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 .
Response to Amendments
The amendment filed 05/26/2026 is entered.
Claims 1 and 23 are amended.
Claims 1-6 and 18-33 are pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 23 is/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.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites the limitations “at least one of the radio signals” and “the at least one of the interfering radio signals.” It is unclear whether these limitations both refer to the “interfering radio signals” recited earlier in the claim, or to different radio signals. For examination purposes, both “at least one of the radio signals” and “the at least one of the interfering radio signals” are interpreted as referring to the “interfering radio signals” recited earlier in the claim. This rejection also applies to the corresponding limitations in Claim 23.
Regarding Claim 23, the claim recites the limitation “the corresponding transmitter.” The claim recites a plurality of transmitters and a plurality of dual-polarized receivers, but does not establish a correspondence between specific transmitters and receivers. Therefore, it is unclear which transmitter “the corresponding transmitter” refers to.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 23-24, and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 102088426 B1) in view of Li (US 2023/0184883) and Korpet (US 2005/0078739).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee teaches:
A radar sensing system comprising:
a transmitter configured to transmit … radio signals ([0035]: “transmitter 110”);
a dual-polarized receiver ([0035]: “dual polarization radar 100”; “receiver 130”) configured to receive radio signals of two polarizations that include (i) desired radio signals comprising the transmitted … radio signals transmitted by the transmitter and reflected from objects in an environment ([0036]: “transmitted radar signal may be reflected by the target”), and (ii) other radio signals that include interfering radio signals transmitted by at least one other radar sensing system ([0039]: “clutter signals and interference signals”; [0068]);
…
wherein the dual-polarized receiver is configured to process the received radio signals based upon … polarizations … ([0001]: “to polarization diversification and spacetime adaptive processing that apply weights considering the polarization dependence of the target to the dual-polarization radar signal.”; [0007]);
wherein the dual-polarized receiver is configured to process the received radio signals of both polarizations and to segregate the desired radio signals from the interfering radio signals using a combination of spatial … and polarization differences between the desired radio signals and the interfering radio signals from other radar systems ([0001]; [0004]: “the clutter component is removed or avoided in the monopulse radar using dual polarization.”; [0006]: “applying polarization diversification using dual polarization and space-time adaptive processing method in a dual-polarization radar.”; [0007]: “spatial signal processing and temporal signal processing”; [0040-0046]).
Lee does not explicitly teach:
transmitting and receiving continuous wave radio signals;
wherein the transmitter and dual-polarized receiver are configured to selectively transmit and receive the continuous wave radio signals during respective alternating periods of time;
wherein the dual-polarized receiver is configured to select the polarizations based upon a determined polarization of at least one of the radio signals transmitted by the at least one other radar sensing system;
wherein the dual-polarized receiver is configured to determine the polarization of the at least one of the interfering radio signals transmitted by the at least one other radar sensing system and received by the dual-polarized receiver during at least one period of time when the transmitter is not transmitting and the dual-polarized receiver is not receiving the transmitted continuous wave radio signals; or
wherein the dual-polarized receiver is configured to segregate the desired radio signals from the interfering radio signals using a combination of spatial, spectral, and polarization differences.
However, Li is in the field of radar interference mitigation (Li [0028]) and teaches:
transmitting and receiving continuous wave radio signals (Li [0215]: “the bistatic radar transmitter may transmit a continuous wave or pulses of radar signals 750 that the vehicle bistatic radar receivers can receive and process”);
wherein the transmitter and receiver are configured to selectively transmit and receive the continuous wave radio signals during respective alternating periods of time (Li [0090]: “Using pauses of random length between chirps or pulses”; [0215]: “listen-before-reply (LBR) interval”; [0221-0225]: “the processor may repeat any or all of the operations in blocks 821, 823, 825, and 827 to repeatedly or continuously to perform radar interference management”);
wherein the receiver is configured to select the polarizations based upon a determined polarization of at least one of the radio signals transmitted by the at least one other radar sensing system (Li [0009]: “radar reception interference information for use in processing signals received by the first radar system,” including “different polarization types” of the second radar system; [0079-0080]: “…one or more parameters for improving radar signal reception. Such parameters may include: … Polarization of the interferer Radar”; [0214]: “polarity”); and
wherein the receiver is configured to determine the polarization of the at least one of the interfering radio signals transmitted by the at least one other radar sensing system and received by the receiver during at least one period of time when the transmitter is not transmitting and the receiver is not receiving the transmitted continuous wave radio signals ([0214]: “listen-before-talk and listen-before-reply”; “polarity”; [0215]: “This trigger signal indicates to bistatic radar receivers that the receiver should monitor received RF signals during a listen-before-reply (LBR) interval 730 to measure the RF environment and particularly the reception of RF signals that would interfere with processing of received bistatic radar signals”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee and use continuous wave radio signals, selectively transmit and receive the radio signals during alternating periods of time, select polarizations based on a determined polarization of interfering radio signals from another radar system, and to determine the polarization of the interfering radio signals during a period of time when the transmitter is not transmitting and the receiver is not receiving, as taught by Li, with a reasonable expectation of success. Using Li’s continuous wave signals and alternating transmitting, receiving, and listening periods in Lee’s radar system yields the predictable result of allowing the receiver to determine the polarization of the interfering signals during a period in which the system’s own signals do not interfere, thereby improving the accuracy of interference characterization. Using the determined interference polarizations to select Lee’s polarizations yields the predictable result of improving interference mitigation and target detection by processing the received signals based on accurate interference information.
Further, Korpet is in the field of radio signal receiver antijamming (Korpet [Abstract]) and teaches:
wherein the receiver is configured to segregate the desired radio signals from the interfering radio signals using a combination of spatial, spectral, and polarization differences (Korpet [0008]; [0026]: “performing first individual antijamming processings by polarimetric filtering”; [0027]: “a second general antijamming processing by spatial filtering”; [0035]: “additional antijamming processings by temporal or spectral filtering are performed”; [0055-0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee and segregate targets from interference using a combination of spatial, spectral, and polarization differences, as taught by Korpet, with a reasonable expectation of success. Applying Korpet’s antijamming technique to Lee’s radar system yields the predictable result of enabling the system to segregate signals based on frequency characteristics in addition to spatial and polarization characteristics, thereby improving interference segregation.
Regarding Claim 2, Lee as modified teaches: wherein the dual-polarized receiver is configured to segregate received signals by direction of arrival and adapted to perform said segregation by polarization differences separately for each direction of arrival, such that at least one of the radio signals transmitted by the at least one other radar sensing system is segregated based at least in part on its direction of arrival ([0046]; [0067]: “polarization diversification”; “high accuracy angle Estimation”; [0068]: “Thereafter, the radar signal processor 150 may remove the clutter signal component or jammer signal component from the STAP stage.”; [0069]; [0077]), and wherein the spatial difference between the desired radio signals and the interfering radio signals is defined at least in part by an angle between the objects reflecting the transmitted radio signals and the interfering radio signals ([0067-0069]: Lee teaches using “high accuracy angle estimation” to determine the location of the target and the clutter/jammer signal).
Regarding Claim 4, Lee as modified does not explicitly teach – but Korpet teaches: wherein the dual-polarized receiver is configured to separate received signals into spectral components, and further configured to perform the segregation by polarization differences separately for each spectral component (Korpet [0035]; [0055-58]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee and segregate targets from interference using spectral differences and polarization differences, as taught by Korpet, with a reasonable expectation of success, which would improve interference segregation and involves combining known elements to achieve a predictable result.
Regarding Claim 5, Lee as modified does not explicitly teach – but Korpet teaches: wherein the dual-polarized receiver is configured to separate received signals into spectral components and further into directions of arrival for each spectral component and configured to apply the segregation by polarization differences separately for each combination of a spectral component and a direction of arrival such that at least one of the radio signals transmitted by the at least one other radar sensing system is segregated based at least in part on its direction of arrival and polarization differences (Korpet [0026-0027]; [0035]; [0055-58]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee and segregate targets from interference using spectral differences and direction of arrival differences such that at least one of the radio signals transmitted by the at least one other radar sensing system is segregated based at least in part on its direction of arrival and polarization differences, as taught by Korpet, with a reasonable expectation of success, which would improve interference segregation and would involves combining known elements to achieve a predictable result.
Regarding Claim 6, Lee as modified teaches: the transmitter and the dual-polarized receiver ([0035]).
Lee as modified does not explicitly teach – but Li teaches: wherein the transmitter is configured for installation and use on a vehicle, and wherein the … receiver is configured for installation and use on the vehicle (Li [0214]: “vehicle radar systems”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee and install and use the transmitter and receiver on a vehicle, as taught by Li, with a reasonable expectation of success, which would improve performance of the vehicle by improving target detection and would involve applying the known radar system to a known field of use to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 23, Lee teaches radar sensing system comprising:
a … transmitter configured to transmit radio signals ([0035]);
a … dual-polarized receiver ([0035]), wherein each receiver … is configured to receive radio signals of two polarizations that include (i) desired radio signals comprising the transmitted radio signals transmitted by the plurality of transmitters and reflected from objects in an environment ([0036]), and (ii) other radio signals that include interfering radio signals transmitted by at least one other radar sensing system ([0039]; [0068]);
…
wherein each … dual-polarized receiver is configured to process the received radio signals based upon … polarizations … ([0001]: “to polarization diversification and spacetime adaptive processing that apply weights considering the polarization dependence of the target to the dual-polarization radar signal.”; [0007]);
wherein each receiver … is configured to process the received radio signals of both polarizations and to segregate the desired radio signals from interfering radio signals using a combination of spatial … and polarization differences between the desired radio signals and the interfering radio signals from other radio systems ([0001]; [0004]; [0006-0007]; [0040-0046]).
Lee does not explicitly teach:
transmitting and receiving continuous wave radio signals;
wherein the plurality transmitters and dual-polarized receivers are configured to selectively transmit and receive the continuous wave radio signals during respective alternating periods of time;
wherein the plurality of dual-polarized receivers are configured to select the polarizations based upon a determined polarization of at least one of the radio signals transmitted by the at least one other radar sensing system;
wherein the plurality of dual-polarized receivers are configured to determine the polarization of the at least one of the interfering radio signals transmitted by the at least one other radar sensing system and received by the dual-polarized receivers during at least one period of time when the transmitters are not transmitting and the dual-polarized receivers are not receiving the transmitted continuous wave radio signals; or
wherein the plurality of dual-polarized receivers are configured to segregate the desired radio signals from the interfering radio signals using a combination of spatial, spectral, and polarization differences.
However, Li is in the field of radar interference mitigation (Li [0028]) and teaches:
a plurality of transmitters and receivers respectively transmitting and receiving continuous wave radio signals (Li [0102]: “plurality of mmWave transceivers”; [0215]: “the bistatic radar transmitter may transmit a continuous wave or pulses of radar signals 750 that the vehicle bistatic radar receivers can receive and process”);
wherein the transmitters and receivers are configured to selectively transmit and receive the continuous wave radio signals during respective alternating periods of time (Li [0090]: “Using pauses of random length between chirps or pulses”; [0215]: “listen-before-reply (LBR) interval”; [0221-0225]: “the processor may repeat any or all of the operations in blocks 821, 823, 825, and 827 to repeatedly or continuously to perform radar interference management”);
wherein the receivers are configured to select the polarizations based upon a determined polarization of at least one of the radio signals transmitted by the at least one other radar sensing system (Li [0009]: “radar reception interference information for use in processing signals received by the first radar system,” including “different polarization types” of the second radar system; [0079-0080]: “…one or more parameters for improving radar signal reception. Such parameters may include: … Polarization of the interferer Radar”; [0214]: “polarity”); and
wherein the receivers are configured to determine the polarization of the at least one of the interfering radio signals transmitted by the at least one other radar sensing system and received by the receivers during at least one period of time when the transmitters are not transmitting and the receivers are not receiving the transmitted continuous wave radio signals ([0214]: “listen-before-talk and listen-before-reply”; “polarity”; [0215]: “This trigger signal indicates to bistatic radar receivers that the receiver should monitor received RF signals during a listen-before-reply (LBR) interval 730 to measure the RF environment and particularly the reception of RF signals that would interfere with processing of received bistatic radar signals”).
