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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 05/27/2026 has been entered. Claims 7-16 remain pending in this application. No claims have been amended or are newly cancelled. Claims 12-16 are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/27/2026 regarding prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. All prior art rejections are maintained for the same or similar reasoning as presented in the prior office action dated 03/09/2026.
Regarding arguments directed to claim 7, the Examiner maintains that the prior art reference, Ding, discloses each and every element of claim 7. The Applicant argues that “Ding does not disclose “the waveguide antenna and the radome are connected to each other in a form-fitting manner.”” However, as previously cited by the Examiner, Figure 1 shows a waveguide antenna comprising at least portions of layers 104 AND 106 in an exploded view, further, cited figure 4D shows form fitting connection between a raised portion of layer 106 and recessed portion of the radome. From an additional viewpoint, the stake posts also form fitting connection between the waveguide antenna and radome. Therefore, the Applicant appears to argue for a narrower interpretation of form-fitting connection than is the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims.
The Applicant further argues that “Ding does not disclose “the radome having pins which extend through and are connected to the waveguide antenna.””. However, the Examiner again points to previously cited figure 4D which clearly shows a pin connecting the radome, waveguide, and housing. While the Examiner agrees with the Applicant that the pins do not originate from the radome during an assembly process, after connection, the pin(s) structurally connect the housing, waveguide, and radome. Therefore, it can be reasonably interpreted that the pins belong to or are associated with the radome, such that the radome has pins which extend through and are connected to the waveguide antenna. Further, the Examiner cautions the Applicant about forming a clearer distinction about the pin structure, because even if the pins were required to originate from the radome, which it is not currently, this may simply be viewed as a mere rearrangement of parts. See MPEP 2144.04 regarding rearrangement of parts.
The same or similar reasoning is provided for all similar independent claims and corresponding dependent claims.
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. (FP 7.08.aia)
Claims 7-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ding (US 20160268693 A1), hereinafter Ding.
Regarding claim 7, Ding discloses a radar sensor, comprising:
a waveguide antenna (See at least Fig. 1 (provided below), Items 104-106, [0057] “Antenna patch patterns 120a and 120b, formed on top surface 118 of PCB 104, are can also be EMI shielded according to exemplary embodiments. When EMI shield 106”, [0073] “the EMI shield 306 is […] in the form of slots or “potholes” shaped as described above perform like a lossy waveguide, and the guided wave is attenuated” Ding discloses a waveguide antenna as a patch antenna having a wave guide layer EMI shield.
PNG
media_image1.png
905
614
media_image1.png
Greyscale
);
a radome (See at least Fig. 1, [0055] “a radome or cover 108 disposed in a stacked configuration and assembled together”);
a housing to which the radome is fastened (See at least Fig. 1, Item 102, [0055] “automotive radar module 100 includes a housing or base 102”); and
a printed circuit board in which the waveguide antenna is positioned (See at least Fig. 1, Item 104, [0055] “Module 100 can also include a PCB 104, an EMI shield 106”);
wherein the waveguide antenna and the radome are connected to each other in a form-fitting manner, the radome having pins which extend through and are connected to the waveguide antenna. (See at least Figs. 1, 4D (provided in part below), Item 110, [0056] “Housing 102 can also include integral heat stake posts 110 used to align PCB 104 via holes 122 and to align EMI shield 106 via holes 128 and to hold housing 102, PCB 104 and EMI shield 106 together. After a heat staking operation is performed on heat stake posts 110”
PNG
media_image2.png
382
535
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4D).
Regarding claim 8, Ding, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 7. Ding additionally discloses
the form-fitting connection is achieved by a heat staking process (See at least Figs. 1, 4D, Item 110, [0056] “Housing 102 can also include integral heat stake posts 110 used to align PCB 104 via holes 122 and to align EMI shield 106 via holes 128 and to hold housing 102, PCB 104 and EMI shield 106 together. After a heat staking operation is performed on heat stake posts 110”).
Regarding claim 9, Ding, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 7. Ding additionally discloses
the waveguide antenna has at least one projection, and the form-fitting connection is achieved on the at least one projection (See at least Figs. 1-2 [0056] “Housing 102 can also include integral heat stake posts 110 used to align PCB 104 via holes 122 and to align EMI shield 106 via holes 128 and to hold housing 102, PCB 104 and EMI shield 106 together. After a heat staking operation is performed on heat stake posts 110”).
Regarding claim 10, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 7. Accordingly, claim 10 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 7, shown above.
Regarding claim 11, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 8. Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 8, shown above.
Regarding claim 12, Ding, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 7. Ding additionally discloses
the waveguide antenna has a recess in which a deformed heat staking pin engages (See at least Figs. 1-2, Item 128, [0056] “Housing 102 can also include integral heat stake posts 110 used to align PCB 104 via holes 122 and to align EMI shield 106 via holes 128 and to hold housing 102, PCB 104 and EMI shield 106 together. After a heat staking operation is performed on heat stake posts 110” Ding discloses a heat staking process which by definition deforms heat staking pins. Ding additional discloses a cavity 128 where deformation occurs).
Regarding claim 13, Ding, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 7. Ding additionally discloses
the radome is fastened to the housing by a laser welding method (See at least Figs. 1-2, [0055] “laser welding of module radome or cover 108 to housing 102”).
Regarding claim 15, Ding, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 7. Ding additionally discloses
the waveguide antenna has pin- shaped positioning elements on a rear face, wherein the positioning elements are centered by openings in the printed circuit board (See at least Figs. 1, 4D, Item 110, [0056] “Housing 102 can also include integral heat stake posts 110 used to align PCB 104 via holes 122 and to align EMI shield 106 via holes 128 and to hold housing 102, PCB 104 and EMI shield 106 together. After a heat staking operation is performed on heat stake posts 110” Ding discloses heat staking pins connected to and positioned through both the waveguide and pcb).
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 of this title, 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 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding, in view of Bae (US 20220320700 A1), hereinafter Bae.
Regarding claim 16, Ding, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 7. Ding does not explicitly disclose the waveguide antenna and the printed circuit board are decoupled from each other through fastening of the radome to the housing. However, Bae, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the waveguide antenna and the printed circuit board are decoupled from each other through fastening of the radome to the housing (See at least [0067] “FIG. 9, it is shown that the waveguide 5 can be assembled with a small gap A from the circuit board 3. This state can occur when the waveguide 5 is fixed to the circuit board 3”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar sensor disclosed by Ding with the spacing system disclosed by Bae. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously secure performance (See at least [0069] “the firmly fixed state in close contact can be easily secured without a gap between the waveguide 5 and the circuit board 3, which is very advantageous in terms of securing the performance of a radar”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Allowance of claims 14 is indicated because:
None of the prior art of record teach or suggest the subject matter of dependent claim 14. The prior art of record does not anticipate or render fairly obvious in combination to teach all of the additional limitations of the claimed invention, as best understood within the context of Applicant’s claimed invention as a whole, such as in claim 14, a distance between a connection point of the radome and a rear face of the waveguide antenna is ascertained when connecting the radome to the waveguide antenna, and the distance is transmitted to a manufacturing station of the laser welding method by a data matrix code or another type of data transmission.
Accordingly, claim 14 is deemed to have allowable subject matter.
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH W GOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-4186. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Resha H Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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.
/KENNETH W GOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights