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 03/06/2023 and 09/08/2023 and 12/11/2023 are 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 06/05/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang et al. (US 20200174098 hereinafter Lang) in view of Yamashina (US 20160139257) and further in view of Huang (US 20030030494).
Regarding claim 1, Lang teaches A radar apparatus comprising: antennas to emit radar waves into space and to receive reflected waves from a target, the reflected waves corresponding to the radar waves emitted (fig 5);
a high-frequency circuit to receive, via the antennas, the reflected waves wave of the radar wave from the target (0033 “In radar applications, the LO signal usually lies in the SHF (Super High Frequency, centimeter-wave) or in the EHF (Extremely High Frequency, millimeter-wave) band,”; 0034 “The RF reception signal y.sub.RF(t) received by the RX antenna 6 is fed to the receiver circuit in the RX channel and thus directly or indirectly to the RF port of the mixer 104.”); and
a baseband circuit to convert reception signals corresponding to the reflected waves and output from the high-frequency circuit into digital baseband signals (0035 “The resulting analog output signal of the receiving channel RX1, which is fed to an analog-to-digital convertor (see FIG. 3, ADC 30), is designated by y(t). Methods for the digital further processing of the digitized baseband output signal (digital radar signal y[n]) are known per se”),
wherein a plurality of reception channels is formed in the antennas (fig 5),
a baseband amplifier to amplify voltages of the reception signals output (fig 5 [LNA 103])
an analog-to-digital converter to convert an analog signal output from the baseband amplifier into a digital value (fig 3).
Lang does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Yamashina teaches
the high-frequency circuit, and the baseband circuit, the reception signals are output from the high-frequency circuit not via a low noise amplifier (fig 1 [mixer 8 corresponding to the high-frequency circuit outputs the reception antenna signals and not from a low noise amplifier])
a baseband amplifier to amplify voltages of the reception signals output from the high-frequency circuit (fig 1 [amplifier 9 amplifies reception signals from the mixer 8 corresponding to a high-frequency circuit])
an analog-to-digital converter to convert an analog signal output from the baseband amplifier into a digital value (fig 1 [ADC 11]).
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 teachings of Yamashina with the teachings of Lang. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce system complexity (Yamashina 0045). 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, Yamashina merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular circuitry for a radar. Since both Lang and Yamashina disclose similar radars, 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.
The combination does not explicitly teach the remaining strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Huang teaches
add amplified parallel reception signals together, on a per reception-channel basis (title “Low Noise Balanced amplifier”; 0003 “two identical low noise single-ended amplifier (LNSA) in each branch”; 0029 “The output coupler 103 combines the amplified signals and transmits the combined signal to the output port 104.”)
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 teachings of Huang with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve the noise figure (Huang Abstract). 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, Huang merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular LNA configuration. Since both the previous combination and Huang disclose similar LNAs, 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 6, the cited prior art teach The radar apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a microcomputer (Lang 0030 “microcontroller and/or a digital signal processor (see FIG. 3, computing unit 40).”) to perform arithmetic processing on the digital baseband signals to determine at least one of a distance to the target, a relative speed of the target, or a direction of the target (Lang 0010 “FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram for illustrating the functional principle of an FMCW radar system for distance and/or speed measurement.”).
Regarding claim 7, the cited prior art teach The radar apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the high-frequency circuit includes a mixer to generate the reception signals by mixing the reflected waves with a local oscillation signal (Lang 0028 “aid circuit components comprise for example a local oscillator (LO), RF power amplifiers, low-noise amplifiers (LNAs), directional couplers (e.g. rat race couplers, circulators, etc.) and mixers for the down-conversion of the RF signals to the baseband or an intermediate frequency band (IF band).”).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang et al. (US 20200174098 hereinafter Lang) in view of Yamashina (US 20160139257) and further in view of Huang (US 20030030494) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Kuroda et al. (US 20200106402 hereinafter Kuroda).
Regarding claim 2, the cited prior art teach The radar apparatus according to claim 1, wherein: the baseband amplifier is plural in number (Huang fig 1), and
each of the plurality of the baseband amplifiers includes, on a per reception-channel basis: (Huang fig 1); and
an adder to add together individual signal outputs from the plurality of voltage amplifiers (Huang 0029 “The output coupler 103 combines the amplified signals and transmits the combined signal to the output port 104.”).
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 teachings of Huang with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve the noise figure (Huang Abstract). 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, Huang merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular LNA configuration. Since both the previous combination and Huang disclose similar LNAs, 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.
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Kuroda teaches
NB voltage amplifiers to amplify the voltages of the same reception signals having same voltages (Kuroda 0030 “As illustrated in FIG. 2, when a signal output from the first amplifier 10 (transmission wave a) and a signal output from the second amplifier 20 (transmission wave b) are combined by the combiner 33 in the same phase and the same amplitude as an ideal case, a combined transmission wave c with twice the output power is obtained.”).
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 teachings of Kuroda with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve the noise figure (Kuroda Abstract). 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, Kuroda merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular amplification configuration. Since both the previous combination and Kuroda disclose similar amplifiers, 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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang et al. (US 20200174098 hereinafter Lang) in view of Yamashina (US 20160139257), Huang (US 20030030494) and further in view of Kuroda et al. (US 20200106402 hereinafter Kuroda) as applied to claim 2 above and in further view of Lakdawala et al. (US 20090034603 hereinafter Lakdawala).
Regarding claim 3, the cited prior art teach The radar apparatus according to claim 2,
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Lakdawala teaches
wherein a voltage gain of each of the voltage amplifiers is one-NBth of a voltage gain of a corresponding one of the baseband amplifiers (0044 “In one or more embodiments, the power handling capacity of one or more of the power amplifiers is 1/n of the equivalent when an n-phase separation signal is generated to drive n-number of power amplifiers,”).
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 teachings of Lakdawala with cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce signal degradation (Lakdawala 0024). 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, Lakdawala merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular amplifier features. Since both the previous combination and Lakdawala disclose similar amplifiers, 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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang et al. (US 20200174098 hereinafter Lang) in view of Yamashina (US 20160139257) and further in view of Huang (US 20030030494) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Fowler et al. (US PAT 4314378 hereinafter Fowler).
Regarding claim 4, the cited prior art teach The radar apparatus according to claim 1
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Wang teaches
wherein the baseband amplifier is configured to operate as a voltage amplifier with an input impedance greater than an output impedance of the high-frequency circuit (6:5-13 “a low-noise amplifier operably connected to said resonant tank circuit, for amplifying the detect signal to produce the rod antenna output signal, said amplifier having an input impedence large enough to prevent resistive loading to said resonant tank, said amplifier amplifying the detect signal without adding any appreciable noise to the antenna output signal”).
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 teachings of Fowler with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve the antenna system (Fowler 4:25-45). 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, Fowler merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular amplification features. Since both the previous combination and Fowler disclose similar amplifiers, 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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang et al. (US 20200174098 hereinafter Lang) in view of Yamashina (US 20160139257), Huang (US 20030030494), and further in view of Fowler et al. (US PAT 4314378 hereinafter Fowler) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Pesetski et al (US 20120081184 hereinafter Pesetski).
Regarding claim 5, the cited prior art teach The radar apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the input impedance of the baseband amplifier is at least 5 kΩ, and the output impedance of the high-frequency circuit is substantially 50 Ω.
wherein the input impedance of the baseband amplifier is at least 5 kΩ, and the output impedance of the high-frequency circuit is substantially 50 Ω (0030 “The input impedance of the first stage 302 is approximately 43 k.OMEGA. and the power dissipated in this stage is about 1 .mu.W. The total power dissipated in the amplifier 300 is thus 143 .mu.W. Were the amplifier to be designed with a single gain stage of CNT FETs operable to drive a low impedance load, the amplifier would dissipate as much as 1.3 mW.”; 0009 “This output stage transforms the high-impedance devices of the receiver to 50.OMEGA. for interfacing with external electronic systems.”).
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 teachings of Pesetski with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve power and matching benefits (Pesetski 0010). 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, Pesetski merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular amplification features. Since both the previous combination and Pesetski disclose similar high frequency devices, 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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang et al. (US 20200174098 hereinafter Lang) in view of Yamashina (US 20160139257) and further in view of Huang (US 20030030494) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Wang (US 20170045613).
Regarding claim 8, the cited prior art teach The radar apparatus according to claim 1,
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Wang teaches
wherein the baseband amplifier is configured to amplify the reception signals to increase a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the radar apparatus. (0100 “An example implementation of echo signal filtering and conditioning is illustrated in FIG. 7, and may include a low noise amplifier (LNA) to increase the signal to noise ratio (SNR) of the received echo signal”).
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 teachings of Wang with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve the SNR (Wang 0100). 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, Wang merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular amplification features. Since both the previous combination and Wang disclose similar amplifiers, 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
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to application’s disclosure:
Kamimura (US PAT 10393861) discloses “A frequency modulation circuit includes a VCO, a DIV, a MIX, a single-phase differential converter, and a signal processing circuit. The signal processing circuit performs differential arithmetic processing of an intermediate frequency signal with a program of a microcomputer according to a quadrature demodulation scheme (See abstract)”
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, William Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753. 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