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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 03/12/2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/12/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is 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.
Claim 15 is 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.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "at least two radar systems". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear to the Examiner whether the two radar systems refer to duplications of the radar system recited in claim 1 or whether additional radar systems with differing properties are being introduced. For the purposes of this examination, the Examiner will interpret claim 15 as introducing two additional radar systems. Appropriate correction is required.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 14-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bishel (WO 2024030302 A1), hereinafter Bishel.
Regarding claim 1, Bishel discloses
A radar system for a driver-assistance system of a vehicle, the radar system comprising (See at least Figs. 9A, 9C, 10B, [004] “operation of such radar transceivers and uses of the measured distance, such as, for example, controlling or assisting with lateral steering or positioning of a vehicle on a driving surface”):
a body with at least two side faces, wherein each one of the at least two side faces is oriented in a different direction (See at least Figs. 9A, 9C, 10B, [00226] “the radar transceiver 119 according to another embodiment comprises two independent transceivers, one directed right and one facing left.”); and
a separate radar subunit arranged on each one of the at least two side faces, wherein each one of the radar subunits includes at least one transmitting (TX) channel and at least one receiving (RX) channel (See at least Figs. 9A, 9C, 10B, [00226] “the radar transceiver 119 according to another embodiment comprises two independent transceivers, one directed right and one facing left.” ).
Regarding claim 5, Bishel, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Bishel additionally discloses
the body has four side faces, and the four side faces form a cubic-shaped configuration (See at least Figs. 9A, 9C, 10B, [00224] “a radar transceiver 119 can be mounted in the center front of the vehicle 180 and see in both directions, right and left side of the vehicle 180” The Examiner additional notes that the instant specification discloses a cubic shape by having 4 side faces with [0013] “the four side faces form an essentially cubic shape of the body. Thus, the body may have a cubic structure, which is defined by the four side faces”).
Regarding claim 7, Bishel, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Bishel additionally discloses
the body includes a connection element adapted for attaching the body to a body of a vehicle (See at least Fig. 9A, [00212] “the radar 116 attached to the vehicle 180”).
Regarding claim 14, Bishel, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Bishel additionally discloses
the radar system of the radar system of wherein the body of the radar system is integrated in a body of the vehicle (See at least Figs. 9B-9C [00222] “The vehicle 180 has two radar transceivers 116 and 117 mounted to front sides of the vehicle 180.”, [00262] “the radar transceiver can be packaged in a turn-signal light, marker light, or other light assembly on the vehicle. For example, the radar transceiver may be integrated with such a light or added as a retro-fit add-on under an existing lights exterior cover.”).
Regarding claim 15, Bishel, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 14. Bishel additionally discloses
at least two radar systems, wherein the at least two radar systems are arranged on opposing sides of the vehicle (See at least Fig. 9C, [00224] “Figure 9C shows another embodiment in which multiple radar transceivers 117 can be installed at several places on the left side of the vehicle 180 and similarly one or more radar transceivers 116 can be installed on the right side the vehicle 180”).
Regarding claim 16, Bishel, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 14. Bishel additionally discloses
the body of the radar system is attached to the body of the vehicle at a low edge of the body of the vehicle and/or at least partially beneath a bottom surface of the vehicle (See at least Fig. 10B (provided below)
PNG
media_image1.png
431
584
media_image1.png
Greyscale
)
Regarding claim 20, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1, shown above. Bishel additionally discloses
wherein the radar system is attached to a body of the vehicle at a low edge of the body of the vehicle and/or at least partially beneath a bottom surface of the vehicle (See at least Fig. 10B (provided below)
PNG
media_image1.png
431
584
media_image1.png
Greyscale
).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bishel, in view of Wen (US 5115245 A), hereinafter Wen.
Regarding claim 2, Bishel, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Bishel does not explicitly disclose each one of the radar subunits is implemented using a monolithic microwave integrated circuit (MMIC). However, Wen, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
each one of the radar subunits is implemented using a monolithic microwave integrated circuit (MMIC) (See at least Col. 4 Lines 21-22 “The elements 40, 42, 44, 46, 52 and 54 are integrated into a single MMIC radar transceiver chip 58”, Col. 5 Lines 19-20 “The particular architecture of the MMIC transceiver chip 58, as well as the chips 56 and 60”).
