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 .
Pending Claims
Acknowledgment is made of the preliminary amendment submitted on February 28, 2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 28, 2025, is in accordance with provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show
“cavities”, see specifications, page 29, lines 13 and 17 as described in the specification.
Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“cavities”, is not labeled, see specifications, page 29, lines 13 and 17.
When there are drawings, there shall be a brief description of the several views of the drawings and the detailed description of the invention shall refer to the different views by specifying the numbers of the figures and to the different parts by use of reference letters or numerals (preferably the latter). (see MPEP 37 CFR 1.74 ).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
The term “between” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “between” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Something cannot be guided “between” a single component. To guide anything it has to be guided between at least two components to make sense. Claims 2-20 depend therefrom and therefore inherit the indefiniteness.
For purpose of examination the examiner interpret the claims as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7-8, 10-14, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220256685 by Scott D. Brandenburg et al. (hereinafter Brandenburg et al.) in view of US 20190081412 by Ulf Hügel et al. (hereinafter Hügel et al.).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Brandenburg et al. teaches An antenna device for automotive radar applications (¶ 0036, fig. 3 [300] annotated hereinbelow) comprising
a. a printed circuit board (fig. 3 [206] annotated hereinbelow) having a front face and a back face (fig. 3 annotated hereinbelow) and an electronic component (fig. 3 [302] annotated hereinbelow) which is interconnected to the printed circuit board (¶ 0030),
b. an antenna layer (fig. 3 [202] annotated hereinbelow) having a front face and a back face (fig. 3 annotated hereinbelow), which back face is interconnected to the front face of the printed circuit board (¶ 0031, fig. 3 annotated hereinbelow), wherein
i. at least one waveguide aperture (fig. 3 [204] annotated hereinbelow) is interconnected to the front face of the antenna layer and is communicatively connected to the electronic component by at least one waveguide channel (¶ 0027, fig. 3 annotated hereinbelow).
PNG
media_image1.png
350
965
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Brandenburg et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one waveguide channel comprises a conductive surface for guiding an electromagnetic field between the electronic component and is formed by a recess arranged between the back face of the antenna layer and the front face of the printed circuit board.
However, Hügel et al., as best understood, teaches wherein the at least one waveguide channel comprises a conductive surface for guiding an electromagnetic field between the electronic component (fig. 8 [21’] annotated hereinbelow) and is formed by a recess (fig. 8 [130] annotated hereinbelow) arranged between the back face of the antenna layer and the front face of the printed circuit board (¶ 0050, fig. 8 annotated hereinbelow).
PNG
media_image2.png
777
799
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the at least one waveguide channel comprises a conductive surface for guiding an electromagnetic field between the electronic component and is formed by a recess arranged between the back face of the antenna layer and the front face of the printed circuit board as taught by Hügel et al. in the antenna device of Brandenburg et al. for the benefit of transmitting signals within the structure (Hügel et al., ¶ 0002).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Brandenburg et al. teaches wherein the recess is at least partially formed by at least one of the following: a deepening in the back face of the antenna layer (fig. 5F annotated hereinbelow).
PNG
media_image3.png
761
1008
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Brandenburg et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the protrusions laterally delimit the recess and form an electromagnetic band-gap structure with the front face of the printed circuit board.
However, Hügel et al., as best understood, teaches wherein the protrusions laterally delimit the recess and form an electromagnetic band-gap structure with the front face of the printed circuit board (¶ 0029, fig. 8 annotated hereinbelow).
PNG
media_image4.png
777
799
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the protrusions laterally delimit the recess and form an electromagnetic band-gap structure with the front face of the printed circuit board as taught by Hügel et al. in the antenna device of Brandenburg et al. for the benefit of improving the signal directivity and increasing the antenna gain.
Examiner’s Note regarding the other limitations in the claim [i.e. protrusions extending above the back face of the antenna layer and a planar metallic structure on the front face of the printed circuit board] are recited as alternative limitations.
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Brandenburg et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the planar metallic structure comprises a number of patches which laterally delimit the recess and form an electromagnetic band-gap structure with the protrusions or the back face of the antenna layer.
However, Hügel et al., as best understood, teaches wherein the planar metallic structure comprises a number of patches which laterally delimit the recess and form an electromagnetic band-gap structure with the protrusions or the back face of the antenna layer (¶ 0009, fig. 5 annotated hereinbelow).
PNG
media_image5.png
879
1147
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the planar metallic structure comprises a number of patches which laterally delimit the recess and form an electromagnetic band-gap structure with the protrusions or the back face of the antenna layer as taught by Hügel et al. in the antenna device for automotive radar applications of Brandenburg et al. for the benefit of suppressing unwanted surface electromagnetic waves.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Brandenburg et al. teaches wherein the antenna layer is at least partially made from a metallic material and comprises a metallization layer forming a conductive surface (¶ 0031).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Brandenburg et al. does not explicitly teach wherein at least one waveguide aperture is incorporated behind the front face of the antenna layer as a penetration in a conductive surface.
However, Hügel et al., as best understood, teaches wherein at least one waveguide aperture is incorporated behind the front face of the antenna layer as a penetration in a conductive surface (¶ 0137, fig. 12-13 [203] annotated hereinbelow).
PNG
media_image6.png
459
1312
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
551
937
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein at least one waveguide aperture is incorporated behind the front face of the antenna layer as a penetration in a conductive surface as taught by Hügel et al. in the antenna device of Brandenburg et al. for the benefit of transferring energy.
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Brandenburg et al. teaches wherein at least one waveguide aperture is incorporated as a cavity (fig. 6B [606]) in the back face (fig. 6B [614]) of the antenna layer, which cavity is at least partially filled by a material that is permeable for electromagnetic waves (¶ 0053).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Brandenburg et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the electronic component is arranged at the back face of the printed circuit board communicatively connected to the at least one waveguide channel by a feeding aperture extending across the printed circuit board from the back face to the front face.
However, Hügel et al., as best understood, teaches wherein the electronic component (fig. 8 [21’] annotated hereinbelow) is arranged at the back face of the printed circuit board communicatively connected to the at least one waveguide channel by a feeding aperture extending (fig. 12 [201] annotated hereinbelow) across the printed circuit board from the back face to the front face (¶ 0136, fig. 12 annotated hereinbelow).
PNG
media_image8.png
777
799
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
459
1312
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the electronic component is arranged at the back face of the printed circuit board communicatively connected to the at least one waveguide channel by a feeding aperture extending across the printed circuit board from the back face to the front face as taught by Hügel et al. in the antenna device of Brandenburg et al. for the benefit of transmitting signals within the structure (Hügel et al., ¶ 0002).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Brandenburg et al. teaches wherein the electronic component is arranged at the front face of the printed circuit board being in an assembled state encompassed by a receiving space within the antenna layer (fig. 8 annotated hereinbelow).
PNG
media_image9.png
344
999
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Brandenburg et al. teaches wherein a feeding aperture is arranged in the back face of the antenna layer merging into a waveguide channel which merges into the waveguide aperture arranged at the front face of the antenna layer (¶ 0053, line 10-12, fig. 6A-6B annotated hereinbelow).
PNG
media_image10.png
829
1061
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
625
1090
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Brandenburg et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the antenna layer comprises a ridge which is arranged within the recess and extends substantially along the waveguide channel.
However, Hügel et al., as best understood, teaches wherein the antenna layer comprises a ridge which is arranged within the recess and extends substantially along the waveguide channel (¶ 0118, fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the antenna layer comprises a ridge which is arranged within the recess and extends substantially along the waveguide channel as taught by Hügel et al. in the antenna device of Brandenburg et al. for the benefit of transferring electromagnetic signals from a band gap cavity into a waveguide channel without requiring physical electrical contact.
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, Brandenburg et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the front face of the antenna layer is designed as a corrugated surface comprising arrays of indentations for reducing the overall permittivity.
However, Hügel et al., as best understood, teaches wherein the front face of the antenna layer is designed as a corrugated surface comprising arrays of indentations for reducing the overall permittivity (¶ 0062, fig. 5, 8 annotated hereinbelow).
PNG
media_image12.png
879
1147
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
777
919
media_image13.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the front face of the antenna layer is designed as a corrugated surface comprising arrays of indentations for reducing the overall permittivity as taught by Hügel et al. in the antenna device of Brandenburg et al. for the benefit of improving channel isolation and preventing signal leakage (Hügel et al., ¶ 0062).
Regarding claim 19, as best understood, Brandenburg et al. teaches wherein the antenna layer is made as an integral component of a body part (fig. 3).
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandenburg et al. in view of Hügel et al. and in further view of US 20200194900 by Scott B. Doyle et al. (hereinafter Doyle et al.).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Brandenburg et al. and Hügel et al. do not explicitly teach wherein the front face of the antenna layer is configured to function as a radome that protects at least the front face of the printed circuit board from environmental influences.
However, Doyle et al., as best understood, teaches wherein the front face of the antenna layer is configured to function as a radome that protects at least the front face of the printed circuit board from environmental influences (¶ 0054, fig. 6 [660]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the front face of the antenna layer is configured to function as a radome that protects at least the front face of the printed circuit board from environmental influences as taught by Doyle et al. in the antenna device of Brandenburg et al. and Hügel et al. for the benefit of providing protection against environmental hazards (Doyle et al., ¶ 0054).
Claim(s) 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandenburg et al. in view of Hügel et al. and in further view of US 20190013589 by Hiroyuki Kamo et al. (hereinafter Kamo et al.).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Brandenburg et al. and Hügel et al. do not explicitly teach wherein the penetration is established by a material ablation process step.
Examiner’s Note regarding the process of “wherein the penetration is established by a material ablation process step” – Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. "In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)”. (See MPEP 2113, Section I).
However, Kamo et al., as best understood, teaches wherein the penetration is established by a material ablation process step (¶ 0082).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the penetration is established by a material ablation process step as taught by Kamo et al. in the antenna device of Brandenburg et al. and Hügel et al. for the benefit of removing material in a cost-effective manner (Kamo et al., ¶ 0100).
Regarding claim 20, as best understood, Brandenburg et al. and Hügel et al. do not explicitly teach wherein the material ablation process step is one out of the group from the following: a laser process and a cutting process.
Examiner’s Note regarding the process of “wherein the material ablation process step is one out of the group from the following: a laser process and a cutting process” – Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. "In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)”. (See MPEP 2113, Section I).
However, Kamo et al., as best understood, teaches wherein the material ablation process step is one out of the group from the following: a laser process and a cutting process (¶ 0082).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the material ablation process step is one out of the group from the following: a laser process and a cutting process as taught by Kamo et al. in the antenna device of Brandenburg et al. and Hügel et al. for the benefit of removing material in a cost-effective manner (Kamo et al., ¶ 0100).
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandenburg et al. in view of Hügel et al. and in further view of US 20180034140 by Benjamin Chen et al. (hereinafter Chen et al.).
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, Brandenburg et al. and Hügel et al. do not explicitly teach wherein the antenna layer is made by an injection molding process made of a foamed material.
Examiner’s Note regarding the process of “wherein the antenna layer is made by an injection molding process made of a foamed material” – Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. "In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)”. (See MPEP 2113, Section I).
However, Chen et al., as best understood, teaches wherein the antenna layer is made by an injection molding process made of a foamed material (¶ 0040).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the antenna layer is made by an injection molding process made of a foamed material as taught by Kamo et al. in the antenna device of Brandenburg et al. and Hügel et al. for the benefit of reducing production time, weight, and costs (Chen et al., ¶ 0025).
Claim(s) 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandenburg et al. in view of Hügel et al. and in further view of US 20240136723 by Alejandro Garcia Tejero et al. (hereinafter Tejero et al.).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood, Brandenburg et al. and Hügel et al. do not explicitly teach wherein a scattering surface is arranged:
a. at the back face of the antenna layer adjacent to the at least one waveguide channel consisting of protrusions and/or grooves being arranged in columns, and/or
b. at the front face of the printed circuit board comprising arrays of planar metallic structure.
However, Tejero et al., as best understood, teaches wherein a scattering surface is arranged (¶ 0138): at the back face of the antenna layer (fig. 21 [115’] annotated hereinbelow) adjacent to the at least one waveguide channel consisting of protrusions and/or grooves being arranged in columns (fig. 1 [111, 112]; fig. 21 [115’] annotated hereinbelow).
PNG
media_image14.png
908
1129
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
927
1237
media_image15.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein a scattering surface is arranged: at the back face of the antenna layer adjacent to the at least one waveguide channel consisting of protrusions and/or grooves being arranged in columns as taught by Tejero et al. in the antenna device of Brandenburg et al. and Hügel et al. for the benefit of improving antenna performance by reducing signal reflections (Tejero et al., ¶ 0138).
Examiner’s Note regarding the other limitations in the claim [i.e. and/or b. at the front face of the printed circuit board comprising arrays of planar metallic structure.] are recited and interpreted as alternative limitations.
Regarding claim 18, as best understood, Brandenburg et al. teaches wherein the protrusions and/or grooves of a first column are displaced with respect to protrusions and/or grooves of a neighboring column by a length essentially equal to a multiple of half a wavelength (¶ 0056, fig. 3 [204).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandenburg et al. in view of Hügel et al. and in further view of US 20170126046 by Harry Contopanagos et al. (hereinafter Contopanagos et al.).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Brandenburg et al. and Hügel et al. do not explicitly teach wherein the front face of the printed circuit board is at least partially covered by a number of metallic patches which are arranged as a periodic structure and form an artificial magnetic conductor.
However, Contopanagos et al., as best understood, teaches wherein the front face of the printed circuit board is at least partially covered by a number of metallic patches (fig. 1A [104b] annotated hereinbelow) which are arranged as a periodic structure (¶ 0050, fig. 1A annotated hereinbelow) and form an artificial magnetic conductor (¶ 0052).
PNG
media_image16.png
715
940
media_image16.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include wherein the front face of the printed circuit board is at least partially covered by a number of metallic patches which are arranged as a periodic structure and form an artificial magnetic conductor as taught by Contopanagos et al. in the antenna device of Brandenburg et al. and Hügel et al. for the benefit of increasing the directivity of the signal and the overall radiation efficiency.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20230253717 by Julius Petersson et al.
US 11616291 by Jamal Izadian et al.
US 20230036066 by Carlo Bencivenni et al.
US 11201414 by Scott B. Doyle et al.
US 20200052413 by Jamal Izadian et al.
US 20180241133 by Jamal Izadian et al.
US 20180123260 by Benjamin Sikes et al.
US 7411565 by William E. McKinzie, III et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE A. MIRANDA GONZALEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6070. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm, ET.
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, Dameon E. Levi can be reached at 571-272-2105. 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.
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/JOSE A. MIRANDA GONZALEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights