, the entrance surface being partially parallel to the exit surface (Fig. 3, the curves are parallel) and the tertiary refractive index being the same as the primary refractive index (2 and 4 may have the same relative permittivity, 5 is different ([0060], [0070]). Alternatively, the primary layer may be viewed as layer 5, and the secondary layers 2 and 4 [0070].
Regarding claim 11, Takao discloses the predetermined shape is curved and smooth (Fig. 3 as illustrated).
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Asanuma et al. (US 2012/0306685).
Takao does not disclose correcting a phase difference measured by the radar by a correction function of a processing unit. Asanuma discloses a similar vehicular radar including a phase difference calculating unit with a function of calculating an averaged phase difference to correct the phase difference of a moving target ([0080]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to modify the device of Takao to include such phase correction in order to improve the accuracy of detecting directions of the targets as disclosed and identified by Asanuma.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 as best can be determined would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art show various multi-layer arrangements for radar sensors, including predetermined shapes present in the layers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew M Barker whose telephone number is (571)272-3103. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 8:00 AM-4:30 PM; Fri 8 AM-12 PM Eastern Time.
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 571-273-6878. 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.
/MATTHEW M BARKER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646