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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9, 11, 13-15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki.
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki discloses (Figs. 1-11) a radar device (1) comprising: at least one antenna (3) having a field of view; and a radome (2, 10) covering the at least one antenna, wherein the radome includes a first layer (2) and a second layer (10) in form of a layer stack (see Fig. 1), and wherein the layer stack is configured to have a low reflection for radar waves ([0006]).
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki discloses (Figs. 1-11) the first layer forms a radome layer (2) and the second layer forms an absorber layer (10) from a material with a higher radar wave absorption capacity than the material of the first layer ([0049]), and the absorber layer is arranged between the radome layer and the at least one antenna (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Suzuki discloses (Figs. 1-11) wherein the second layer is arranged outside of the field of view of the at least one antenna (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki discloses (Figs. 1-11) one or more gaps are provided in the second layer adjacent to the at least one antenna, and the gaps cover the field of view (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki discloses (Figs. 1-11) wherein the first layer has a relative permittivity in a range of 2 to 4 ([0011]).
Regarding claim 9, Suzuki discloses (Figs. 1-11) wherein the second layer has a relative permittivity in a range 10 to 15 ([0049]).
Regarding claim 11, Suzuki discloses (Figs. 1-11) wherein the second layer has a transmission damping of at least 15 dB (the Examiner has reason to believe that “wherein the second layer has a transmission damping of at least 15 dB”; therefore, this limitation, which refers entirely to a property or function of the explicitly recited structure of 11, which structure, as described herein, reads on the antenna of Suzuki, is presumed inherent to the antenna of Suzuki, as permitted by the legal principles outlined in MPEP 2112.01(I); for further information see also In Re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (CAFC 1997), which states that: "A patent applicant is free to recite features of an apparatus either structurally or functionally. . . . Yet, choosing to define an element functionally, i.e., by what it does, carries with it a risk . . . As our predecessor court stated in Swinehart, 439 F.2d at 213, 169 USPQ at 228: where the Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on.").
Regarding claim 13, Suzuki discloses (Figs. 1-11) wherein the first layer is made of a compound including at least one of Polybutylenterephthalat (PBT) or Polycarbonat (PC) ([0049]).
Regarding claim 14, Suzuki discloses (Figs. 1-11) wherein the compound includes a glass fiber reinforcement in a range 10% to 50% ([0049]).
Regarding claim 15, Suzuki discloses (Figs. 1-11) wherein the first and second layers are molded onto each other via injection molding (This limitation is in regards to how the layers were made, which does not meaningfully provide any structural limitations. Therefore, the limitation is treated as a Product-by-Process limitation. Since, the structure of layers is found to be substantially identical to the structure claimed by claim 15, the claim is therefore taught by the disclosure. See MPEP 2113.).
Regarding claim 17, Suzuki discloses (Figs. 1-11) A vehicle comprising: the radar device of claim 1, the radar device having a fascia (7), wherein the radar device is arranged behind the fascia (see Fig. 1), and wherein the radar device is a front radar arranged in a front of the vehicle ([0030]).
Claim(s) 1, 6-8, 10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Talai et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 20230393238, made of record in IDS dated 06 May 2025), hereinafter known as Talai.
Regarding claim 1, Talai discloses (Figs. 1-10) a radar device comprising: at least one antenna having a field of view; and a radome covering the at least one antenna, wherein the radome includes a first layer and a second layer in form of a layer stack, and wherein the layer stack is configured to have a low reflection for radar waves.
Regarding claim 6, Talai discloses (Figs. 1-10) wherein the first layer has a thickness in a range of 1.4 mm to 1.6 mm ([0057], thickness can be adjusted for the desired wavelength).
Regarding claim 7, Talai discloses (Figs. 1-10) wherein the first layer has a thickness in a range of 0.3 mm to 0.6 mm ([0057], thickness can be adjusted for the desired wavelength).
Regarding claim 8, Talai discloses (Figs. 1-10) wherein the first layer has a thickness in a range of 2.3 mm to 2.7 mm ([0057], thickness can be adjusted for the desired wavelength).
Regarding claim 10, Talai discloses (Figs. 1-11) wherein the second layer has a thickness in a range of 0.6 mm to 1.4 mm ([0059]).
Regarding claim 12, Talai discloses (Figs. 1-10) wherein: one of the first and second layers includes a positive surface structuring and the other one of the first and second layers includes a corresponding negative surface structuring (see Fig. 2), the first and second layers are arranged such that the positive surface structuring and the negative surface structuring face each other (see Fig. 2), and the positive surface structuring includes elevated half spheres (see Fig. 2).
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(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (or Talai) in view of Aoki et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 20160231417), hereinafter known as Aoki.
Regarding claim 16, Suzuki (or Talai) teaches the limitations of claim 1, but do not teach an air gap.
Aoki teaches (Figs. 1-3B) radar device comprising: at least one antenna (13) having a field of view; and a radome (11) covering the at least one antenna, wherein the radome includes a first layer (11) and a second layer (6) in form of a layer stack (see Fig. 1), and wherein the layer stack is configured to have a low reflection for radar waves ([0003]),
wherein: between the second layer and the antenna is a gap with a thickness in a range of 1.5 mm to 3 mm, and the gap is filled with air ([0067], see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention to one of ordinary skill in the art include an air gap as taught by Aoki in the antenna apparatus of Suzuki or Talai since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to employ/use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, products) in the same way is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) An air gap can provide an adjustment in permittivity.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shi et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 20140159942) teaches a radar antenna.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL MUNOZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1957. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 a.m. - 5 p.m.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dimary Lopez can be reached at 571-270-7893. 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.
/DANIEL MUNOZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights