UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`15/924,740
`
`03/19/2018
`
`YOSHIYUKI SAITO
`
`731056.418
`
`4887
`
`Seed IP Law Group LLP/Panason1e
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5400
`Seattle, WA 98104
`
`JUSTICE” MICHAEL W
`
`ART UNIT
`
`3648
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`03/3 0/2020
`
`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):
`US PTOeACtion @ SeedIP .Com
`
`pairlinkdktg @ seedip .eom
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`017/09 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`15/924,740
`Examiner
`MICHAEL w JUSTICE
`
`Applicant(s)
`SAITO, YOSH IYU Kl
`Art Unit
`AIA (FITF) Status
`3648
`Yes
`
`- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet wit/7 the correspondence address -
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing
`date of this communication.
`|f NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from 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, even if timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1)I Responsive to communication(s) filed on 03/19/2018.
`CI A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a)[:] This action is FINAL.
`
`2b)
`
`This action is non-final.
`
`3)[:] An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4):] 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 Expade Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)
`
`Claim(s) fl is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above Claim(s)
`
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`
`
`Claim(s)2 is/are allowed.
`
`Claim(ss) 1—and 4 is/are rejected.
`
`Claim(s)3 is/are objected to
`
`) ) ) )
`
`S)
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`[j Claim(s
`* If any claims have been determined atowabte. you may be eligible 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.Itsptogov/patents/init_event§/pph/index.'§p or send an inquiry to PPeredhack@gsptg.ggv.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)D The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11)I The drawing(s) filed on 03/19/2018 is/are: a)I accepted or b)D 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)I Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a). All
`
`b)C] Some**
`
`c)C] None of the:
`
`1.I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`213 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`3B Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in 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)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/OBa and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date 03/19/2018.
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) E] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) CI Other-
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20200325
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/924,740
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
`
`1.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the
`
`first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`Priority
`
`2.
`
`Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119
`
`(a)—(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2017—063024, filed on
`
`March 03,2017.
`
`Information Disclosure Statement
`
`3.
`
`The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 19, 2018 is in
`
`compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure
`
`statement is being considered by the examiner.
`
`Allowable Subject Matter
`
`Claim 2 is allowed.
`
`Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and
`
`any intervening claims.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 US C § 103
`
`6.
`
`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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/924,740
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 3
`
`7.
`
`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.
`
`8.
`
`Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Price (US
`
`6,958,725) as evidenced by K0f0id (US 2,952,296) and in further View of Kato (US
`
`2009/0102700).
`
`9.
`
`As to claim 1, Price discloses a radar apparatus comprising:
`
`10.
`
`a transmission antenna that radiates measurement waves to a certain direction (1:48—60
`
`discloses a directional antenna for deriving the line—of—sight of a target. Presumably, this antenna
`
`is for transmitting and receiving. See also Fig. 3);
`
`11.
`
`a receiving antenna that receives return waves from one or more objects around the
`
`radar apparatus (Id);
`
`12.
`
`a dielectric that covers at least one of a front of the transmission antenna and a front of
`
`the receiving antenna (see claim 1 “a radome enclosing said antenna”);
`
`13.
`
`and a corrector that corrects the distance based on a relative permittivity and a thickness
`
`of the dielectric (2:57—67 discloses that the refracting effect of the radome is corrected by an
`
`error component curve as shown in Fig. 2C).
`
`14.
`
`Kofoid discloses that the difference of electrical phasing varies with variations in
`
`electrical wall thickness of the radome (at least 6:3—6).” See also Fig. l which shows the
`
`Radome covering Transmission Horn. It is apparent that the electrical thickness of the radome
`
`would include dielectric properties such as relative permittivity. As such, it is clear that the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/924,740
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 4
`
`thickness of the radome having a “refracting effect” in Price would include dielectric properties
`
`such as relative permittivity.
`
`15. While Price disclose a correction method to adjust thickness of the radome locally for a
`
`range of target directions (1:15—20) and memory for containing a range of error values picked off
`
`a curve i.e. Fig. 2(b), Price does not disclose a signal processor;
`
`16.
`
`In the same field of endeavor, Kato disclose a CPU 50 to execute the proper distance
`
`determining task.
`
`17.
`
`In view of the teachings of Kato, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the teachings of Kato to Price in order to include a
`
`processor in Price to determine range and other calculations thereby improving processing
`
`capabilities.
`
`18.
`
`As to claim 4, Kofoid further discloses the radar apparatus according to Claim 1,
`
`wherein the corrector corrects the distance based on the relative permittivity and the thickness of
`
`the dielectric (as discussed in claim 1) and a direction from which the return waves reach the
`
`radar apparatus (3: 12—20 “the apparent line of sight to the target, is derived from potentiometers
`
`coupled to the gimbal mountings of the antenna .
`
`.
`
`. The azimuth and elevation planes are dealt
`
`with jointly and voltages Va and Ve indicate the respective boresight angles. The signals are
`
`applied to gain—controlled amplifiers A and E .
`
`.
`
`.” Also see claim 1 “the second of said error
`
`components arising from basic refraction and being dependent upon the angle off—boresight .
`
`.
`
`.”).
`
`Conclusion
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/924,740
`Art Unit: 3648
`
`Page 5
`
`19.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to MICHAEL W JUSTICE whose telephone number is (571)270—
`
`7029. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 — 5:30 M—F.
`
`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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached on 571—270—5 144. 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 information for unpublished
`
`applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR
`
`system, see http://pair—direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to 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 automated
`
`information system, call 800—786—9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571—272—1000.
`
`/M.W.J./
`
`Examiner, Art Unit 3648
`
`/PETER M BYTHROW/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
`
`