www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
`Address; COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`16/286,659
`
`02/27/2019
`
`RYOSUKE SHIOZAKI
`
`731056.473
`
`9779
`
`Seed IP Law Group LLP/Panasonic
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5400
`Seattle, WA 98104
`
`HAMMONDIII, THOMAS M
`
`ART UNIT
`
`3648
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`06/30/2021
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`USPTOeAction @ SeedIP.com
`
`pairlinkdktg @seedip.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`16/286,659
`SHIOZAKI etal.
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF) StatusExaminer
`THOMAS M HAMMOND III
`3648
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEofthis communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133}.
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 02/27/2019.
`C} A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`
`2a)L) This action is FINAL. 2b)¥)This action is non-final.
`3)02 An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4\0) Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-14 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) ___ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`C} Claim(s)
`is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected.
`S)
`) © Claim(s)____is/are objected to.
`Cj) Claim(s
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`)
`S)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) )
`
`Application Papers
`10)() The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11) The drawing(s) filed on 02/27/2019 is/are: a)[¥) accepted or b)(. objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d)or (f).
`Certified copies:
`_—_c)L) None ofthe:
`b)L) Some**
`a)¥) All
`1.4) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.2) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.2.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`3) (J Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`(Qj Other:
`4)
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date02/27/2019,10/01/2019,04/14/2021.
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20210625
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/286,659
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 2
`
`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.
`
`INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
`
`The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/27/2019,
`
`10/01/2019, and 04/14/2021 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
`
`Accordingly, the IDSs are being considered by the Examiner.
`
`10
`
`14
`
`CLAIM STATUS
`
`Claims 1-14 are pending and have been examined.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/286,659
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 3
`
`CLAIM REJECTIONS- 35 USC § 112
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
`
`o1&©
`
`oOco“I
`
`10
`
`14
`
`12
`
`13
`
`(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-AlA), second paragraph:
`
`The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out
`anddistinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his
`invention.
`
`Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AlA),
`
`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-AlA 35 U.S.C. § 112, the Applicant), regards as the
`
`14
`
`invention.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`Re claim 1, Applicant recites the limitation, “the bracket has a...adjuster thatis
`
`disposed so as to...closely contact with an inner surface...” (emphasis added), which is
`
`a relative term that renders the claim indefinite.
`
`In particular, such limitation 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
`
`its scope.
`
`In the interest of compact prosecution and for the purposes of examination,
`
`the Examiner will interpret this limitation as encompassing the adjuster having any
`
`configuration with the inner surface.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/286,659
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 4
`
`Re claims 2-14, Applicant recites limitations respectively dependent from claim
`
`1, but that fail to cure the deficiencies discussedin the rejection above. Accordingly,
`
`claims 2-14 are rejected based at least on the same reasons applied to claim 1.
`
`Further re claim 2, Applicant recites the limitation, “where n represents an
`
`arbitrary positive integer’ (emphasis added). However, suchlimitation represents a
`
`mathematical calculation that may be executed in any number of manners. As such,
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scopeofthis
`
`limitation, thereby rendering it indefinite.
`
`In the interest of compact prosecution and for
`
`the purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret this limitation as a
`
`predeterminedpositive integer.
`
`Further re claim 7, Applicant recites the limitation, “where m represents an
`
`arbitrary positive integer’ (emphasis added). However, suchlimitation represents a
`
`mathematical calculation that may be executed in any number of manners. As such,
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scopeofthis
`
`limitation, thereby rendering it indefinite.
`
`In the interest of compact prosecution and for
`
`the purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret this limitation as a
`
`predeterminedpositive integer.
`
`Further re claim 8, Applicant recites limitations that depend from claim 7.
`
`Accordingly, claim 8 is further rejected based at least upon its dependencyto rejected
`
`claim 7, for at least the same reasons set forth above.
`
`10
`
`14
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/286,659
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 5
`
`CLAIM REJECTIONS- 35 USC § 103
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which formsthebasisfor all
`
`obviousnessrejections setforth in this Office action:
`
`A patentfor 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 mannerin which the invention
`was made.
`
`Claims 1-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Fujita, US 2015/0207217 (hereinafter “FUJITA”) in view of Aoki et al., US
`
`2016/0231417 (hereinafter “AOKI”).
`
`Re claim 1, FUJITA discloses an antenna device that performs transmission and
`
`reception of an electromagnetic wave via a cover member which is arranged to cover a
`
`front region of an outside of a device ([0029]), the antenna device comprising:
`
`a circuit board ([0030]);
`
`an antenna that is disposed in the circuit board ([0030] — circuit board with
`
`antennas formed thereon), transmits the electromagnetic wave toward the front region,
`
`and receives the electromagnetic wave from the front region ([0029] — transmit and
`
`receive radio wave);
`
`a housing that has an opening in a front surface through which the
`
`electromagnetic wave passes and houses the circuit board such that transmission and
`
`reception of the electromagnetic wave are performed via the opening ([0033] — radome
`
`20); and
`
`Nh
`
`ice)
`
`——L-OOONDOF
`
`— NO
`
`— wo
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/286,659
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 6
`
`a bracket that retains the housing and fixes the housing to the cover member in a
`
`front direction of the opening ([O030] — radar and radome attached(i.e., with a bracket
`
`mechanism) to the body), wherein the bracket an adjuster that is disposed so as to
`
`cover a region in the front direction of the opening and to closely contact with an inner
`
`surface of the cover member and adjusts pass characteristics of the electromagnetic
`
`wavein the cover member ([0033-0036] — walls to adjust the pass characteristics
`
`according to equations 1-3).
`
`FUJITAfails to explicitly disclose wherein the bracket has a sheet-shaped or
`
`plate-shaped adjuster.
`
`However, AOKI, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a radar
`
`antenna device housed by a radome and attached to a housing with a sheet-shapedor
`
`plate-shaped adjuster ([0067-0071]— radar device comprising a radome and housing
`
`mounted to a vehicle, e.g., bumper, with a plate-like substrate which serves as a
`
`frequency-selective surface to adjust pass characteristics, e.g., particular frequency
`
`band).
`
`Furthermore, i would have been obvious fo one of ordinary skill in the art, at the
`
`time of filma of the insiant invention, fo modify the antenna device af FUJITA to include
`
`the particular aciusting mechanism of AOKI One would have been motivated to da so
`
`in order to reduce signal reflection of a bumper cover (AOKI af [0011]. Further sill, the
`
`Supreme Court in ASA infernational Co. v. Teleflex inc. (KSA), 550 U.S. 398, G2
`
`USPG2d 1385 (2007) pravided thal combining prior art elements according to kriown
`
`methods to yield predictable resulis may render a claimed invention obviaus over such
`
`combination. Here, AOKI merely teaches that itis well-known to have a plate-like
`
`10
`
`14
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/286,659
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 7
`
`adjuster in a radar ariienna device. Since bath FLJITA and AOKI disclose similar radar
`
`antenna devices for vehicle applications, one of ordinary skil in the ari would recagnize
`
`that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to
`
`known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable
`
`results,
`
`Re claim 2, FUJITA/AOKI renders obvious the device of claim 1, as shown
`
`above. FUJITA further discloses wherein a thickness and a relative dielectric canstant
`
`of the radiome are set such that a traveling distance of the electromaanetic wave that
`
`passes from a surlace of the aciuster on the opening side to an outer surface of the
`
`cover member effectively becomes Ao/é xn, where n represenis an arbitrary positive
`
`integer and Ao represents a free-space wavelength of the electromagnetic wave.
`
`FUJITA falls io exmicitly disclose setting a thickness and a relaiive dielectric
`
`constant of the adjuster.
`
`However, AOKO, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, teaches setting a
`
`thickness and a relative dielectric constant of an adiuster (O1591 ~ thickness and
`
`permiltivity relationship of the freaquency-selective substrate can be selected to perform
`
`in @ particular manner).
`
`Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ardinary ski! in the art, at the
`
`time of filing of the instant invention, fo modify the antenna device of FLAJITA to include
`
`the particular adjusting mechanism of AOKL One would have been motivated to do so
`
`in order to reduce signal reflection of a bumper cover (AOKI af [O077])). Further shill, the
`
`Supreme Court in ASA infernalional Co. v. Teleflex inc. (KSA), 550 US. 398, 82
`
`10
`
`14
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/286,659
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 8
`
`USPOQed 1365 (2007) provided that combining oriar ari elernenis according to known
`
`methods to yield predictable resulis may render a claimed invention obvious over such
`
`combination. Here, AOKI merely teaches that it is well-known to have a plate-like
`
`adiuster in a radar antenna device. Since both FLIJITA and AOKI disclose similar radar
`
`antenna devices for vehicle applications, one of ordinary skill in the art would recagnize
`
`thal the combination of elements here has previcusly been executed according to
`
`known methods, thereby evidencing thal such combination would yield predictable
`
`resus,
`
`10
`
`14
`
`12
`
`Re claim 3, FUJITA/AOKI renders obvious the device of claim 1, as shown
`
`above. FUJITA falls to explicitly disclose wherein the adiuster is formed with a
`
`substantially sare thickness along a direction in which the inner surface of the cover
`
`13
`
`member extends.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`However, AOKO, in the same or in a similar fieid of endeavor, teaches an
`
`adiuster formed with a substantially same thickness along a direction in which the inner
`
`surface of the cover mernber extends (0071-0074) — FSS attached to the burnper
`
`COVEr}.
`
`Furthermore, ii would have been obvicus to one of orcinary skill in the art, at the
`
`time of filing of the instant invention, io modify ine antenna device of FUJITA to include
`
`the particular adjusting mechanism of AOK]. One would have been motivated ta do so
`
`in order to reduce signal reflection of a oumper caver (AOKI al (0071). Further stil, the
`
`Supreme Gourt in ASH international Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSA), SBO LULS. 398, 82
`
`USPO2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining orior art elements according to known
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/286,659
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 9
`
`methods to yleki prediciable resulis may render a claimed invention obvious over such
`
`combination. Here, AOKI merely teaches that itis well-known to have a plate-like
`
`adjuster in a radar anienna device. Since both FLLUTA and AOKI disclose similar radar
`
`antenna devices for vehicle applications, one of ordinary skil in the art would recognize
`
`thal the combination of elernents here has previously been executed according ta
`
`known methods, thereby evidencing that such cambination would yield predictabie
`
`resulis.
`
`Re claim 4, FUJITA/AOKI renders obvious the device of claim 1, as shown
`
`above. FUJITA fails to explicitly disclose wherein the bracket has a fixer thatis
`
`disposed to surround a periphery of the adiuster on the inner surface of the cover
`
`member and is fixed fo the inner surlace of the cover member by a fing member,
`
`However, AOKO, in the same or in a similar flekd of endeavar, teaches a bracket
`
`thal has a fixer thalis disposed to surround a periohery of the adjuster on the inner
`
`surface of the cover member and is fixed to the inner surface of the cover member by a
`
`fixing rember (0071-0075! - FSS attached fo the burnper cover sandwiched between
`
`two dielectric members).
`
`Furthermore, ii would have been obvicus to one of orcinary skill in the art, at the
`
`time of filing of the instant invention, io modify ine antenna device of FUJITA to include
`
`the particular bracket mechanism of AOK! One would have been motivated to do so in
`
`order to reduce signal reflection of a bumper cover (ACK! at071. Further sii, the
`
`Supreme Gourt in ASH international Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSA), SBO LULS. 398, 82
`
`USPO2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining orior art elements according to known
`
`10
`
`14
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/286,659
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 10
`
`methods to yleki prediciable resulis may render a claimed invention obvious over such
`
`combination. Here, AOKI merely teaches that it is well-known to have a particular
`
`bracket in a radar antenna device. Since both FUJITA and AOKI disclose similar radar
`
`antenna devices for vehicle applications, one of ordinary skil in the art would recognize
`
`thal the combination of elernents here has previously been executed according ta
`
`known methods, thereby evidencing that such cambination would yield predictabie
`
`resulis.
`
`Re claim 5, FUJITA/AOKI renders obvious the device of claim 4, as shown
`
`10
`
`above. FUJITA fails to explicitly disclose wherein a thickness of the aciusteris thinner
`
`14
`
`than a thickness of the fixer.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`However, AOKO, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein a
`
`thickness of the adjusier is thiriner than a thickness of the fixer [0077] - FSS and other
`
`structural members may oe freely determined).
`
`Furthermore, i would have been obvicus to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the
`
`time of filing of the instant inveriion, io modify the antenna device of FUJITA to include
`
`the adjuster mechanism of AOKI One would have been motivated io do so in order to
`
`reduce signal reflection of a bumper cover (AOKI at [(0071]}. Further stil, the Supreme
`
`Court i ASA international Ca. v. Teleflex inc. (KSA), 550 ULS. 398, 82 USPQad 1385
`
`(2007) provided thal combining prior art elemenis according to known methads to yield
`
`orediciable resulis may render a claimed invention obvious aver such cambination.
`
`Here, AOKI merely teaches thal it is well-known to have a particular adjuster in a radar
`
`23
`
`antenna device. Since both FUJITA and AOKI disclose similar radar antenna devices
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/286,659
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 11
`
`for vehicle apphecations, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the
`
`combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known
`
`methods, thereby eviciencing that such combination would yield predictable resulis.
`
`Re claim 6, FUJITA/AOKI renders obvious the device of claim 1, as shown
`
`above. FUJITA fais to explicitly disclose wherein the racket is integrally moicecd with
`
`resin.
`
`However, AOKO, in the same or in a similar fleid of endeavor, teaches wherein a
`
`brackel is integrally molded with resin (O096] — resin subsirate}.
`
`10
`
`14
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`Furthermore, ii would have been obvicus to one of orcinary skill in the art, at the
`
`time of filing of the instant invention, io modify ine antenna device of FUJITA to include
`
`the particular bracket mechanism of AOK! One would have been mativated to do so in
`
`order to reduce signal reflection of a bumper cover (ACK! at071. Further sii, the
`
`Supreme Gourt in ASH international Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSA), SBO LULS. 398, 82
`
`USPO2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining orior art elements according to known
`
`methods to yield oredictable resulis may render a claimed invention obvious over such
`
`combination. Here, AOKI merely teaches thal itis well-known io have a particular
`
`18
`
`bracket mechanism in a radar antenna device. Since both FUJITA and AOKI disclose
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`similar radar antenna Gevices for vehicle applications, one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed
`
`according fo known methods, thereby evidencing thal such cambination would yietd
`
`predictable results.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/286,659
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 12
`
`Re claim 7, FUJITA/AOKI renders obvious the device of claim 1, as shown
`
`above. FUJFTA further discloses wherein 4 surface of the acluster on the coening side
`
`has an uneven structure that is formed with first fal regions and second flat regions,
`
`each of the first Hal regions neighbors corresponding one second flat region of the
`
`second flat regions via a step, and bath of the first flat regians and the secand flai
`
`regions are formed in parallel wiih ihe inner surface of the cover member anc are
`
`formed such that heights of the first flak regions and the second flat regions in a
`
`thickness direction of the adiuster are diferent from each other by Ade x (2m - 1}, where
`
`m represenis an arbitrary positive integer and A. renresenis a free-space wavelength of
`
`the electromagnetic wave (0035-0036).
`
`Re claim 8, FUJITA/AOKI renders obvious the device of claim 7, as shown
`
`above. FUJITA further discloses wherein ihe first flat regions and the second flat
`
`regions are alternately formed such thal an arrangement relationship between each
`
`other becomes 4 lattice pattern, a stripe pattern, or a staggered pattern in a plan view
`
`(0035-0037).
`
`Re claim 9, FUJITA/AOKI renders obvious the device of claim 7, as shown
`
`above. FUJITA further discloses wherein on a surface on the opening sicie or the cover
`
`member side, the adiuster has a frequency selective structure that is configured with
`
`tural electric conductor patterns which resonaie with the electromagnetic wave ([G035-
`
`OO87D.
`
`10
`
`14
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/286,659
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 13
`
`Re claim 10, FUJITA/AOKI renders obvious the device of claim 1, as shown
`
`above. FUJFTA fails ic explicitly disclose wherein the bracket fixes the housing to the
`
`cover member such that a cirection in which the electromagnetic wave is transmitted to
`
`the outside of the device becomes parallel with a ground,
`
`However, AOKO, In the sare or in a similar field of erideavar, ieaches wherein a
`
`brackel fixes the housing ta a cover member such thal a direction in which the
`
`electromagnetic wave is transmitted to the outside of the device becomes parallel with a
`
`ground (O140)}.
`
`Furthermore, ii would have been obvious to ane of ordinary skill in the art, al the
`
`ume of filing of ine instant invention, io modify ihe antenna device of FLAJITA to include
`
`the particular bracket mechanism of AOK]. One would have been motivated to da sa in
`
`order to reduce signal reflection of a bumper cover (AOKE at 00112. Further stil, the
`
`supreme Court in KSA international Co. v. Teleflex inc. (KSA), 850 LS. 398, 82
`
`USPQed 1385 (2007) provided that combining oriar art elernenis accarding ta known
`
`methods to yield predictable resulis may render a claimed invention obvious over such
`
`combination. Here, AOKI merely teaches that it is well-known to have a particular
`
`10
`
`14
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`bracket mechanism in a radar antenna device. Since bath FUJITA and AOKI disclose
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`similar radar antenna devices for vehicle applications, one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would recognize thai ihe combination of elements here has previously been executed
`
`according ta known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield
`
`grediciable results.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/286,659
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 14
`
`Re claim 11, FUJITA/AOKI renders obvious the device of claim 1, as shown
`
`above. FUJITA further discloses wherein ihe circull board is dispased such that a board
`
`surface extends in a front- rear cirection while the front direction is sei as a reference
`
`(0030-0031).
`
`Re claim 14, FUJITA/AOKI renders obvious the device of claim 1, as shown
`
`above. FUUJITA further discloses the radar antenna device is integrated into a vehicle
`
`body ([0030)).
`
`FUJITA fails io explicitly disclose wherein the cover member is a bumper
`
`10
`
`member of a vehicle.
`
`14
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`However, AOKO, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein a
`
`cover member is a bumper member of a vehicle (OOSTH.
`
`Furthermore, i would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the ari, at the
`
`ume of filing of the instant invention, to modify the antenna device of FUJITA io include
`
`the particular cover member of AOKI One would have been motivated to do so in order
`
`fo reduce signal reflection of a bumper cover (AOKI at (O017]). Further stil, the
`
`Supreme Court in ASA international Co. v. Telefiex inc. (KSA), 550 U.S. 398, 82
`
`USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provicied that combining prior art elements accorcing to known
`
`methods to yiekl predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such
`
`20
`
`combination. Here, AOKI] merely teaches thal itis well-known io have a particular cover
`
`21
`
`member in a radar anterina device. Since both FUJITA and AOKI] disclose similar radar
`
`22
`
`23
`
`antenna devices for vehicle applications, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
`
`that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/286,659
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 15
`
`knowr methods, thereby evidencing that such cambination wouki yield predictable
`
`results,
`
`Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`FUJITA/AOKI in further view of Hidai et al., US 2005/0062664 (hereinafter “HIDAI”).
`
`Re claim 12, FUJITA/AOKI renders obvious the device of claim 11, as shown
`
`above. FUJITA fails tio explicitly disclose a clelectric lens that is supported by the
`
`housing, condenses a beam of the electromadnetic wave transmitted by the antenria,
`
`and sends out ine beam toward the front regior.
`
`Mowever, RIDAL in the same or ina similar fel of endeavor, teaches a dielectric
`
`lens that is supported by a housing, condenses a bearn of the electromagnetic wave
`
`transmitted by an antenna, and sends out the beam toward a froni region (GOST).
`
`Furthermore, it would have been cbvious to ane of ordinary Skil in the art, at the
`
`ume of fling of the instant invention, io modify the antenna Gevice of FLAJITA to include
`
`10
`
`14
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`the disiectric lens of HIDAI One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`signal reflection with a high-gain antenna structure (HIDAL at [O0018h. Further stil, the
`
`Supreme Court in KSA international Co. v. Teleflex inc. (KSA), B50 LS. S98, 82
`
`USPQed 1285 (2007) provided that corbining prior art elernents according to known
`
`methods to yield predictable resulis may render a claimed invention obvious over such
`
`combination. Here, HIDAL merely teaches thal itis well-known to have a dielectric lens
`
`22
`
`ina radar antenna device. Since both FUJITA and HIDA! disclose similar radar antenna
`
`23
`
`devices for vehicle applications, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/286,659
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 16
`
`combinalion of elements here has previously been execuled according ta known
`
`methods, thereby evidencing thal such combination would yield predictable results.
`
`Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`FUJITA/AOKI in further view of Rao et al., US 2015/0185316 (hereinafter “RAO”).
`
`Re claim 13, FUJITA/AOKI renders obvious the device of claim 1, as shown
`
`above. FUJITA fais to explicitly disclose a signal processor thal performs azimuth
`
`estimation about 4 target based on a reflected wave of the electromagnelic wave
`
`transmitted by the antenna from the target.
`
`However, RAO, in the same or ina similar field of endeavor, teaches a signal
`
`processor that performs azirnuth estimation about a target based on a reflected wave of
`
`an eleciromadnetic wave transmitted by an antenna from the target (Q610)}.
`
`Furthermore, it would have been cbvious to ane of ordinary Skil in the art, at the
`
`ume of fling of the instant invention, io modify the antenna Gevice of FLAJITA to include
`
`the particular signal processing functionality of RAQ. One would have been motivated
`
`to do so in order ta provide a method of eslimating a position of an obstacie (RAO at
`
`fOO1T1}. Further still, the Supreme Court in ASA internatianal Co. v. Teleflex inc. (KSA),
`
`550 US. 398, 82 USPOed 1385 (2007) provided that combining priar art elements
`
`according ta known methods to yield predictable resulis may render a claimed invention
`
`obvious over such combination. Here, RAO merely teaches thal iis well-known to
`
`have @ pariicular signal processing functionality in a radar antenna device. Since both
`
`FUJITA and RAO disclose similar radar antenna devices for vehicle applications, one of
`
`10
`
`14
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/286,659
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 17
`
`ordinary skill in the arf would recognize that the combination of elemenis here has
`
`previously been execuled according ta known methocs, thereby evidencing that such
`
`combination would yielcl predictable results.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/286,659
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 18
`
`ADDITIONAL PRIOR ART
`
`The Examiner would like to make Applicant aware of prior art references, not
`
`relied upon in this action, but pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. They are asfollows:
`
`e US 2018/0115059, Tokunagaet al. — radio-wave transmitting cover and
`
`methodfor setting thickness of cover.
`
`e US 5,952,984, Kuramoto — dielectric lens antenna device.
`
`e US 2016/0268693, Ding et al. — vehicle radar module.
`
`e US 2018/0136312, Fetterman — radar module for vehicles.
`
`10
`
`14
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to THOMAS M HAMMOND III whose telephone number is
`
`571-272-2215. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 0800-1700.
`
`Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing
`
`using a USPTO supplied web-basedcollaboration tool. To schedule an interview,
`
`applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO AutomatedInterview Request(AIR) at
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
`
`If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's
`
`supervisor, Erin Heard can be reached on 571-272-3236. The fax phone number for
`
`the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent
`
`Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published
`
`applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/286,659
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 19
`
`information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. Should
`
`you have questions on accessto the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic
`
`Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197(toll-free).
`
`If you would like assistance from a
`
`USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automatedinformation
`
`system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA)or 571-272-1000. For more
`
`information about the PAIR system, see: 8%
`
`Respectfully,
`
`/Thomas M Hammond IIl/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
`
`