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 system disclosed by Bishel with the MMIC system disclosed by Wen. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce cost (See at least Col. 2 Lines 14-16 “a low cost method for fabricating hybrid MMIC assemblies or modules including a radar transceiver,”).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bishel, in view of Lombardo (US 20220236375 A1), hereinafter Lombardo.
Regarding claim 3, Bishel, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Bishel does not explicitly disclose each one of the radar subunits has at least two RX channels. However, Lombardo, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
each one of the radar subunits has at least two RX channels (See at least Fig. 2, [0018] “each MMIC has in each case one TX channel and three RX channels”).
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 system disclosed by Bishel with the receive system disclosed by Lombardo. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously enable high angular resolution (See at least [0004] “Modern integrated radar systems usually comprise a multiplicity of transmission and reception channels in order to enable a high angular resolution during the detection of objects in the field of view of the radar system (radar target) using beamforming techniques.”).
Regarding claim 4, Bishel, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Bishel does not explicitly disclose each one of the radar subunits has at least three RX channels. However, Lombardo, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
each one of the radar subunits has at least three RX channels (See at least Fig. 2, [0018] “each MMIC has in each case one TX channel and three RX channels”).
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 system disclosed by Bishel with the receive system disclosed by Lombardo. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously enable high angular resolution (See at least [0004] “Modern integrated radar systems usually comprise a multiplicity of transmission and reception channels in order to enable a high angular resolution during the detection of objects in the field of view of the radar system (radar target) using beamforming techniques.”).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bishel, in view of Pan (US 20220179074 A1), hereinafter Pan.
Regarding claim 6, Bishel, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Bishel further discloses
the body has a top face that adjoins edges of the at least two side faces (See at least Figs. 9A, 9C, 10B, [00224] “a radar transceiver 119 can be mounted in the center front of the vehicle 180 and see in both directions, right and left side of the vehicle 180”), and
Bishel does not explicitly disclose the radar system includes a control unit of the radar subunits arranged on the top face. However, Pan, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the radar system includes a control unit of the radar subunits arranged on the top face (See at least [0006] “a control module affixed to a PCB to the top face of the frame”, [0071] “the embodiments may be readily adapted for optical imaging systems or radar detection systems that use electromagnetic waves to scan objects”).
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 system disclosed by Bishel with the control system disclosed by Pan. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously enable efficient space usage (See at least [0043] “control module 222 may share the interface circuits integrated on interface module 226. This can further free up the space occupied by those modules. As will be described in detail below, interface module 226 may include a PCB for providing support, mounting, and protections to the integrated interface circuits”).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bishel, in view of Ikeda (US 20240027060 A1), hereinafter Ikeda.
Regarding claim 8, Bishel, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 7. Bishel does not explicitly disclose the body includes a protection element arranged at a bottom side opposite of the connection element of the body. However, Ikeda, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the body includes a protection element arranged at a bottom side opposite of the connection element of the body (See at least Figs. 2, 4, [0031] “The housing 7 is configured with a cover 33 and a panel 47” Ikeda discloses a radar sensor including a protective cover on the bottom when mounted by a top portion).
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 system disclosed by Bishel with the protection system disclosed by Ikeda. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously provide an arrangement to protect the radar from environmental factors, thereby increasing accuracy (See at least [0074] “This prevents the radar unit 11 from being exposed to high temperatures and prevents the detection accuracy of the radar unit 11 from being degraded”).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bishel, in view of Ikeda, in further view of Yu (US 20210063557 A1), hereinafter Yu.
Regarding claim 9, The combination of Bishel and Ikeda, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 7, and 8. The combination of Bishel and Ikeda does not explicitly disclose the body includes a core element that is arranged inside the body and that extends from the connection element to the protection element. However, Yu, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the body includes a core element that is arranged inside the body and that extends from the connection element to the protection element (See at least Fig. 1B-1C, items 180, 183, [0040] “The housing 180 includes a bottom 183.” Yu discloses opposite housing (protective and connective) elements connected by internal supports (core)).
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 system disclosed by Bishel with the protection system disclosed by Ikeda with the core system disclosed by Yu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously support design for effective detection to increase safety (See at least [0006] “vehicle radar device which is featured with effectively detected the object all around by vehicles their selves, especially large vehicles, in order to prevent the car accident”).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bishel, in view of Arakawa (US 20220003833 A1), hereinafter Arakawa.
Regarding claim 10, Bishel, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Bishel does not explicitly disclose a housing that is arranged such that a boresight of one of the radar subunits is incident on a surface of the housing at a Brewster angle. However, Arakawa, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
a housing that is arranged such that a boresight of one of the radar subunits is incident on a surface of the housing at a Brewster angle (See at least [0005] “The angle of incidence of radar waves radiated from the array antenna inside the cover of the planar part is less than or equal to the Brewster's angle.”).
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 system disclosed by Bishel with the housing system disclosed by Arakawa. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously suppress unwanted reflectance signals (See at least [0005] “Therefore, reflectance of horizontally polarized waves of radar waves can be suppressed by the cover part of the radome.”).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bishel, in view of Campbell (US 20170248688 A1), hereinafter Campbell.
Regarding claim 11, Bishel, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Bishel does not explicitly disclose the radar system covers an azimuth field of view of at least 180 degrees. However, Campbell, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the radar system covers an azimuth field of view of at least 180 degrees (See at least [0023] “The present disclosure may use multiple separate radar sensor units, each configured to scan over a portion of the azimuth plane to achieve a full 360 FOV”).
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 system disclosed by Bishel with the azimuth system disclosed by Campbell. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously increase accuracy (See at least [0023] “By having data from 360 degrees, the vehicle may more accurately sense objects near the vehicle to aid in safe driving and navigation”).
Regarding claim 12, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 11. Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 11, shown above.
Regarding claim 13, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 11. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 11, shown above.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bishel, in view of Ju (US 20220196802 A1), hereinafter Ju.
Regarding claim 17, Bishel, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 14. Bishel further discloses
the body of the radar system is configured such that a main line of sight of one of the radar subunits is different from a horizontal plane, and (See at least Fig. 10B)
Bishel does not explicitly disclose the body of the radar system is tilted such that the main line of sight of one of the radar subunits is tilted by 5 degrees relative to the horizontal plane. However, Ju, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the body of the radar system is tilted such that the main line of sight of one of the radar subunits is tilted by 5 degrees relative to the horizontal plane (See at least Figs. 1-2, [0031] “a central axis of the top laser radar 110 may tilt backward by 5 to 15 degrees with respect to the vertical direction.”).
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 system disclosed by Bishel with the tilt system disclosed by Ju. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve sensing (See at least [0031] “the promotion sensing range of the top laser radar 110 may be improved”).
Regarding claim 18, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 17. Accordingly, claim 18 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 17, shown above.
Regarding claim 19, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 17. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 17, shown above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mannhart (US 20240109613 A1) - A robotic vehicle (1) comprises a body (2) and two wheeled legs (3) for locomotion. The two legs (3) are attached to opposing sides of the body (2). For each of the two legs, the leg (3) comprises a respective hip joint (31), an upper link (32), a knee joint (33), a lower link (34), a wheel joint (35), and a wheel (36). For at least one of the two legs (3), in particular for both, the relative angular position of the respective hip joint (31) has a range of at least 180°.
Meyers (US 20100087967 A1) - A radar system comprises a plurality of antenna sub-systems, each operable to transmit and receive radio frequency (RF) signals in a corresponding sector, wherein the plurality of antenna sub-systems are positioned such that the corresponding sectors cover a total range of about 180 degrees to about 360 degrees without rotation of the radar system. The radar system also comprises shared backend circuitry coupled to each of the plurality of antenna sub-systems and operable to process signals from each of the plurality of antenna sub-systems to detect the presence of an obstacle in one of the corresponding sectors.
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
Prosecution Insights