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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/1/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
On page 5 of the Remarks filed 12/1/2025 Applicant requests the non-statutory double patenting rejection be held in abeyance. The rejection is presently withdrawn because the instant claims as amended introduce subject matter which is not present in, or rendered obvious by the currently claimed invention of the co-pending application.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 5-8 with respect to the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) are largely moot as the claim language at issue was removed by amendment. However, the argument at page 6 that the “specification directly equates “transmission axis” with the direction of antenna spacing” is not persuasive. Applicant references page 7 of the specification stating that the antennas of the horizontal antenna are spaced apart “in a direction parallel to the ground” and the vertical antenna “includes at least two antennas having the same transmission axis…and spaced apart from each other in a direction perpendicular to the ground”. Yet, the full passage of page 7 expands: “…the same transmission axis as the horizontal front antenna and spaced apart from each other in a direction perpendicular to the ground” (emphasis added). That is, the horizontal antenna and the vertical antenna are what are disclosed to share the “same transmission axis”. The passage also clearly states that the direction of spacing is parallel to the ground for the horizontal antenna and perpendicular to the ground for the vertical antenna. As such, the “transmission axis” as termed by the specification is not “the direction of antenna spacing”, because these directions are clearly not the same for the horizontal antenna and vertical antenna.
On pages 6-7 of the Remarks Applicant argues that the recitation that phase difference information “varies according to a receiving position” is directly supported by the specification at page 5, lines 7-12. The argument is not persuasive at least because this passage refers to the “measured” phase difference between two RF signals. This is distinct from the “phase difference information” referenced in the claim which is used to encode at the transmitter and is then decoded at the receiver. See e.g. page 2, lines 14-17: “The guided aerial vehicle controls a direction of flight by receiving RF signals, measuring a phase difference between the RF signals, and comparing the measured phase difference with decoded transmission direction information.”
The comments on page 7 of the Remarks equating the “transmission axis” to the “antenna spacing direction” in support of encoding based on transmission axis are not persuasive. As addressed above, the “antenna spacing direction” is not the “transmission axis” as used in the specification because the horizontally spaced antenna and vertically spaced antenna are disclosed have the same “transmission axis” but different antenna spacing directions.
Applicant argues at pages 8-9 that the amended language unambiguously defines "phase difference information" as a quantity that varies based on receiver location, and results from measuring two RF signals from the spaced-apart antennas. The amendment is acknowledged but is not found to be supported by the specification. Rather, the argument appears to confuse the measured phase difference between received signals with the “phase difference information” (representing “transmission direction information”) used to encode the signal(s) as referenced above citing page 2 of the specification.
Applicant’s subsequent argument concerning the transmission axis at page 9 is not persuasive for the same reasons addressed above concerning the transmission axis.
Applicant argues at page 10, “in antenna array technology, when multiple antenna elements are arranged in a geometric configuration, the "array axis" or "baseline" is well-understood as referring to the line connecting the antenna elements or the direction perpendicular to it. At page 5, lines 10-12, the specification describes: "Trajectories with the same phase difference at dipoles of two antennas spaced apart from each other form a hyperbola." These hyperbolic trajectories are geometrically defined relative to the baseline connecting the two antennas-this baseline is the transmission axis”.
The argument is not persuasive as the specification does not refer to an “array axis” or “baseline”, but rather “transmission axis”, which is disclosed as being the same for antennas with elements spaced in different directions. This “array axis” or “baseline” as termed by the arguments therefore cannot be the “transmission axis” as described in the original disclosure.
Applicant’s argument on page 10 that: “even for omnidirectional antennas, while individual elements radiate in all directions, an array of such antennas has a defined geometric axis. The "transmission axis" refers to this geometric axis of the array, not to the radiation pattern of individual elements” is largely moot as the elected embodiment does not require omnidirectional antennas. However the argument is also not found persuasive. Discussion of “the transmission axis” in the specification is limited strictly to the context describing a horizontally spaced antenna and a vertically spaced antenna, which are disclosed as having the same transmission axis despite the antennas being arranged in different directions. Where omnidirectional antennas are discussed, the “transmission direction information” is described merely as “phase difference information”. It is maintained that there is no disclosure teaching how, in the context of an omnidirectional antenna embodiment, signals are encoded “based on a transmission axis” of the antenna. Rather, the specification specifically indicates that an embodiment using omnidirectional antennas “does not necessarily have to transmit an RF signal, which includes encoded information about a phase difference, only in a direction corresponding to the phase difference” at page 5, lines 16-18 of the substitute specification (indeed an “omnidirectional” antenna does not transmit only in a given direction). In contrast to this embodiment, the “transmission axis” is described at page 7, lines 3-14, in an embodiment featuring vertical and horizontal antennas “having the same transmission axis”. It is also here that the wireless transmission circuit is described to generate “at least one RF signal encoded with transmission direction information based on the transmission axis to the transmission antennas”, i.e. as expressed in the original claim language which lacks any indication of omnidirectional antennas. To the extent that it is the intent that the “omnidirectional antennas” may nonetheless have a different form of “transmission axis” which is in fact intended to refer to the “antenna spacing direction”, that is, in contrast with the “transmission axis” described, the specification is not found to disclose this or describe how “transmission direction information” used to encode the signal is “based on” such an axis.
The argument on page 10 concerning claim 2 is unpersuasive because similar to above, the argument omits the portion of the claim language that specifically indicates that the transmission axis of the vertical antenna is the same as that of the horizontal antenna, i.e. despite the individual antennas of each being spaced in different directions. The claim refutes, rather than confirms the argument that the “transmission axis” refers to the reference direction defined by antenna spacing geometry.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 8 and 9 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
The inventions of new claim 8 and previous claim 1 are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because it does not require that the RF signal be encoded with transmission direction information based on a transmission axis of the transmission antenna. The subcombination has separate utility by itself, e.g. as a navigational beacon, or as part of a vehicle mounted radar guidance system.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries). The claims clearly require different search queries and claim 1 may be classified under G01S 1/0428, whereas claim 8 may be classified under F41G 7/28.
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
A: The species where an RF signal is encoded with transmission direction information based on a transmission axis of the transmission antenna (as previously represented by previous claims 1-4).
B: The species where RF signals are encoded with transmission direction information representing phase difference information between the RF signals transmitted from two omnidirectional antennas (as newly represented by claim 9).
The species are independent or distinct because the claims to the different species recite the mutually exclusive characteristics of such species. For example, species A is directed to a directional embodiment where the antenna is formed by two antennas having the same transmission axis (e.g. page 7, line 3-page 8, line 2) and transmission direction information is based on a “transmission axis” of the transmission antenna, whereas species B is directed to an omnidirectional antenna embodiment having two omnidirectional antennas (e.g. page 5, lines 1-8). In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries). For example, a search for encoding with transmission direction information based on a transmission axis of the transmission antenna would be unlikely to return results for encoding with transmission direction information representing phase difference between the RF signals transmitted from two omnidirectional antennas, and vice-versa.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 8 and 9 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is amended to require “wherein the transmission direction information is phase difference information that varies according to a receiving position and is measured from two radio frequency signals transmitted from the two antennas spaced apart from each other”.
However, the specification is not found to disclose that this phase difference information varies according to a “receiving position”. Rather, the specification instead states at page 7, lines 19-20 that “the phase difference may be a fixed value or a value that varies according to the position of the target”. While it is ambiguous in the claim as to what the “receiving position” is, in the context of the specification there is no indication that the target as described at page 7 “receives”, rather the position of the target is distinct from “a receiving position”. It is clear from the disclosure the signals from flight guidance apparatus (10) are received by a receiver at a guided aerial vehicle (50), which is separate from the target (70). This is apparent throughout the specification but clearly summarized at page 2, lines 14-17: “The guided aerial vehicle controls a direction of flight by receiving RF signals, measuring a phase difference between the RF signals…” As the original disclosure does not describe phase difference information that varies according to a receiving position, the limitation introduces new matter and the claim fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Separately, the claim requirement that the “phase difference information”, i.e. the “transmission direction information” is “measured from two radio frequency signals transmitted from the two antennas spaced apart from each other” is unsupported by and inconsistent with the original disclosure. Rather, this information is consistently disclosed as being “decoded” by a decoder, which importantly is distinct from the disclosed “measuring” of a phase difference between received RF signals. This is apparent throughout the specification but clearly summarized and distinguished at page 2, lines 14-17: “The guided aerial vehicle controls a direction of flight by receiving RF signals, measuring a phase difference between the RF signals, and comparing the measured phase difference with decoded transmission direction information.” For this additional reason, the limitation introduces new matter and the claim fails to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 2-4 depend on claim 1 and likewise fail to comply.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 requires “the transmission direction information is phase difference information that varies according to a receiving position and is measured from two radio frequency signals transmitted from the two antennas spaced apart from each other”. Per the previous limitation, this “transmission direction information” is information with which an RF signal for subsequent transmission is encoded. As such it is not clear in what way this “information”, which is used to encode a signal for transmission, can be said to vary “according to a receiving position”. As a first matter it is ambiguous as to what “a receiving position” refers to, though in context the “receiving position” appears to imply the position at which the transmitted signal is received. Under this interpretation, the signal is already encoded with the “information” prior to reception and therefore does not subsequently “vary”. Further, there is no indication from the claim or specification that the claimed transmission side components have advance knowledge of the position of a receiver at which the signal will be received, with which they can use to “vary” the information, if in fact the intent. It is not clear in general what is required of the “information” for it to be deemed to vary according to a receiving position. What is the “receiving position”? What does it mean that the information itself (encoded “phase difference information”) “varies” according to a receiving position? Is it the intent that the information encoded depends on an intended receiving position, so the information “varies” accordingly? This is not what is claimed nor does it appear to be disclosed. As indicated above with reference to page 7, lines 19-20, it is contemplated that the intent may instead be that it varies according to the position of the target rather than the “receiving position”, as the language otherwise appears similar, however even if interpreted in this manner the claim lacks necessary context for this target.
Claims 2-4 depend on claim 1 and are likewise indefinite.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew M Barker whose telephone number is (571)272-3103. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 8:00 AM-4:30 PM; Fri 8 AM-12 PM Eastern Time.
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, Jack Keith can be reached at 571-273-6878. 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.
/MATTHEW M BARKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights