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 § 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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujii et al (JP 2009-18790 A1), hereinafter Fujii. (Applicant’s cited prior art).
Regarding claim 1, Fujii (Figures 1 and 2) teaches a radome for a radar device for a vehicle, the radome comprising:
a cover member 2 made of a radar-transparent resin (para 0042]);
a structural member 5 made of a radar-transparent resin (para [0044]);
the cover member enclosing the structural member; the cover member and the structural member being fastened to each other in a fixing section 11;
at least one of
the fixing section 11 being formed by the cover member or the structural member, the fixing section being protected by a protective layer 6, the protective layer being applied to the structural member and extending into or overlapping the fixing section (at section 63), or
the fixing section being formed by the cover member 2 or a housing, the fixing section 11 being covered by the housing 6 or the housing 6 extending into or overlapping the fixing section (at section 63), the housing forming an opening for the radar waves (λr).
Regarding claim 3, as applied to claim 1, Fujii (para [0044]) teaches at least one of: the protective layer 6 is radar transparent, or radar transparent and reflective to light, or a protective layer 6 is applied to the structural member and is at least one of radar transparent, or radar transparent and reflective to light.
Regarding claim 4, as applied to claim 3, Fujii (para [0047]) teaches that the protective layer is opaque to light.
Regarding claim 9, as applied to claim 1, Fujii (Figure 2) teaches that the cover member includes an outer surface and an inner surface, and a decorative layer 31 is applied to the inner surface and/or to the outer surface.
Regarding claim 10, as applied to claim 9, Fujii (Figure 2) teaches that the decorative layer 31 has the same composition as the protective layer 6.
Regarding claim 12, as applied to claim 1, Fujii (Figure 2) teaches a gap (area between 31 and 5) formed between the cover member 2 and the structural member 5.
Regarding claim 14, Fujii (para [0001] and [0002]) teaches a radome 1 and a radar source is implicitly disclosed for providing radar waves (λr).
Regarding claim 15, Fujii (para [0001] and [0002]) teaches a radar device according to claim 14, and implicitly teaches a cladding component for a vehicle.
Claims 1-5, 7-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Caruso et al (WO 2021/018422 A1), hereinafter Caruso. (Applicant’s cited prior art).
Regarding claim 1, Caruso (Figure 15) teaches a radome for a radar device for a vehicle, the radome comprising:
a cover member 221 made of a radar-transparent resin;
a structural member 226 made of a radar-transparent resin;
the cover member enclosing the structural member;
the cover member and the structural member being fastened to each other in a fixing section 234 and 236;
at least one of
the fixing section 234/236 being formed by the cover member 221 or the structural member, the fixing section being protected by a protective layer 228 (para 0197]), the protective layer being applied to the structural member and extending into or overlapping the fixing section, or
the fixing section 236 being formed by the cover member 221 or a housing, the fixing section being covered by the housing or the housing extending into or overlapping the fixing section, the housing forming an opening for the radar waves (λr).
Regarding claim 2, as applied to claim 1, Caruso (Figure 17) teaches that the cover member is made of a light transparent resin, the structural member 121 is an optical lens made of a light transparent resin, and the radome further comprises a light source for illuminating the radome.
Regarding claim 3, as applied to claim 1, Caruso (para [0197]) teaches at least one of: the protective layer is radar transparent, or radar transparent and reflective to light, or a protective layer is applied to the structural member and is at least one of radar transparent, or radar transparent and reflective to light.
Regarding claim 4, as applied to claim 3, Caruso (Figure 17, para [0156]) teaches that the protective layer is opaque to light.
Regarding claim 5, as applied to claim 3, Caruso (para [0190]) teaches that the protective layer 126 is reflective and comprises at least one of white PC/PMMA, white lacquer, white tampon or pad print, white screen print or metallized or a red pigment.
Regarding claim 7, as applied to claim 2, Caruso (Figures 17 and 18) teaches that the optical lens includes a diffusive material 421 that optimizes light performance.
Regarding claim 8, as applied to claim 2, Caruso (Figure 18) teaches that the light source 544 is fastened to at least one of: the cover member or the structural member or the housing.
Regarding claim 9, as applied to claim 1, Caruso (Figures 13 and 14) teaches that the cover member 121 includes an outer surface and an inner surface, and a decorative layer 128 is applied to the inner surface and/or to the outer surface.
Regarding claim 10, as applied to claim 9, Caruso (para [0197]) teaches that the decorative layer has the same composition as the protective layer.
Regarding claim 11, as applied to claim 9, Caruso (Figures 13 and 14) teaches a radar-transparent lacquer 128 is applied to the outer surface.
Regarding claim 13, as applied to claim 1, Caruso (Figure 6, para [0236] to [0239]) further teaches a heating unit 12 for heating the radome.
Regarding claim 14, Caruso teaches a radar device for a vehicle, the radar device comprising a radome according to claim 1; and a radar source is implicitly disclosed for providing radar waves (λr).
Regarding claim 15, Caruso teaches a radar device according to claim 14, a cladding component for a vehicle is implicitly disclosed.
Claims 1-4, 7-10 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Paule et al (US 2022/0357021 A1), hereinafter Paule. (Applicant’s cited prior art).
Regarding claim 1, Paule (Figures 3 and 6) teaches a radome for a radar device for a vehicle, the radome comprising:
a cover member 4 made of a radar-transparent resin;
a structural member 6 made of a radar-transparent resin;
the cover member enclosing the structural member;
the cover member and the structural member being fastened to each other in a fixing section; at least one of
the fixing section (protrusion of 4) being formed by the cover member or the structural member, the fixing section being protected by a protective layer 2, the protective layer being applied to the structural member and extending into or overlapping the fixing section, or
the fixing section (protrusion of 4) being formed by the cover member or a housing, the fixing section being covered by the housing 2 or the housing extending into or overlapping the fixing section, the housing forming an opening for the radar waves (λr).
Regarding claim 2, as applied to claim 1, Paule (Figure 4) teaches that the cover member is made of a light transparent resin, the structural member is an optical lens made of a light transparent resin, and the radome further comprises a light source 8b for illuminating the radome.
Regarding claim 3, as applied to claim 1, Paule (Figure 4) teaches that at least one of: the protective layer 7 is radar transparent, or radar transparent and reflective to light, or a protective layer is applied to the structural member and is at least one of radar transparent, or radar transparent and reflective to light.
Regarding claim 4, as applied to claim 3, Paule (Figure 4) teaches that the protective layer 7 is opaque to light.
Regarding claim 7, as applied to claim 2, Paule (Figures 3 and 4) teaches that the optical lens 6 includes a diffusive material that optimizes light performance.
Regarding claim 8, as applied to claim 2, Paule (Figure 4) teaches that the light source 8b is fastened to at least one of: the cover member or the structural member 6 or the housing.
Regarding claim 9, as applied to claim 1, Paule (Figures 3 and 4) teaches that the cover member 4 includes an outer surface and an inner surface, and a decorative layer 5 is applied to the inner surface and/or to the outer surface.
Regarding claim 10, as applied to claim 9, Paule (Figures 3 and 4) teaches that the decorative layer 5 has the same composition as the protective layer 7.
Regarding claim 13, as applied to claim 1, Paule (para [0048] and [0055]) further teaches a heating unit for heating the radome.
Regarding claim 14, Paule teaches a radar device for a vehicle, the radar device comprising: a radome according to claim 1; and a radar source is implicitly disclosed for providing radar waves (λr).
Regarding claim 15, Paule teaches a radar device according to claim 14, a cladding component is implicitly disclosed for a vehicle.
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.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii.
Regarding claim 6, Fujii teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim 3, except explicitly mention that the protective layer is a reflective foil. It would have been a matter of design choice to substitute the protective layer of Fujii with a reflective foil for the purpose of protecting the radar from the environment while maintaining specific signal properties.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caruso.
Regarding claim 6, Caruso teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim 3, except explicitly mention that the protective layer is a reflective foil. It would have been a matter of design choice to replace the protective layer of Caruso with a reflective foil for the purpose of protecting the radar from the environment while maintaining specific signal properties.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ochiai et al (WO 2018/101165 A1) discloses a radome for a radar device for a vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOANG V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Dimary Lopez can be reached at (571) 270-7983. 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.
/HOANG V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845