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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 6 of the Remarks. Applicant argues that Takao does not disclose forming an exit surface of a primary layer that is “dependent on” a predetermined shape to ensure return waves reach receive antennas with the same angle of incidence. Applicant refers to the specification which provides mathematical computations showing how the exit surface shape is derived as a function of the predetermined shape. Applicant concludes that Takao’s approach of controlling layer thickness to minimize deviation is fundamentally different from computing a compensating surface geometry. However, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. (MPEP 2113). The argument is not persuasive as Takao discloses the structural limitation imposed on the claim, that is, the layers, including the primary layer, are shaped such that return waves reach the receive antennas with the same angle of incidence regardless of position of the target, as illustrated in Figure 5 and discussed at [0023], [0088]-[0089]. Takao discloses that detection angle measurements would be erroneous otherwise ([0089]). Further, the mathematical computations referenced in the Remarks do not impose limitation on the claimed layered arrangement.
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) 1-3, 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), wherein the exit surface of the primary layer is formed responsive to 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 claim 5, the claim indicates that the shape of the exit surface is determined by a finite-difference method. As addressed above, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (MPEP 2113). As Takao discloses the surface shaped to the extent required, the claim is 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 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 on a part time schedule, typically M-Fri 8:00 AM-4:30 PM Eastern Time, but having off alternating Monday-Tuesdays and Fridays.
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
Prosecution Insights