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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 23, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed December 23, 2025 has been entered. The Applicant amended claims 1, 3, and 6. Claims 1-6 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed April 9, 2024. The examiner withdraws the 112(b) rejections in light of the amendments to the Claims.
Regarding the Drawings objection, the applicant argues “The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the ‘array of three-by-three patches configured to shape the farfield pattern in the E-plane and the H-plane by parallel-feeding and/or series-feeding, wherein the array of three-by-three patches is a parallel-fed array with 3 series-fed three-by-one patch arrays, or a series-fed array with 3 parallel-fed one-by-three patch arrays’ must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Applicant respectfully disagrees. With respect to the drawings, and in accordance with statutory requirements, MPEP 608.02 states that the ‘applicant shall furnish a drawing where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter to be patented.’ (Emphasis added, See 35 U.S.C. 113.) See also 37 CFR §1.81(a). In this case, the ability to construct a two-dimensional array, especially with the specifications provided in Appellant’s specification, is a fundamental requisite, and well within the abilities, of anyone skilled in the art of radar systems. (See e.g., Appellant’s application, at least paragraphs [0016] and [0051-0068].) Therefore, a drawing illustrating a two-dimensional array is not necessary for the understanding of the subject matter to be patented, which is further evidenced by the objection not being raised in the first two Office Actions. For at least this reason, the objection to the drawings should be withdrawn”. This argument is unpersuasive, 37 CFR §1.81(a) states “The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box).” and MPEP 608.2(d) states “Any structural detail that is of sufficient importance to be described should be shown in the drawing. (Ex parte Good, 1911 C.D. 43, 164 OG 739 (Comm’r Pat. 1911).)”. There are multiple layouts that an array of three-by-three patch antennas arranged as a parallel-fed array with 3 series-fed three-by-one patch antenna arrays or a series-fed array with 3 parallel-fed one-by-three patch antenna arrays that are not conventional and the structural detail of an array of three-by-three patch antennas as claimed is of sufficient importance to be described and should be shown in the drawing. Additionally, paragraph [0016] specification in the current application does not provide any detail in the structure of an array of three-by-three patch antennas and there are no paragraphs [0051-0068] in the specification of the current application.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “an array of three-by-three patch antennas configured to shape the farfield pattern in the E-plane and the H-plane, wherein the array of three-by-three patch antennas is a parallel-fed array with 3 series-fed three-by-one patch antenna arrays, or a series-fed array with 3 parallel-fed one-by-three patch antenna arrays” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5, “between antenna patch 2 and antenna patch 3” lacks proper antecedent basis and should read “between the antenna patch 2 and the antenna patch 3”
In claim 5, “between antenna patch 1 and antenna patch 2” lacks proper antecedent basis and should read “between the antenna patch 1 and the antenna patch 2”
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 3 and 5-6 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the resulting second farfield antenna pattern” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the patches” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 inherits the deficiencies of claim 5.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuura et al. (JP 2004260554 A), hereinafter known as Matsuura, in view of Huang et al. (US PGPUB 2005/0200531 A1), hereinafter known as Huang.
Regarding claim 1, Matsuura teaches (Fig. 1, 2a, 3, 4, 10, and 11) a radar antenna array system for monitoring vital signs of people in a closed environment having edge areas and corner areas (Fig. 1 and 4; technical field states Matsuura detects intruders in a closed environment and is suitable for monitoring vital signs, and intended use or field of use in the preamble does not limit the scope of the claimed invention given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim since the intended use in the preamble does not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art), the radar antenna array system comprising at least one of: an array of three-by-one patch antennas (1010, 1050, 1090) configured to shape a farfield pattern in an E-plane by series-feeding or parallel-feeding, wherein a first resulting antenna pattern (Fig. 3) includes two or more maxima that enable radiation of the first resulting antenna pattern (Fig. 3) to reach the edge areas and corner areas of the closed environment (Fig. 4),
but does not specifically teach and an array of one-by-three patch antennas configured to shape a farfield pattern in an H-plane by parallel-feeding or series-feeding, wherein the array of three-by-one patch antennas and the array of one-by-three patch antennas are configured to shape the farfield patterns in the E-plane and H-plane, respectively, to achieve the first resulting antenna pattern by adjusting patch antenna amplitudes and patch antenna phases, or an array of three-by-three patch antennas configured to shape the farfield pattern in the E-plane and the H-plane, wherein the array of three-by-three patch antennas is a parallel-fed array with 3 series-fed three-by-one patch antenna arrays, or a series-fed array with 3 parallel-fed one-by-three patch antenna arrays, and wherein a second resulting antenna pattern includes two or more maxima that enable radiation of the second resulting antenna pattern to reach the edge areas and corner areas of the closed environment, wherein the array of three-by-three patch antennas are configured to shape the farfield pattern in the E-plane and the H-plane to achieve the second resulting antenna pattern by adjusting patch antenna amplitudes and patch antenna phases.
However, Huang teaches (Fig. 3 and 11) an array of three-by-one patch antennas (top left 10 of Fig. 3) configured to shape a farfield pattern in an E-plane by series-feeding or parallel-feeding (top left 10 of Fig. 3), and an array of one-by-three patch antennas (top right 10 of Fig. 3) configured to shape a farfield pattern in an H-plane by parallel-feeding or series-feeding (top right 10 of Fig. 3), wherein a first resulting antenna pattern includes two or more maxima that enable radiation of the first resulting antenna pattern (Fig. 11, multiple looking angles have two or more maxima), wherein the array of three-by-one patch antennas (top left 10 of Fig. 3) and the array of one-by-three patch antennas (top right 10 of Fig. 3) are configured to shape the farfield patterns in the E-plane and H-plane, respectively, to achieve the first resulting antenna pattern by adjusting patch antenna amplitudes and patch antenna phases ([0050], [0063]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the radar antenna array system of Matsuura with Huang to include “an array of one-by-three patch antennas configured to shape a farfield pattern in an H-plane by parallel-feeding or series-feeding, wherein the array of three-by-one patch antennas and the array of one-by-three patch antennas are configured to shape the farfield patterns in the E-plane and H-plane, respectively, to achieve the first resulting antenna pattern by adjusting patch antenna amplitudes and patch antenna phases,” as taught by Huang, for the purpose of improving gain and reducing unwanted interference (see also [0055]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 3 and 5-6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims:
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art when taken alone, or, in combination, cannot be construed as reasonably teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the Applicant. Added primarily for emphasis, the claim recitations “wherein parallel fed patches for shaping the farfield pattern in the H-plane are specified as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
109
475
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and/or wherein series fed patches for shaping the farfield pattern in the E-plane are specified as follows:
PNG
media_image2.png
108
471
media_image2.png
Greyscale
” in claim 2, “a) patch amplitudes as a function of position
PNG
media_image3.png
97
244
media_image3.png
Greyscale
b) patch phases as a function of position
PNG
media_image4.png
97
249
media_image4.png
Greyscale
” in claim 3, and “wherein transmission coefficients of a series fed patch array of antenna patch 1, antenna patch 2, and antenna patch 3 for given amplitudes are specified as follows:
PNG
media_image5.png
109
401
media_image5.png
Greyscale
” in claim 4 are not found in the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONCHAN J KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-3204. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 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, 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.
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/YONCHAN J KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2845