DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2024-0004570, filed on January 11th, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) received on November 6th, 2024 and March 6th, 2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Elements 141 and 143 in Figure 3 is not detailed in the specification.
Elements 233 and 243 in Figures 9 and 10 are not detailed in the specification.
Element 214 in Fig. 11 is not detailed in the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 11, 14, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 contains a minor typographical error; the word “wherien” should be corrected to “wherein”.
Claims 11, 14, and 18 contain a minor typographical error; the word “fastner” should be corrected to “fastener”.
Claim 14 contains a minor typographical error; the phrase “a internal” should be corrected to “an internal”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 1-5, 8-9, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartner et al. (US 20220247089 A1), hereinafter Hartner, in view of Kim et al. (US 20240056520 A1), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding claim 1, Hartner teaches a radar module assembly comprising [Note: what is not clearly disclosed is strike-through]:
an antenna module disposed inside the internal space of the housing (Hartner Fig. 1, elements 28 and 30, further, Hartner [0047] “The RF device 100 can comprise a waveguide component 28 having one or more waveguides 30. The waveguide component 28 may or may not be mechanically connected to the printed circuit board 12.” Examiner notes that the “waveguide component” of Hartner is considered as the “antenna module” in the claim.);
a substrate disposed to face one surface of the antenna module and disposed inside the internal space of the housing (Hartner Fig. 1, Element 4),
wherein an antenna chip is mounted to the substrate to transmit or receive a signal through the antenna module (Hartner Fig. 1, element 14, further Hartner [0044] “Accordingly, the RF radiation elements 16 electrically coupled to the RF chip 14 can be configured to emit and/or to receive signals having frequencies in the frequency ranges.”); and
Hartner fails to disclose the limitations below. Kim discloses:
a housing having an internal space (Kim [0041] “Referring to FIG. 2B, a housing 250 is an illustration of the electronic device 200 viewed from above.”);
a radome coupled to the housing to cover the internal space of the housing, wherein the radome is disposed to face another surface of the antenna module opposite to the one surface of the antenna module which the substrate faces (Kim Fig. 2a element 201, further, Kim [0038] “Referring to FIG. 2A, the electronic device 200 may include a radome cover 201”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Kim into the invention of Hartner. Both Hartner and Kim are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose systems for the assembly of radar modules using layered structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus as disclosed by Hartner to incorporate a housing, where the housing includes a radome opposite of the antenna module as taught by Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the apparatus in order to package the invention of Hartner in a housing such that it can be mounted in vehicle applications (See Hartner [0045]) or communicate with another device (See Kim [0116-0119]) .
Regarding claim 2, Hartner in view of Kim discloses the radar module assembly of claim 1. Hartner further discloses:
The radar module assembly of claim 1, wherein the antenna chip is a single chip (Hartner [0044] “The RF chip 14 can in particular comprise or correspond to a monolithic microwave integrated circuit (MMIC).”)
Hartner fails to disclose the limitations below. Kim discloses:
in which a radio frequency integrated circuit (RFIC) and a micro-controller unit (MCU) are integrated (Kim [0117] “The RF processing unit 1313 may include a plurality of RF processing chains including various processing circuitry. The RF chain may include a plurality of RF elements. The RF elements may include an amplifier, a mixer, an oscillator, a DAC, an ADC, and the like. According to an embodiment, the RF processing chain may be implemented as an RFIC.” Examiner notes that the limitation “micro controller unit (MCU) is a high-level term and is considered to be included in “processing circuitry”.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Kim into the invention of Hartner. Both Hartner and Kim are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose systems for the assembly of radar modules using layered structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus as disclosed by Hartner to integrate an RFIC circuit and a micro-controller unit into the antenna chip as taught by Kim. Hartner is largely silent on the contents of the RF chip component, outside of the fact that it is intended to process microwave signals. A micro-controller unit functionally is any circuit that provides instructions to antenna circuits, which is suggested by the MMIC circuit of Hartner, and the RFIC circuit of Kim could readily be integrated into the antenna chip disclosed in Hartner. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the apparatus in order to utilize an RFIC circuit rather than a MMIC to process radar signals (See Kim [0044], [0072], [0117], Hartner [0044]).
Regarding claim 3, Hartner in view of Kim teaches the radar module assembly of claim 2. Hartner further teaches:
the antenna chip is mounted on one surface of the substrate (Hartner Fig. 1, element 28, further, Hartner [0047] “The waveguide component 28 may or may not be mechanically connected to the printed circuit board 12. In the implementation shown in FIG. 1, the waveguide component 28 can be mechanically connected directly to the printed circuit board 12.”) opposite to another surface of the substrate to which the antenna module is coupled (Hartner [0040] “The RF package 2 can furthermore comprise an RF semiconductor chip 14 arranged on the lower surface 6 of the substrate 4.”, ), and
the substrate has a feeding hole through which the signal is directly fed from the antenna chip to the antenna module (Hartner [110] “Aspect 11 is a radio-frequency device according to any of Aspects 1 to 9, wherein the shielding structure comprises: an interposer arranged between the radio-frequency package and the waveguide component, the interposer having a through hole aligned with the radio-frequency radiation element.”).
Regarding claim 4, Hartner in view of Kim teaches the radar module assembly of claim 3. Hartner further teaches:
The radar module assembly of claim 3, wherein the substrate includes a printed circuit board (PCB) substrate (Hartner [0040] “The RF package 2 can comprise on its underside at least one connection element 10, which can be configured to electrically and mechanically connect the RF package 2 to a printed circuit board 12.”) (Kim [0072] “The second substrate 610 may include a via hole 620 (e.g., a low-cost frame retardant (FR)-4) and a coupling pad 623.”).
Regarding claim 5, Hartner in view of Kim teaches the radar module assembly of claim 3. Hartner further teaches:
the antenna module includes an antenna module body in which a waveguide is comprised (Hartner [0047] “The RF device 100 can comprise a waveguide component 28 having one or more waveguides 30.”),
one end of the waveguide is connected to a waveguide connection hole formed in the antenna module body and connected to the feeding hole (Hartner [110] “Aspect 11 is a radio-frequency device according to any of Aspects 1 to 9, wherein the shielding structure comprises: an interposer arranged between the radio-frequency package and the waveguide component, the interposer having a through hole aligned with the radio-frequency radiation element.”), and
another end of the waveguide is connected to an antenna slot formed on the another surface of the antenna module facing the radome (Hartner Fig. 1, element 30).
Regarding claim 9, Hartner in view of Kim teaches the radar module assembly of claim 1. Hartner further teaches:
a substrate support frame supporting the substrate in the internal space of the housing (Hartner Fig. 30, further, Hartner [0098] “The plastic polymer fibers 98 can be arranged at least partly in a supporting structure 102.”), and
a fastener coupling the antenna module and the substrate to the substrate support frame (Hartner Fig. 12, element 54, further, Hartner [0047] “By way of example, a mechanical connection between the waveguide component 28 and the printed circuit board 12 can be provided using one or more from an adhesive, a solder material, a clamp, a clip, a screw, etc.”).
Regarding claim 14, Hartner teaches a radar module assembly comprising [Note: what is not clearly taught is strike-through]:
A radar module assembly comprising:
;
an antenna module assembly disposed inside the internal space of the housing (Hartner Fig. 1, elements 28 and 30, further, Hartner [0047] “The RF device 100 can comprise a waveguide component 28 having one or more waveguides 30. The waveguide component 28 may or may not be mechanically connected to the printed circuit board 12.” Examiner notes that the “waveguide component” of Hartner is considered as the “antenna module” in the claim.); and
wherein the antenna module assembly includes:
an antenna module (Hartner Fig. 1, elements 28 and 30, further, Hartner [0047] “The RF device 100 can comprise a waveguide component 28 having one or more waveguides 30. The waveguide component 28 may or may not be mechanically connected to the printed circuit board 12.” Examiner notes that the “waveguide component” of Hartner is considered as the “antenna module” in the claim.);
a substrate disposed to face one surface of the antenna module and disposed inside the internal space of the housing (Hartner Fig. 1, Element 4),
wherein an antenna chip is mounted to the substrate to transmit or receive a signal through the antenna module (Hartner Fig. 1, element 14, further Hartner [0044] “Accordingly, the RF radiation elements 16 electrically coupled to the RF chip 14 can be configured to emit and/or to receive signals having frequencies in the frequency ranges.”); and
a substrate support frame supporting the substrate in the internal space of the housing (Hartner Fig. 30, further, Hartner [0098] “The plastic polymer fibers 98 can be arranged at least partly in a supporting structure 102.”),
wherein the radar module assembly further comprises a fastner coupling the antenna module, the substrate, and the substrate support frame (Hartner Fig. 12, element 54, further, Hartner [0047] “By way of example, a mechanical connection between the waveguide component 28 and the printed circuit board 12 can be provided using one or more from an adhesive, a solder material, a clamp, a clip, a screw, etc.”).
