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 statement (IDS) submitted on 08/22/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Note
To help the reader, examiner notes in this detailed action claim language is in bold, strikethrough limitations are not explicitly taught and language added to explain a reference mapping are isolated from quotations via square brackets.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. An explanation is provided below.
Applicant alleges on p.5:
Rainish does not teach or suggests a plurality of pairs of branches, each branch comprising a plurality of digital beamforming (DBF) integrated circuits (ICs) connected in series via a bus, the bus comprising a Serializer/Deserializer (SerDes)" and "wherein each of the SIC ICs comprise a splitter and a combiner, and wherein a number of the one or more layers of further SIC I Cs is selected in order to support a scalable topology of an increased number of antenna elements".
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Rainish teaches “[0128] the beam's data stream presents a summation of the signals of the beam which are obtained by the beamforming circuits of a plurality of vertical cascades).” and further teaches “[0022] Each beamforming circuit of the vertical cascade may be connected horizontally to at least one other beam forming circuit which is in another vertical cascade associated with another antenna panel, and which may optionally be located at the same level in another vertical cascade of another antenna panel.”
Furthermore, Sundström teaches a first and second group signal architecture (fig 2) corresponding to a pair and further teaches in the Abstract “Further, operating the plurality of antenna elements (12) as two or more groups (24) and controlling the differential phase between the groups (24) advantageously reduces the errors arising from the approximation of the per-branch phase values.”, corresponding to a plurality of pairs and a scalable topology of an increased number of antenna elements.
Additionally, Rainish teaches
wherein each of the S/C ICs comprise a splitter and a combiner (Rainish 0094 “In some embodiments such a pool-wise scheme is implemented by configuring the splitter/combiner module S/C as a network of controllable splitters or combiners (splitters in reception mode/configuration and combiners in transmission mode/configuration) which can be controlled for allocating/connecting associating one or more of the beamforming channels to each antenna element of the subset.”), and
wherein a number of the one or more layers of further S/C ICs is selected in order to support a scalable topology of an increased number of antenna elements (Rainish 0005 “One major advantage of digital implementation of phase array systems is that such implementation offers a highly scalable architecture that enables beam forming implementation over broad bandwidth and very large antenna sizes, while also enabling readily efficient beamforming of multiple beams concurrently (multibeams).”; 0011 “allowing scalability of digital beam forming systems in terms of both the number of antenna elements and the number of beams”).
As such, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7-9, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rainish et al. (US 20220360303 hereinafter Rainish) in view of Sundström et al. (US 20230253704 hereinafter Sundstrom).
Regarding claim 1, Rainish teaches An electronically steered digital beamforming antenna array system comprising (0002 “electronic beam steering and scanning”):
a plurality of (0080 “The beam forming circuits/chips 100 are arranged in vertical cascades VC-1 to VC-m that are connected to respective subsets SBSET1 to SBSETm of antenna elements.”),
each branch comprising a plurality of digital beamforming (DBF) integrated circuits (ICs) connected in series via a bus (0080 “The beam forming circuits/chips of a certain vertical cascade, e.g. BF-CHIP(1,1) to BF-CHIP(k,1) of VC-1, are also configured for connecting together horizontally, to beamforming circuits/chips of other vertical cascades”; fig 4; 0145 “beamforming circuits (e.g. in the form of integrated circuits/chips)”),
the bus comprising a Serializer/Deserializer (SerDes) (fig 4 “SerDes”);
one or more splitter/combiner (S/C) ICs connecting together each of the branches (0165 “The beam signal splitter/combiner module S/C includes one or more signal combiners, whereby each signal combiner is connectable from one end thereof to an antenna port”); and
one or more layers of further S/C ICs, wherein each of the further S/C ICs connects two of said S/C ICs on one end (fig 4 [Bus-I/O (SerDes) is connects to beam 1 and beam 2]), and
a modem or a further S/C IC of a different layer (0094 “In some embodiments such a pool-wise scheme is implemented by configuring the splitter/combiner module S/C as a network of controllable splitters or combiners (splitters in reception mode/configuration and combiners in transmission mode/configuration) which can be controlled for allocating/connecting associating one or more of the beamforming channels to each antenna element of the subset.”),
on the other end, wherein each of said DBF ICs comprises phase shifting circuitries, delay circuitries, memory circuitries, and bus controlling circuitries (0038 “a beam forming module comprising a plurality of beam forming channels each being connectable to an antenna port of the antenna ports via at least one of the signal splitters of the signal splitter/combiner for receiving a duplicate/replica signal of the antenna port. Each beam forming channel is configured and operable for processing the signals received from the antenna port for introducing thereto a controllable shift, being at least one of a time delay and phase shift . . . the antenna element associated with the antenna port with time and/or phase shifted signals of other antenna elements; [0042] a data bus connection connected to said beamforming module”; 0154 “The beam forming channel BF11 also includes a time delay module D.sub.11 (which may be configured for example by utilizing a digital shift register” [a shift register corresponds to a memory circuit]),
wherein each of the S/C ICs comprise a splitter and a combiner (Rainish 0094 “In some embodiments such a pool-wise scheme is implemented by configuring the splitter/combiner module S/C as a network of controllable splitters or combiners (splitters in reception mode/configuration and combiners in transmission mode/configuration) which can be controlled for allocating/connecting associating one or more of the beamforming channels to each antenna element of the subset.”), and
wherein a number of the one or more layers of further S/C ICs is selected in order to support a scalable topology of an increased number of antenna elements (Rainish 0005 “One major advantage of digital implementation of phase array systems is that such implementation offers a highly scalable architecture that enables beam forming implementation over broad bandwidth and very large antenna sizes, while also enabling readily efficient beamforming of multiple beams concurrently (multibeams).”; 0011 “allowing scalability of digital beam forming systems in terms of both the number of antenna elements and the number of beams”).
Rainish does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Sundstrom teaches using pairs of branches for a beamforming method and apparatus (Sundstrom 0087 “the branch circuits 14 of the beamforming apparatus 10 may include a pair of receiver branch circuits and transmitter branch circuits for each antenna element 12, along with combiners for combining receiver branch signals into group signals 22 for reception beamforming and splitters for splitting groups signals 22 into branch signals 18 for transmission beamforming.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the beamforming method and apparatus of Sundstrom with the phased array system and method of Rainish. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve beam performance (Sundstrom 0083). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Sundstrom merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular branch pairs in a beamforming apparatus. Since both the prior combination and Sundstrom disclose similar DBF techniques, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 4, Rainish in view of Sundstrom teach The system according to claim 1, further comprising a single branch comprising a plurality of DBF ICs connected in series via a bus (Rainish fig 3), wherein said single branch is connected via one of said further S/C ICs to one of said S/C ICs connecting one of said pairs (Sundstrom fig 3).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the beamforming method and apparatus of Sundstrom with the phased array system and method of Rainish. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve beam performance (Sundstrom 0083). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Sundstrom merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular branch pairs in a beamforming apparatus. Since both the prior combination and Sundstrom disclose similar DBF techniques, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 7, Rainish in view of Sundstrom teach The system according to claim 1, configurable either as a transmitter or a receiver (Rainish Abstract “A beamforming circuit for receiving and/or transmitting one or more (typically a plurality of) beams.”).
Regarding claim 8, Rainish in view of Sundstrom teach The system according to claim 1, wherein the antenna elements form a phased array antenna (Rainish title “phased array system”).
Regarding claim 9, Rainish in view of Sundstrom teach The system according to claim 1, wherein said S/C ICs and further S/C ICs are implemented by said DBF ICs configured as S/C (Rainish Abstract “Each antenna port is connectable, in parallel, to at least one respective bypass channel and to one or more of the beamforming channels of the beamforming circuit, via a signal splitter/combiner.”).
Regarding claim 11, Rainish in view of Sundstrom teach The system according to claim 1, wherein each of said DBF ICs is coupled to two or more antenna elements via one or more radio frequency (RF) ICs (Rainish Abstract “a beamforming module including a plurality of beam-forming channels connectable in between the data bus connection and the antenna ports for processing signals communicated between them to introduce controllable shifts”).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rainish et al. (US 20220360303 hereinafter Rainish) in view of Sundström et al. (US 20230253704 hereinafter Sundstrom) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chang al. (US 20110032173 hereinafter Chang).
Regarding claim 5, Rainish in view of Sundstrom teach The system according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of DBF ICs of each of the branches, respectively, are controlled to implement (0091 “The multiple cascade I/O modules Cascade-I/O of the at least one beamforming chip/circuit supporting the branched linear topology are connected to the antenna I/O module Ant-I/O of that at least one beamforming chip/circuit 100 by respective bypass-channels which are generally combined/split at, or, near the side of the antenna I/O module Ant-I/O”).
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Chang teaches coherent combining of signals (0037 “The array elements are then combined coherently by digital beam forming (DBF) to form a beam at a desired direction and steering nulls to prescribed directions of nearby satellites. The moving platforms may be ground based or airborne.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the antenna system and method of Chang with the teachings of Rainish in view of Sundstrom. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve beam performance (Chang 0017). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Chang merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular antenna configuration. Since both the prior combination and Chang disclose similar DBF techniques, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rainish et al. (US 20220360303 hereinafter Rainish) in view of Sundström et al. (US 20230253704 hereinafter Sundstrom) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Narra al. (US 20200295854 hereinafter Narra).
Regarding claim 6, Rainish in view of Sundstrom teach The system according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of DBF ICs of each of the branches are configured to communicate with the S/C IC connecting each of the pairs (Rainish 0054 “The cascade ports may include analog to digital converters (ADCs) configured and operable for converting signals received in analog form from antenna ports of another beam forming circuit, in to corresponding digital signals to be communicated via said bypass channels to said splitter combiner module.”), in accordance with (Rainish 0001 “This invention is in the field of phased array antennas and more specifically relates to phase array antennas systems and digital circuits thereof for use in multibeam communication.”).
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Narra teaches a scheduling scheme associated with multi-beam steering (0070 “the UE 110 activates beam steering with object detection in 805, this may include establishing a schedule where the UE 110 makes this determination every (N) time duration during the execution of beam steering with object detection.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the beam steering system and method of Narra with the teachings of Rainish in view of Sundstrom. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve beam management (Narra 0019). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Narra merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular antenna configuration. Since both the prior combination and Narra disclose similar beamforming techniques, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rainish et al. (US 20220360303 hereinafter Rainish) in view of Sundström et al. (US 20230253704 hereinafter Sundstrom) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang al. (US 20070257800 hereinafter Yang).
Regarding claim 10, Rainish in view of Sundstrom teach The system according to claim 1,
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Yang teaches using an IC to output usable data for quality assurance (Yang 0038 “The RFID tag includes an IC chip 11 and an antenna 12. The IC chip 11 includes a memory for storing data and executable control instructions. The IC chip 11 executes the control instructions to perform various functions such as retrieving, writing and transmitting data. The data stored in the IC chip 11 may include, for example, patient information such as identification and medical history information and/or information relating to any component of the MRI machine such as device quality assurance information, device history or service record information, device identification information and configuration data”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the quality assurance system and method of Yang with the teachings of Rainish in view of Sundstrom. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce chances of error (Yang 0050). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Yang merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the QA teachings. Since both the prior combination and Yang disclose similar use of ICs, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rainish et al. (US 20220360303 hereinafter Rainish) in view of Sundström et al. (US 20230253704 hereinafter Sundstrom) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rainov al. (US 20190273524 hereinafter Rainov).
Regarding claim 12, Rainish in view of Sundstrom teach The system according to claim 9, wherein the two or more antenna elements (Rainish Abstract “a beamforming module including a plurality of beam-forming channels connectable in between the data bus connection and the antenna ports for processing signals communicated between them to introduce controllable shifts”) coupled to each of the DBF ICs(Rainish fig 3).
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Rainov teaches wherein the two or more antenna elements coupled to each of the DBF ICs comprise 16 antenna elements via 4 respective RFICs (Rainov 0060 “FIG. 4, four RFIC frontends 420.sub.1-420.sub.4 are utilized, each of which being configured to handle 16 of the 64 antenna elements 410.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the phased array system and method of Rainov with the teachings of Rainish in view of Sundstrom. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve beam performance (Rainov 0083). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Rainov merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular antenna configuration. Since both the prior combination and Rainov disclose similar DBF techniques for a phased array system, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to application’s disclosure:
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAAEEL A SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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) 270-5144. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/
Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648