The rationale to modify Lee with the teachings of Li persists from Claim 1.
Further, Korpet is in the field of radio signal receiver antijamming (Korpet [Abstract]) and teaches:
wherein the receiver is configured to segregate the desired radio signals from the interfering radio signals using a combination of spatial, spectral, and polarization differences (Korpet [0008]; [0026]: “performing first individual antijamming processings by polarimetric filtering”; [0027]: “a second general antijamming processing by spatial filtering”; [0035]: “additional antijamming processings by temporal or spectral filtering are performed”; [0055-0058]).
The rationale to modify Lee with the teachings of Korpet persists from Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 24, Lee as modified teaches wherein each receiver of the … dual polarized receivers is configured to segregate received signals by direction of arrival and adapted to perform said segregation by polarization differences separately for each direction of arrival, such that at least one of the radio signals transmitted by the at least one other radar sensing system is segregated based at least in part on its direction of arrival ([0046]; [0067]: “polarization diversification”; “high accuracy angle Estimation”; [0068]: “Thereafter, the radar signal processor 150 may remove the clutter signal component or jammer signal component from the STAP stage.”; [0069]; [0077]), and wherein the spatial difference between the desired radio signals and the interfering radio signals is defined at least in part by an angle between the objects reflecting the transmitted radio signals and the interfering radio signals ([0067-0069]: Lee teaches using “high accuracy angle estimation” to determine the location of the target and the clutter/jammer signal).
Lee as modified does not explicitly teach – but Li teaches: a plurality of … receivers (Li [0102]; [0214]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee and use a plurality of receivers to determine direction or angle of a target, as taught by Li, with a reasonable expectation of success, which would improve spatial resolution and would involve combining known elements to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 31, Lee as modified does not explicitly teach – Korpet teaches: wherein each receiver of the … dual-polarized receivers is configured to separate received signals into spectral components, and further configured to perform the segregation by polarization differences separately for each spectral component (Korpet [0035]; [0055-58]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee and segregate targets from interference using spectral differences and polarization differences, as taught by Korpet, with a reasonable expectation of success, which would improve interference segregation and would involve combining known elements to achieve a predictable result.
Lee as modified does not explicitly teach – but Li teaches: a plurality of … receivers (Li [0102]; [0214]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee and use a plurality of receivers to determine direction or angle of a target, as taught by Li, with a reasonable expectation of success, which would improve spatial resolution and would involve combining known elements to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 32, Lee as modified does not explicitly teach – but Korpet teaches: teaches wherein each receiver … is configured to separate received signals into spectral components and further into directions of arrival for each spectral component and are each configured to apply the segregation by polarization differences separately for each respective combination of a spectral component and a direction of arrival, such that at least one of the radio signals transmitted by the at least one other radar sensing system is segregated based at least in part on its direction of arrival and polarization differences (Korpet [0026-0027]; [0035]; [0055-58]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee and segregate targets from interference using spectral differences and direction of arrival differences such that at least one of the radio signals transmitted by the at least one other radar sensing system is segregated based at least in part on its direction of arrival and polarization differences, as taught by Korpet, with a reasonable expectation of success, which would improve interference segregation and would involves combining known elements to achieve a predictable result.
Lee as modified does not explicitly teach – but Li teaches: a plurality of … receivers (Li [0102]; [0214]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee and use a plurality of receivers to determine direction or angle of a target, as taught by Li, with a reasonable expectation of success, which would improve spatial resolution and would involve combining known elements to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 33, Lee as modified teaches: the transmitter and the dual-polarized receiver ([0035]).
Lee as modified does not explicitly teach – but Li teaches: wherein each transmitter of the plurality of transmitters is configured for installation and use on a vehicle, and wherein each receiver of the plurality of … receivers is configured for installation and use on the vehicle (Li [0214]: “vehicle radar systems”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee and install and use the transmitter and receiver on a vehicle, as taught by Li, with a reasonable expectation of success, which would improve performance of the vehicle by improving target detection and would involve applying the known radar system to a known field of use to yield predictable results.
Claims 3 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 102088426 B1), Korpet (US 2005/0078739), and Li (US 2023/0184883), as applied to Claims 1 and 23 above, and further in view of Gilmour (US 5,436,872).
Regarding Claim 3, Lee as modified teaches: the system further comprising a receive antenna array communicatively coupled to the dual-polarized receiver … ([0007]; [0035]).
Lee as modified does not explicitly teach: wherein the receiver is configured to perform coarse beamforming to perform the segregation by direction of arrival.
However, Gilmour is in the field of radar (Gilmour [co. 1]) and teaches: wherein the receiver is configured to perform coarse beamforming to perform the segregation by direction of arrival (Gilmour [col. 3, lines 20-25; 45-55]; [Claim 1]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee and use coarse beamforming to achieve a desired focus range and direction and thereby improve segregation, as taught by Gilmour, with a reasonable expectation of success. Modifying the system of Lee to use coarse beamforming involves applying a known technique to yield the predictable result of accurately determining direction of arrival.
Regarding Claim 25, Lee as modified teaches: the system further comprising a receive antenna array communicatively coupled to the plurality of dual-polarized receivers … ([0007]; [0035]).
Lee as modified does not explicitly teach – but Gilmour teaches: wherein the plurality of receivers are configured to perform coarse beamforming to perform the segregation by direction of arrival (Gilmour [col. 3, lines 20-25; 45-55]; [Claim 1]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee and use coarse beamforming to achieve a desired focus range and direction and thereby improve segregation, as taught by Gilmour, with a reasonable expectation of success. Modifying the system of Lee to use coarse beamforming involves applying a known technique to yield the predictable result of accurately determining direction of arrival.
Claims 18-19 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 102088426 B1), Korpet (US 2005/0078739), Li (US 2023/0184883), and Gilmour (US 5,436,872), as applied to Claims 3 and 25 above, and further in view of Tillery (US 2007/0046558).
Regarding Claim 18, Lee as modified does not explicitly teach: wherein the receive antenna array comprises a dual-polarization receive antenna, wherein the dual-polarized receiver is communicatively coupled to the dual-polarization antenna.
However, Tillery is in the field of antenna (Tillery [Abstract]) and teaches: wherein the receive antenna array comprises a dual-polarization receive antenna, wherein the dual-polarized receiver is communicatively coupled to the dual-polarization antenna (Tillery [0007]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to use a dual-polarization receive antenna to receive dual-polarized signals, as taught by Tillery, with a reasonable expectation of success, which would improve performance of the system by increasing the isolation characteristic of the antennas and would involve combining known elements to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 19, Lee as modified does not explicitly teach – but Tillery teaches: wherein the dual-polarization receive antenna comprises co-located crossed dipoles (Tillery [0007]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Lee to use a dual-polarization receive antenna with co-located crossed dipoles to receive dual-polarized signals, as taught by Tillery, with a reasonable expectation of success, which would improve performance of the system by increasing the isolation characteristic of the antenna by increasing the isolation characteristic of the antennas and would involve combining known elements to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 26, Lee as modified does not explicitly teach – but Tillery teaches: wherein the receive antenna array comprises a plurality of dual-polarization receive antennas, wherein each receiver of the plurality of dual-polarized receivers is communicatively coupled to a respective antenna of the dual-polarization receive antenna (Tillery [0007]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to use a dual-polarization receive antenna to receive dual-polarized signals, as taught by Tillery, with a reasonable expectation of success, which would improve performance of the system by increasing the isolation characteristic of the antennas and would involve combining known elements to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 27, Lee as modified does not explicitly teach – but Tillery teaches: wherein each antenna of the plurality of dual-polarization receive antennas comprises co-located crossed dipoles (Tillery [0007]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to use a dual-polarization receive antenna with co-located crossed dipoles to receive dual-polarized signals, as taught by Tillery, with a reasonable expectation of success, which would improve performance of the system by increasing the isolation characteristic of the antennas and would involve combining known elements to yield predictable results.
Claims 20-21 and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 102088426 B1), Korpet (US 2005/0078739), Li (US 2023/0184883), Gilmour (US 5,436,872), and Tillery (US 2007/0046558), as applied to Claims 18 and 26 above, and further in view of Timofeev (US 2018/0062258).
Regarding Claim 20, Lee as modified does not explicitly teach: wherein the dual-polarization receive antenna comprises crossed dipoles located in offset locations, such that the offset locations give rise to different virtual receiver arrays for the two polarizations.
However, Timofeev is in the field of antennas and teaches: wherein the dual-polarization receive antenna comprises crossed dipoles located in offset locations, such that the offset locations give rise to different virtual receiver arrays for the two polarizations (Timofeev [0036]; Claim 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to use a dual-polarization receive antenna with offset crossed dipoles to receive dual-polarized signals, as taught by Timofeev, with a reasonable expectation of success, which would improve performance of the system by reducing sidelobes and would involve combining known elements to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 21, Lee as modified does not explicitly teach – but Timofeev teaches: wherein the crossed dipoles are configured to provide a polarization of grating lobes that is different than the polarization of the main lobe, such that extra grating lobe suppression is provided (Timofeev [0036]; Claim 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to use a dual-polarization receive antenna to receive dual-polarized signals and provide lobe suppression, as taught by Timofeev, with a reasonable expectation of success, which would improve performance of the system by reducing sidelobes and would involve combining known elements to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 28, Lee as modified does not explicitly teach – but Timofeev teaches: wherein each antenna of the plurality of dual-polarization receive antennas comprises respective crossed dipoles located in offset locations, such that the offset locations give rise to different virtual receiver arrays for the two polarizations (Timofeev [0036]; Claim 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to use a dual-polarization receive antenna with offset crossed dipoles to receive dual-polarized signals, as taught by Timofeev, with a reasonable expectation of success, which would improve performance of the system by reducing sidelobes and would involve combining known elements to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 29, Lee as modified does not explicitly teach – but Timofeev teaches: wherein the crossed dipoles are configured to provide a polarization of grating lobes that is different than the polarization of the main lobe, such that extra grating lobe suppression is provided (Timofeev [0036]; Claim 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to use a dual-polarization receive antenna to receive dual-polarized signals and provide lobe suppression, as taught by Timofeev, with a reasonable expectation of success, which would improve performance of the system by reducing sidelobes and would involve combining known elements to yield predictable results.
Claims 22 and 30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 102088426 B1), Korpet (US 2005/0078739), Li (US 2023/0184883), Gilmour (US 5,436,872), and Tillery (US 2007/0046558), as applied to Claims 18 and 26 above, and further in view of Pratt (US 2017/0338874).
Regarding Claim 22, Lee as modified does not explicitly teach: wherein the dual-polarization receiver is configured to receive dual polarized radio signals from the dual-polarization antenna and to combine the received dual polarized radio signals to produce receive nulls in specific directions from which interference can be received, such that at least one of the radio signals transmitted by the at least one other radar sensing system is segregated based at least in part on its direction of arrival.
However, Pratt is in the field of radar (Pratt [0031]) and teaches: wherein the dual-polarization receiver is configured to receive dual polarized radio signals from the dual-polarization antenna and to combine the received dual polarized radio signals to produce receive nulls in specific directions from which interference can be received, such that at least one of the radio signals transmitted by the at least one other radar sensing system is segregated based at least in part on its direction of arrival (Pratt [0005]; [0030]; [0037]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee and produce receive nulls to reduce interference such that at least one of the radio signals transmitted by the at least one other radar sensing system is segregated based at least in part on its direction of arrival, as taught by Pratt, with a reasonable expectation of success, which would improve performance of the system by suppressing interference and would involve combining known elements to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 30, Lee as modified does not explicitly teach – but Pratt teaches: wherein each receiver of the plurality of dual-polarization receivers is configured to receive dual polarized radio signals from respective antennas of the plurality of dual-polarization antennas and to each combine the respective received dual polarized radio signals to produce respective receive nulls in specific directions from which interference can be received, such that at least one of the radio signals transmitted by the at least one other radar sensing system is segregated based at least in part on its direction of arrival (Pratt [0005]; [0030]; [0037]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee and produce receive nulls to reduce interference such that at least one of the radio signals transmitted by the at least one other radar sensing system is segregated based at least in part on its direction of arrival, as taught by Pratt, with a reasonable expectation of success, which would improve performance of the system by suppressing interference and would involve combining known elements to yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 05/26/2026, with respect to Claim Rejections under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Lee does not teach selecting a polarization based upon the polarization of an interfering radio signal. Examiner asserts that the above rejections do not rely on Lee for teaching selecting a polarization and instead rely on Li.
Applicant argues that Lee teaches a monopulse radar systems and therefore does not teach a continuous wave radar system. Examiner asserts that the above rejections do not rely on Lee for teaching the continuous waves and instead rely on Li.
Applicant argues that Korpet does not teach transmitting and receiving during respective alternating periods of time or determining an interfering signal polarization during a period when the system is neither transmitting nor receiving its own signals (i.e., a listening period), as claimed. Examiner asserts that the above rejections do not rely on Korpet for teaching the alternating transmitting and receiving periods or the listening period and instead rely on Li.
Applicant appears to argue that Li uses measured interference characteristics to adjust transmitted signals, rather than using measured interference characteristics to process received signals (p. 15). Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that Li teaches that “radar reception interference information” may be used for “processing signals received by the first radar system,” and that the interference information includes “different polarization types” (Li [0009]).
Applicant appears to argue that Li teaches using a pulse radar system and does not teach transmitting and receiving continuous wave radio signals (p. 15). Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that Li teaches transmitting and receiving continuous wave signals (Li [0215]: “continuous wave”).
Applicant argues that Li does not teach a transmitter and dual polarized receiver configured to “selectively transmit and receive the continuous wave radio signal during respective alternating periods of time,” and “wherein the dual-polarized receiver is configured to determine the polarization of the at least one of the interfering radio signals transmitted by the at least one other radar sensing system and received by the dual-polarized receiver during at least one period of time when the transmitter is not transmitting and the dual-polarized receiver is not receiving the transmitted continuous wave radio signals,” as recited in Claim 1. In response to Applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Lee is relied upon to teach the transmitter and dual-polarized receiver. Li is relied upon to teach selectively transmitting and receiving continuous wave radio signals during respective alternating periods of time (Li [0090]; [0215]; [0221-0225]) and determining the polarization of an interfering radio signal during a period of time when the transmitter is not transmitting and the receiver is not receiving the transmitted continuous wave radio signals, i.e., a listening period ([0214-0215]; [0221-0225]). As set forth in the rejection above, it would have been obvious to use Li’s continuous wave signals and alternating transmitting, receiving, and listening periods in Lee’s radar system. In the resulting combination, Lee’s transmitter and dual-polarized receiver would selectively transmit and receive continuous wave radio signals during respective alternating periods of time and use a listening period to determine the polarization of the interfering radio signals. This would allow the system to determine interfering signal characteristics during a period in which the system’s own signals do not interfere, which would improve the accuracy of interference characterization.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH Y. ZHU whose telephone number is (571) 270-0170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-4PM.
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).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire, can be reached on (571) 270-5144. 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.
/NOAH YI MIN ZHU/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/BRADY W FRAZIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights