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 7-6-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the 102 rejection, applicant quoted a portion of 102, then quoted the new claim and stated the prior art didn’t teach or disclose all of it. Applicant provided no explanation or reasoning as to which parts of the claim they believe are not disclose by the prior art.
With respect to the 103 and obviousness, applicant states the control unit being integrated “is a basic function of Applicant’s operability”. The examiner fails to understand the argument. While applicant’s Fig. 3 shows the control unit being within a chip, Figures 1, 2, 4 and 5 show the control unit outside of the chips. Therefore there is no criticality of control unit placement as applicant’s invention seems to operate inside or outside a chip. Furthermore, the obviousness statement was in regard to placing the prior art control unit within a chip of the prior art. The applicant’s arrangement was not in question. Applicant has provided no evidence or arguments as to why placing the prior art control within a chip would render it unusable or not just “a mere design step”.
With respect to the amended claims, please see below.
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) 1-3, 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melzer, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0386854, published December 10, 2020.
As per claim 1, Melzer discloses a radar sensor having
A plurality of at least three radar semiconductor chips arranged areally in a plane and arranged geometrically in matrix form in the horizontal and vertical directions (Melzer, Fig. 5),
wherein the first radar transceiver semiconductor chip has at least two transmission antennas and at least two receiver antennas; wherein the second radar transceiver semiconductor chip has at least two transmission antennas and at least two receiver antennas (Melzer, Fig. 5);
wherein every radar transceiver semiconductor chip respectively has a carrier frequency (Melzer, Fig. 5 and ¶24),
wherein the first radar transceiver semiconductor chip and the second radar transceiver semiconductor chip have a common control and evaluation unit (Melzer, Fig. 5 where control 50 is common)
wherein the radar transceiver semiconductor chips are electronically connected in series (Melzer, ¶106), with an interconnection between the radar transceiver semiconductor chips provided only with a communication interface for data exchange (Melzer, ¶27)
with the control and evaluation unit being configured to control and evaluate the transmission antennas and receiver antennas of the first radar transceiver semiconductor chip and the control and evaluation unit being configured to control and evaluate the transmission antennas and receiver antennas of the second radar transceiver semiconductor chip (Melzer, ¶27),
and with the carrier frequencies between the radar transceiver semiconductor chips not being synchronized (Melzer, ¶17 using FMCW and ¶45 where synchronization is not needed),
whereby the first radar transceiver semiconductor chip and the second radar transceiver semiconductor chip have no common radio frequency basis (Melzer, ¶35 and Fig. 5 where the chips are separate and each transmit different signals based on the feedback value).
Melzer fails to explicitly disclose that no other connection is required between chips besides the communication interface.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to not use additional connections, 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 Melzer. Deciding which connections to make between chips and which information to share is well within the skill of a person in the art. The claim language “no other interconnection is required” does not preclude other interconnections within the prior art.
As per claim 2, Melzer discloses the sensor of claim 1 but fails to explicitly disclose the control unit integrated into one of the chips.
Melzer provides the control unit on the circuit board.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to integrate the controller, 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 Melzer.
As per claim 3, Melzer further discloses the radar sensor in accordance with claim 1, wherein the first radar transceiver semiconductor chip and the second radar transceiver semiconductor chip are connected to the common control and evaluation unit (Melzer, Fig. 3 showing the controller and signal processor).
As per claim 8, Melzer further discloses the radar sensor in accordance with claim 1, wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to perform the angle calculation by calculating an angle fast Fourier transform over a plurality of objects (Melzer, ¶17 multiple objects and ¶19 and 36 using FFT for angle determination).
As per claim 9, Melzer further discloses the radar sensor in accordance with claim 1, wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to perform the angle calculation after calculating an angle fast Fourier transform over a plurality of objects (Melzer, ¶17, 19 and 36).
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.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights