DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 6-3-2024 and 5-5-2025 are being considered by the examiner.
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 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per claim 11, the phrases “at least indirectly” and “formed on the basis” make the claims indefinite. It is unclear what “at least indirectly” means in relation to the circuit board and waveguide. In addition, “partly formed on the basis” is unclear as to whether the waveguide is partly made of plastic or partly on the circuit board. Further clarification is required.
Claims 12-19 are rejected as per their dependency on claim 11.
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 11 and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11 and 20 of copending Application No. 18/557,257. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both provide for an apparatus and method for a waveguide device with the difference being that the application uses the term “disposes” and injection molding and the co-pending application uses the term “arranged”.
Injection molding is a well-known and understood method of plastics.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Examiner’s Note: For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wojnowski, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0021002, published January 16, 2020 in view of Wintermantel, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0275336, filed September 8, 2020.
As per claims 11 and 20, Wojnowski discloses a radar apparatus, comprising:
a printed circuit board (Wojnowski, Fig. 1A, 140);
a signal generating circuit, which is disposed at least indirectly on the printed circuit board, is electrically coupled to the printed circuit board, and is configured to generate a radar signal (Wojnowski, ¶16 using MMIC);
a waveguide antenna device, which is disposed at least indirectly on the printed circuit board and is at least partly formed on the basis of injection-molded plastic (Wojnowski, ¶20);
and a waveguide coupling device, wherein the signal generating circuit is disposed on or in the waveguide coupling device, and wherein the waveguide coupling device is configured to couple the radar signal generated by the signal generating circuit into the waveguide antenna device (Wojnowski, ¶19).
Wojnowski fails to expressly disclose using injection molding.
Wintermantel teaches injection molding of waveguide devices (¶54-56).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use injection molding in order to gain the obvious benefit of using existing, well-known methods of plastics formation.
As per claim 12, Wojnowski as modified by Wintermantel discloses the radar apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the waveguide coupling device is configured to directly couple the radar signal generated by the signal generating circuit into waveguide channels of the waveguide antenna device, and wherein the waveguide antenna device is molded directly onto the waveguide coupling device in a connection region adjoining the waveguide channels (Wojnowski, Fig. 1A and ¶20 where the components are within the IC package).
As per claim 13, Wojnowski as modified by Wintermantel further discloses the radar apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the waveguide antenna device is molded directly onto the signal generating circuit (Wojnowski, ¶20 where it is integrated).
As per claim 14, Wojnowski as modified by Wintermantel further discloses the radar apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the waveguide coupling device includes at least one metallized high-frequency structure for coupling the radar signal generated by the signal generating circuit into the waveguide antenna device (Wojnowski, ¶25).
As per claim 15, Wojnowski as modified by Wintermantel further discloses the radar apparatus according to claim 14, wherein metallized side walls of a waveguide channel of the waveguide antenna device are in contact with the metallized high- frequency structure (Wojnowski, ¶25).
As per claim 16, Wojnowski as modified by Wintermantel further discloses the radar apparatus according to claim 14, wherein metallized side walls of a waveguide channel of the waveguide antenna device are in contact with a solder mask disposed between the waveguide antenna device and the waveguide coupling device (Wojnowski, Fig. 1A, 150).
As per claim 17, Wojnowski as modified by Wintermantel further discloses the radar apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the metallized high-frequency structure is spaced apart from the solder mask (Wojnowski, ¶35 where they are separated due to being on separate sides of the chip).
As per claim 18, Wojnowski as modified by Wintermantel further discloses the radar apparatus according to claim 14, wherein metallized side walls of a waveguide channel of the waveguide antenna device are spaced apart from the waveguide coupling device by an injection-molded plastic section (Wojnowski, ¶35).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to an injection molded plastic section as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by Wojnowski in providing proper spacing.
As per claim 19, Wojnowski as modified by Wintermantel further discloses the radar apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the metallized side walls at the transition to the waveguide coupling device include a section that extends parallel to the metallized high-frequency structure (Wojnowski, Fig. 1A where 130 is parallel).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided on form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS E WINDRICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~7-3:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jack Keith can be reached at 5712726878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARCUS E WINDRICH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646