Hartner fails to teach the limitations below. Kim teaches:
a housing having a internal space (Kim [0041] “Referring to FIG. 2B, a housing 250 is an illustration of the electronic device 200 viewed from above.”);
a radome coupled to the housing to cover the internal space of the housing (Kim Fig. 2a element 201, further, Kim [0038] “Referring to FIG. 2A, the electronic device 200 may include a radome cover 201”),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Kim into the invention of Hartner. Both Hartner and Kim are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose systems for the assembly of radar modules using layered structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus as disclosed by Hartner to incorporate a housing, where the housing includes a radome opposite of the antenna module as taught by Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the apparatus in order to package the invention of Hartner in a housing such that it can be mounted in vehicle applications (See Hartner [0045]) or communicate with another device (See Kim [0116-0119]) .
Regarding claim 15, Hartner in view of Kim teaches the radar module assembly of claim 14. Hartner further teaches [Note: what is not clearly disclosed is strike-through]:
The radar module assembly of claim 14, wherein the antenna chip is a single chip (Hartner [0044] “The RF chip 14 can in particular comprise or correspond to a monolithic microwave integrated circuit (MMIC).”)
Kim teaches:
in which a radio frequency integrated circuit (RFIC) and a micro-controller unit (MCU) are integrated (Kim [0117] “The RF processing unit 1313 may include a plurality of RF processing chains including various processing circuitry. The RF chain may include a plurality of RF elements. The RF elements may include an amplifier, a mixer, an oscillator, a DAC, an ADC, and the like. According to an embodiment, the RF processing chain may be implemented as an RFIC.” Examiner notes that the limitation “micro controller unit (MCU) is a high-level term and is considered to be included in “processing circuitry”.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Kim into the invention of Hartner. Both Hartner and Kim are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose systems for the assembly of radar modules using layered structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus as disclosed by Hartner to integrate an RFIC circuit and a micro-controller unit into the antenna chip as taught by Kim. Hartner is largely silent on the contents of the RF chip component, outside of the fact that it is intended to process microwave signals. A micro-controller unit functionally is any circuit that provides instructions to antenna circuits, which is suggested by the MMIC circuit of Hartner, and the RFIC circuit of Kim could readily be integrated into the antenna chip disclosed in Hartner. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the apparatus in order to utilize an RFIC circuit rather than a MMIC to process radar signals (See Kim [0044], [0072], [0117], Hartner [0044]).
Claim(s) 6, 8, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartner et al. (US 20220247089 A1), hereinafter Hartner, in view of Kim et al. (US 20240056520 A1), hereinafter Kim, and further in view of Viana et al. (US 20020190891 A1), hereinafter Viana.
Regarding claim 6, Hartner in view of Kim discloses the radar module assembly of claim 1. Hartner in view of Kim fails to disclose the limitation below. Viana discloses:
The radar module assembly of claim 1, wherein the antenna chip is mounted on one surface of the substrate facing the antenna module (Viana Fig. 5, where element 80 is interpreted as the “antenna module” of the instant application, element 86 is interpreted as the “substrate” of the instant application, further Vianna [0054] “VCO 106 is provided as a surface mount component disposed on a surface of the substrate 80. Similarly amplifiers 150, 160, 164 and mixer 156 may all be provided as monolithic microwave integrated circuits (MMICs) and disposed on a surface of the substrate 80.”, where the MMIC is interpreted as the “antenna chip” of the instant application.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Viana into the invention of Hartner in view of Kim. The set of Hartner, Kim, and Viana are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they all disclose radar modules comprising layered circuit boards and antenna elements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus as disclosed by Hartner in view of Kim to mount the antenna chip on one surface of the substrate facing the antenna module as taught by Viana. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify apparatus in order to create an alternative arrangement of the waveguide in the antenna module that can be achieved by relocating the RF circuit relative to the bottom side of the substrate of Hartner (See Figs. 28 and 29 of Hartner).
Regarding claim 8, Hartner in view of Kim, and further in view of Viana discloses the radar module assembly of claim 6. Hartner further discloses [Note: what is not clearly disclosed is strike-through]:
wherein the substrate includes:
a radio frequency (RF) PCB substrate (Hartner [0042] “In some implementations, the RF chip 14 can be a “bare die”, e.g., an unpackaged semiconductor chip.”)
Kim discloses:
(Kim Fig. 5A, elements 510 and 530, Kim [0052] “The RU module 220 may include a first substrate 530 corresponding to an antenna board of the antenna module 213. The first substrate 530 may include a radiator 535.” , further, Kim [0057] “The second substrate 510 may include a via hole 520 (e.g., a low-cost frame retardant (FR)-4) and a feedline 521.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus as disclosed by Hartner to include a RF PCB substrate facing the antenna module with a FR4 PCB substrate stacked on the RF PCB substrate as taught by Kim. RF devices are often comprised of substrates, and if the RF device itself is disposed on a substrate that would then imply two adjacent substrates. The RF device would then be facing the antenna module, with the second substrate being the FR4 PCB substrate. The substrate that the RF device is mounted to must comprise a material, and the properties of FR4 make it a common choice for PCB’s. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the apparatus in order to transmit a signal between the RFIC or other control circuits and the antenna emission elements (See Kim [0055-0058]), and to increase the bandwidth of the device (See Kim [0063-0064] .
Regarding claim 13, Hartner in view of Kim discloses the radar module assembly of claim 1. Hartner in view of Kim fails to disclose the limitations below. Viana discloses:
a terminal unit is formed at one side of the internal space of the housing (Viana Fig. 6 element 124, further , Viana [0044] “An electronics portion 120 of the SOD system includes the DSP 114, a power supply 122 and a connector 124 through which signal buses are coupled between the SOD system and a vehicle on which the SOD system is disposed.”) , and
one portion of the terminal portion protrudes to an external terminal connection portion formed at an outside of the housing (Viana Fig. 4A element 76, further, Viana [0075] “Disposed on the housing 270 is an audio output port 274 for an audio detection alert, and audio alert on/off switch 276, a display connector 278 for attachment of a radar display cable, a battery port 280 for attachment of batteries in the alternative power arrangement, and a connector 282 for attachment of vehicle power logic and other signals.”), and
another portion of the terminal portion is electrically connected to the substrate (Viana “RF, DC and logic signals are provided to and from the sensor 70 via the connector 76.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Viana into the invention of Hartner in view of Kim. The set of Hartner, Kim, and Viana are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they all disclose radar modules comprising layered circuit boards and antenna elements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus as disclosed by Hartner in view of Kim to include a terminal unit that protrudes from the main body of the radar module, which is connected to the substrate, as taught by Viana. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify apparatus in order to communicate the signals of radar measurements to external devices such as a network or a vehicle system (See Viana, Abstract, further Viana [0033], [0043-0044], [0075]).
Regarding claim 16, Hartner in view of Kim teaches the radar module assembly of claim 14. Hartner in view of Kim fails to teach the limitations below. Vianna teaches:
wherein the antenna chip is mounted on one surface of the substrate facing the antenna module (Vianna Fig. 5, where element 80 is interpreted as the “antenna module” of the instant application, element 86 is interpreted as the “substrate” of the instant application, further Vianna [0054] “VCO 106 is provided as a surface mount component disposed on a surface of the substrate 80. Similarly amplifiers 150, 160, 164 and mixer 156 may all be provided as monolithic microwave integrated circuits (MMICs) and disposed on a surface of the substrate 80.”, where the MMIC is interpreted as the “antenna chip” of the instant application.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Viana into the invention of Hartner in view of Kim. The set of Hartner, Kim, and Viana are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they all disclose radar modules comprising layered circuit boards and antenna elements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus as disclosed by Hartner in view of Kim to mount the antenna chip on one surface of the substrate facing the antenna module as taught by Viana. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify apparatus in order to create an alternative arrangement of the waveguide in the antenna module that can be achieved by relocating the RF circuit relative to the bottom side of the substrate of Hartner (See Figs. 28 and 29 of Hartner).
Regarding claim 20, Hartner in view of Kim discloses the radar module assembly of claim 1. Hartner in view of Kim fails to disclose the limitation below. Viana discloses:
The radar module assembly of claim 14, wherein:
a terminal unit is formed at one side of the internal space of the housing, and (Viana Fig. 6 element 124, further , Viana [0044] “An electronics portion 120 of the SOD system includes the DSP 114, a power supply 122 and a connector 124 through which signal buses are coupled between the SOD system and a vehicle on which the SOD system is disposed.”)
one portion of the terminal portion protrudes to an external terminal connection portion formed at an outside of the housing, and (Viana Fig. 4A element 76, further, Viana [0075] “Disposed on the housing 270 is an audio output port 274 for an audio detection alert, and audio alert on/off switch 276, a display connector 278 for attachment of a radar display cable, a battery port 280 for attachment of batteries in the alternative power arrangement, and a connector 282 for attachment of vehicle power logic and other signals.”)
another portion of the terminal portion is electrically connected to the substrate (Viana “RF, DC and logic signals are provided to and from the sensor 70 via the connector 76.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Viana into the invention of Hartner in view of Kim. The set of Hartner, Kim, and Viana are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they all disclose radar modules comprising layered circuit boards and antenna elements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus as disclosed by Hartner in view of Kim to include a terminal unit that protrudes from the main body of the radar module, which is connected to the substrate, as taught by Viana. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify apparatus in order to communicate the signals of radar measurements to external devices such as a network or a vehicle system (See Viana, Abstract, further Viana [0033], [0043-0044], [0075]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartner et al. (US 20220247089 A1), hereinafter Hartner, in view of Kim et al. (US 20240056520 A1), hereinafter Kim, and further in view of Viana et al. (US 20020190891 A1), hereinafter Viana, and further in view of Miller MMIC Inc. "MML001 Low Noise Amplificer -MMIC 2.7 - 3 GHz" Datasheet (Year: 2019), hereinafter Miller.
Regarding claim 7, Hartner in view of Kim, and further in view of Viana teaches the radar module of claim 6. Hartner further discloses the limitations below [Note: what is not clearly disclosed is strike-through].
The radar module assembly of claim 6, further comprising:
a gap maintaining portion (Hartner [0053] “The gap 32 can have a width b in a range of approximately 100 micrometers to approximately 250 micrometers”)
wherein the gap maintaining portion is positioned on the one surface of the antenna module facing the substrate to form a gap between the antenna module and the substrate (Hartner [0053] “A gap 32 can be arranged between the top side of the RF package 2 and the underside of the waveguide component 28.”).
Miller discloses:
a gap thicker than the antenna chip (Miller Pg. 4 “Die thickness: 100um” )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Miller into the invention of Hartner in view of Kim, and further in view of Viana. The set of Hartner, Kim, Viana, and Miller are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose the use of integrated RF circuits. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus as disclosed by Hartner in view of Kim, and further in view of Viana to specify a thickness of an antenna chip such that it is smaller than the gap between the antenna module and the substrate as taught by Miller. This is matter of defining the thickness of the RF chip, which as taught by Miller is of typical thickness 100 micrometers, which is smaller than the defined gap of 150 micrometers. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the apparatus in order to utilize a standard commercially available integrated radio circuit.
Claim(s) 10-11 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartner et al. (US 20220247089 A1), hereinafter Hartner, in view of Kim et al. (US 20240056520 A1), hereinafter Kim, and further in view of Leblanc et al. (US 20090135043 A1), hereinafter Leblanc.
Regarding claim 10, Hartner in view of Kim teaches the radar module of claim 9. Hartner in view of Kim fails to teach the limitations below. Leblanc teaches:
wherein the substrate support frame includes:
a base portion having a plate shape and contacting an inner surface of the internal space of the housing (Leblanc [0076] “The frame 176 is a medium or structure in which the PWBs for antennas and electronics for the sensor 160 are disposed in an organized fashion.”, further, Leblanc Fig. 8); and
a sidewall portion protruding toward the substrate from the base portion, and (Leblanc Fig. 8, element 172b, further, Leblanc Fig. 3A)
wherein an edge portion of the substrate is supported by the sidewall portion of the substarte support frame (Leblanc Fig. 8, further, Leblanc [0072] “However, the design would impact the entire thickness of the PWB 134, whereas the techniques described above only requires the top layers for the feed design. Also, the edge of the PWB 134 becomes a critical dimension”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Leblanc into the invention of Hartner in view of Kim. The set of Hartner, Kim and Leblanc are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose radar modules constructed with layers of PCB’s and waveguide structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus as disclosed by Hartner in view of Kim to utilize a support structure where an edge portion of the sidewall supports the substrate as taught by Leblanc. Kim shows a similar packaging arrangement, however the walls of the housing in Kim do not have the particular support features shown by Leblanc. To perform the modification would require modifications to the design of the housing in Kim, and the design of a support plate as shown in Leblanc. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the apparatus in order to reflect signals coming from the antenna array and reflect them towards the geodome, essentially shielding one side of the radar module (See Leblanc, [0009], [0072], [0077] ).
Regarding claim 11, Hartner in view of Kim teaches the radar module assembly of claim 9. Hartner in view of Kim further teaches [Note: what is not clearly taught is strike-through]:
The radar module assembly of claim 9, wherein the fastner couples the antenna module (Hartner Fig. 12, elements 28 and 54), to (Leblanc [0109] “As shown in FIG. 8, the shield 172 and radar electronics module are secured to the housing via screws 300 which fasten the shield 172 and radar electronics module to the housing 162 (FIG. 8).”).
Hartner in view of Kim does not teach the limitations below. Leblanc teaches:
the substrate (Leblanc Fig. 8 element 108a), and the substrate support frame to an inside of the internal space of the housing (Leblanc [0109] “As shown in FIG. 8, the shield 172 and radar electronics module are secured to the housing via screws 300 which fasten the shield 172 and radar electronics module to the housing 162 (FIG. 8).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Leblanc into the invention of Hartner in view of Kim. The set of Hartner, Kim and Leblanc are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose radar modules constructed with layers of PCB’s and waveguide structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus as disclosed by Hartner in view of Kim to couple the antenna module, the substrate, and the support structure to the housing using fasteners as taught by Leblanc. Hartner already shows fasteners coupling an antenna module and a support structure, and would need to incorporate the support structure and particular housing shown in Leblanc to perform the combination. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the apparatus in order to accurately affix a support structure with built in waveguide elements to the housing, effectively creating a sealed region between the support structure and the RF chip (See Leblanc [0009]), and such that the alignment of the waveguide feeds and the antenna elements is optimal (See Leblanc, [0052-0054] ).
Regarding claim 17, Hartner in view of Kim teaches the radar module assembly of claim 14. Hartner in view of Kim fails to teach the limitations below. Leblanc teaches:
wherein the substrate support frame includes:
(Leblanc [0076] “The frame 176 is a medium or structure in which the PWBs for antennas and electronics for the sensor 160 are disposed in an organized fashion.”, further, Leblanc Fig. 8)
(Leblanc Fig. 8, element 172b, further, Leblanc Fig. 3A)
(Leblanc Fig. 8, further, Leblanc [0072] “However, the design would impact the entire thickness of the PWB 134, whereas the techniques described above only requires the top layers for the feed design. Also, the edge of the PWB 134 becomes a critical dimension”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Leblanc into the invention of Hartner in view of Kim. The set of Hartner, Kim and Leblanc are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose radar modules constructed with layers of PCB’s and waveguide structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus as disclosed by Hartner in view of Kim to utilize a support structure where an edge portion of the sidewall supports the substrate as taught by Leblanc. Kim shows a similar packaging arrangement, however the walls of the housing in Kim do not have the particular support features shown by Leblanc. To perform the modification would require modifications to the design of the housing in Kim, and the design of a support plate as shown in Leblanc. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the apparatus in order to reflect signals coming from the antenna array and reflect them towards the geodome, essentially shielding one side of the radar module (See Leblanc, [0009], [0072], [0077] ).
Regarding claim 18, Hartner in view of Kim teaches the radar module assembly of claim 14. Hartner in view of Kim further teaches [Note: what is not clearly taught is strike-through]:
The radar module assembly of claim 14, wherein the fastner couples the antenna module (Hartner Fig. 12, elements 28 and 54), (Leblanc Fig. 8 element 108a)(Leblanc [0109] “As shown in FIG. 8, the shield 172 and radar electronics module are secured to the housing via screws 300 which fasten the shield 172 and radar electronics module to the housing 162 (FIG. 8).”).
Hartner in view of Kim fails to teach the limitations below. Leblanc teaches:
the substrate (Leblanc Fig. 8 element 108a), and the substrate support frame to an inside of the internal space of the housing (Leblanc [0109] “As shown in FIG. 8, the shield 172 and radar electronics module are secured to the housing via screws 300 which fasten the shield 172 and radar electronics module to the housing 162 (FIG. 8).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Leblanc into the invention of Hartner in view of Kim. The set of Hartner, Kim and Leblanc are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose radar modules constructed with layers of PCB’s and waveguide structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus as disclosed by Hartner in view of Kim to couple the antenna module, the substrate, and the support structure to the housing using fasteners as taught by Leblanc. Hartner already shows fasteners coupling an antenna module and a support structure, and would need to incorporate the support structure and particular housing shown in Leblanc to perform the combination. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the apparatus in order to accurately affix a support structure with built in waveguide elements to the housing, effectively creating a sealed region between the support structure and the RF chip (See Leblanc [0009]), and such that the alignment of the waveguide feeds and the antenna elements is optimal (See Leblanc, [0052-0054] ).
Claim(s) 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartner et al. (US 20220247089 A1), hereinafter Hartner, in view of Kim et al. (US 20240056520 A1), hereinafter Kim, and further in view of Alexanian et al. (US 20210247512 A1), hereinafter Alexanian.
Regarding claim 12, Hartner in view of Kim teaches the radar module of claim 9. Hartner in view of Kim fails to teach the limitations below. Alexanian teaches:
a position fixing groove is formed on one side portion of the antenna module (Alexanian Fib. 6B element 400 acts as a combined housing and antenna module), the substrate (Alexanian Fig. 7A element 730 shows positioning grooves in a substrate, further, Alexanian [0065], “Still another example of an alternative embodiment of a RADAR sensor assembly 700 is depicted in FIGS. 7A-11. FIGS. 7A and 7B depict opposing sides of a substrate layer 730 of assembly 700.”), and the substrate support frame (Alexanian Fig. 8 element 740), and
a position fixing protrusion is formed on a sidewall portion of the internal space of the housing at a position corresponding to the position fixing groove (Alexanian Fig. 5 element 405 shows sidewall protrusions, further, Alexanian Fig 8 element 705).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Alexanian into the invention of Hartner in view of Kim. The set of Hartner, Kim, and Alexanian are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose assemblies of radar circuitry including substrates. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus as disclosed by Hartner in view of Kim to embed a guiding notch protrusion in the housing, which matches grooves in a substrate and antenna module as taught by Alexanian. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the apparatus in order to ensure that the components within the housing can only be inserted in one orientation, improving the alignment of the layered components.
Regarding claim 19, Hartner in view of Kim teaches the radar module assembly of claim 14. Hartner in view of Kim fails to teach the limitations below:
a position fixing groove is formed on one side portion of the antenna module (Alexanian Fib. 6B element 400 acts as a combined housing and antenna module), the substrate (Alexanian Fig. 7A element 730 shows positioning grooves in a substrate, further, Alexanian [0065], “Still another example of an alternative embodiment of a RADAR sensor assembly 700 is depicted in FIGS. 7A-11. FIGS. 7A and 7B depict opposing sides of a substrate layer 730 of assembly 700.”), and the substrate support frame (Alexanian Fig. 8 element 740), and
a position fixing protrusion is formed on a sidewall portion of the internal space of the housing at a position corresponding to the position fixing groove (Alexanian Fig. 5 element 405 shows sidewall protrusions, further, Alexanian Fig 8 element 705).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Alexanian into the invention of Hartner in view of Kim. The set of Hartner, Kim, and Alexanian are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose assemblies of radar circuitry including substrates. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus as disclosed by Hartner in view of Kim to embed a guiding notch protrusion in the housing, which matches grooves in a substrate and antenna module as taught by Alexanian. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the apparatus in order to ensure that the components within the housing can only be inserted in one orientation, improving the alignment of the layered components.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS JAMES HALLORAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8643. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-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, 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.
/T.J.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights