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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 28th, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 28th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that because Lee’s antenna discloses an antenna with elements spaced apart at different intervals, that the proposed combination of Lee and Izumi would not be possible, and would change the principle of operation of Izumi’s antenna.
The examiner does not dispute this, instead argues that this is key to the combination of the two, and while not directly taught by Izumi, Izumi does in fact allow for it, as it does mention the narrowing and/or widening of spacing between elements in order to narrow/widen the azimuth of the resulting beam. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill would find it reasonable to make the intervals different, in order to adjust the azimuth of the beam as needed. For example, on a vehicle where one side may be adjusted to more easily see pedestrians instead of other autos.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumi (JP 2013101025 A), herein referred to as Izumi and further in view of Lee (US 11099255 B2), herein referred to as Lee.
Regarding claim 1, Izumi teaches a radar antenna unit (fig. 1) comprising a receiving antenna (fig. 2) configured to receive a reflected wave of a radar wave, wherein the receiving antenna includes a plurality of receiving antenna elements (1-1 – 1-5) arranged at an interval so as to form a row along a first direction (see fig. 2A), wherein the plurality of receiving antenna elements include a first end antenna element (101) positioned at a first end of the row, a second end antenna element (1-5) positioned at a second end of the row, and a plurality of intermediate antenna elements (1-2 – 1-4) positioned between the first end antenna element (1-1) and the second end antenna element (1-5), wherein, of a plurality of the intervals between the plurality of receiving antenna elements, at least one interval differs from other intervals (d1>d2), wherein the receiving antennas of the plurality of receiving antenna elements are disposed such that PL+PR≤PAVGx2 holds, where PL is a first end interval, the first end interval is an interval between the first end antenna element and a first intermediate antenna element, and the first intermediate antenna element is, of the plurality of intermediate antenna elements, an intermediate antenna element positioned adjacent to the first end antenna element, where PR is a second end interval, the second end interval is an interval between the second end antenna element and a second intermediate antenna element, and the second intermediate antenna element is, of the plurality of intermediate antenna elements, an intermediate antenna element positioned adjacent to the second end antenna element, where PAVG is an average of the plurality of the intervals, and where λ0 is a wavelength corresponding to a predetermined frequency within a frequency bandwidth of the radar wave (PL= d2 between 1-1 and 1-2, PR=d2 between 1-4 and 1-5, PAVG is the average of the intervals, in this case, (d2+d2+d1+d1)/4. PL+PR also fits the limitation of being less than or equal to the average of the interval times 2, as d2 is less than d1, therefore the equation PL+PR could never be larger than 2xPAVG).
Izumi does not specifically teach wherein PAVG is from 0.8λ0 to 1.2 λ0, and wherein PL and one or more intervals other than PL among the plurality of intervals are different from each other. However, Izumi does teach (page 3 of attached translation, lines 6-11) that it is a results effective variable to adjust the element intervals/increase the number of elements in order to expand/narrow the azimuth detection range.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to make the antenna of Izumi where PAVG is from 0.8λ0 to 1.2 λ0, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Further, Lee discloses a radar antenna (Fig. 5) wherein PL and one or more intervals other than PL among the plurality of intervals are different from each other (see fig. 5, further, see column 7, lines 65-67, pointing out the use of non-uniform linear arrays in the receiver antennas).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the modified antenna of Izumi wherein PL and one or more intervals other than PL among the plurality of intervals are different from each other, as taught by Lee, to maximize the radiation aperture with limited channels (col. 7, lines 65-67).
Regarding claim 2, Izumi and Lee render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Izumi also teaches wherein the receiving antennas of the plurality of antenna elements are disposed such that PL+PM≥PAVGX2 and PM+PR≥PAVGx2 hold, where PM is an interval between the first intermediate antenna element and the second intermediate antenna element (By mathematics, with the first and second intermediate antennas being adjacent to each other, then PL+PM and PM+PR, both, will always be equal to 2xPAVG, fitting the equation).
However, Izumi does not specifically teach wherein the first intermediate antenna element and the second intermediate antenna element are adjacent to each other. However, Izumi does teach, as previously discussed in claim 1, that it is a results effective variable to adjust the element intervals/increase the number of elements in order to expand/narrow the azimuth detection range.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to make the antenna of Izumi where wherein the first intermediate antenna element and the second intermediate antenna element are adjacent to each other, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 5, Izumi and Lee render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Izumi also teaches wherein the number of the plurality of intermediate antenna elements is three (see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Izumi and Lee render obvious all limitations of base claim 2.
Izumi does not specifically teach wherein the number of the plurality of antenna elements is two, but as discussed in claim 2, Izumi does teach that it is a results effective variable to adjust the element intervals/increase the number of elements in order to expand/narrow the azimuth detection range.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to make the antenna of Izumi where wherein the number of the plurality of antenna elements is two, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 7, Izumi teaches a radar antenna unit (fig. 1) comprising a receiving antenna (fig. 2) configured to receive a reflected wave of a radar wave, wherein the receiving antenna includes a plurality of receiving antenna elements (1-1 – 1-5) arranged at an interval (d2, d1) so as to form a row along a first direction (see fig. 2), wherein the receiving antennas of the plurality of receiving antenna elements include a first end antenna element (1-1) positioned at a first end of the row (left, see fig. 2), a second end antenna element (1-5) positioned at a second end of the row (right, see fig. 2), wherein the plurality of intermediate antenna elements include a first intermediate antenna element (1-2) positioned adjacent to the first end antenna element (1-1), and a second intermediate antenna element (1-4) positioned adjacent to the second end antenna element (1-5), wherein, of a plurality of the intervals between the plurality of receiving antenna elements, at least one interval differs from other intervals (d2 is different than d1), where PL is a first end interval, the first end interval is an interval between the first end antenna element and a first intermediate antenna element (PL= d2 between 1-1 and 1-2), where DL is a first interval, the first interval is an interval between a first central position and the first end antenna element in the first direction (as seen in fig. 2, this would essentially be d1+d2), and the first central position is a central position in the first direction between the first intermediate antenna element and, of the plurality of intermediate antenna elements, an intermediate antenna element positioned adjacent to the first intermediate antenna element, where DR is a second interval, the second interval is an interval between a second central position and the second end antenna element in the first direction (as seen in fig. 2, this would also be d1+d2), and the second central position is a central position in the first direction between the second intermediate antenna element and, of the plurality of intermediate antenna elements, an intermediate antenna element positioned adjacent to the second intermediate antenna element, where PAVG is an average of the plurality of the intervals, and where λ0 is a wavelength corresponding to a predetermined frequency within a frequency bandwidth of the radar wave (these are just definition statements).
Izumi does not directly teach wherein there are at least four or more intermediate antenna elements positioned between the first end antenna element and the second end antenna element, wherein the plurality of receiving antenna elements are disposed such that DL+DR<PAVGx3 holds, and wherein PAVG is from 0.8λ0 to 1.2 λ0 where DL and DR are different from each other, and wherein PL and one or more intervals other than PL among the plurality of intervals are different from each other.
However, Izumi does teach ((page 3 of previously attached translation, lines 6-11)) that it is a results effective variable to adjust the element intervals/increase the number of elements in order to expand/narrow the azimuth detection range.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to make the antenna of Izumi wherein there are at least four or more intermediate antenna elements positioned between the first end antenna element and the second end antenna element, wherein the plurality of receiving antenna elements are disposed such that DL+DR<PAVGx3 holds, and wherein PAVG is from 0.8λ0 to 1.2 λ0, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Further, Lee discloses a radar antenna (Fig. 5) wherein DL and DR are different from each other and wherein PL and one or more intervals other than PL among the plurality of intervals are different from each other (see fig. 5, further, see column 7, lines 65-67, pointing out the use of non-uniform linear arrays in the receiver antennas).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the modified antenna of Izumi wherein DL and DR are different from each other and wherein PL and one or more intervals other than PL among the plurality of intervals are different from each other, as taught by Lee, to maximize the radiation aperture with limited channels (col. 7, lines 65-67).
Regarding claim 8, Izumi and Lee render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Izumi also teaches (page 1 of previously attached, last line) a radar comprising said radar antenna unit.
Regarding claim 9, Izumi and Lee render obvious all limitations of base claim 7.
Izumi also teaches (page 1 of previously attached, last line) a radar comprising said radar antenna unit.
Claim 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumi and Lee and further in view of Arkind et al. (US 11573310 B2), herein referred to as Arkind.
Regarding claim 3, Izumi and Lee render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Izumi also teaches further comprising: a transmitting antenna (10) configured to radiate the radar wave, wherein the transmitting antenna is disposed along the first direction (see fig. 1).
Izumi does not teach wherein the transmitting antenna is a pair of transmitting antennas and wherein an interval between the pair of transmitting antennas is larger than a distance between the first end antenna element and the second end antenna element.
However, Arkind teaches (fig. 1A) a radar antenna unit wherein the transmitting antenna is a pair (one from each row of 110-111 at any time, column 4, line 49 – column 5, line 13) of transmitting antennas and wherein the interval between the pair of transmitting antennas is larger than a distance between the first end antenna element and the second end antenna element (see fig. 1a, Tx columns 110, 111 are wider than the entirety of Rx rows 101, 102).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the radar antenna unit of Izumi wherein the transmitting antenna is a pair of transmitting antennas and wherein an interval between the pair of transmitting antennas is larger than a distance between the first end antenna element and the second end antenna element, as taught by Arkind, to increase the apparent aperture size without physically increasing the size of the receiving antenna array (column 5, lines 14-28).
Regarding claim 4, Izumi, Lee, and Arkind render obvious all limitations of base claim 3.
Izumi also teaches further comprising: a substrate (plane on which elements are arranged, page 6, lines 34-37) where the plurality of receiving antenna (1-1 - 1-5) elements and the transmitting antenna (10) is disposed in one row along the first direction (see fig. 1).
Izumi does not teach wherein the transmitting antenna is a pair of transmitting antennas. However, to reiterate what was discussed in claim 3, Arkind teaches (fig. 1A) a radar antenna unit wherein the transmitting antenna is a pair (one from each row of 110-111 at any time, column 4, line 49 – column 5, line 13) of transmitting antennas and wherein the interval between the pair of transmitting antennas is larger than a distance between the first end antenna element and the second end antenna element (see fig. 1a, Tx columns 110, 111 are wider than the entirety of Rx rows 101, 102).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the radar antenna unit of Izumi wherein the transmitting antenna is a pair of transmitting antennas and wherein an interval between the pair of transmitting antennas is larger than a distance between the first end antenna element and the second end antenna element, as taught by Arkind, to increase the apparent aperture size without physically increasing the size of the receiving antenna array (column 5, lines 14-28).
Furthermore, the limitation of wherein the interval between the pair of transmitting antennas is less than or equal to a value that is determined based on a width of the substrate in the first direction and on the distance, is implied by both Izumi and Arkind, insofar as this limitation is simply describing a physical limitation of placing the antenna elements on a substrate. The elements cannot be placed upon the substrate and also be further apart than the width of said substrate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON S WOODS whose telephone number is (571)270-1525. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 6:00 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.
/BRANDON SEAN WOODS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/CRYSTAL L HAMMOND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845