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 Amendment
Applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 11/19/2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant's amendments overcome the objections to the specification.
Claims 1 and 11 have been amended. No new matter was introduced.
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Horsfield does not disclose a radome or probes embedded in or attached to a surface of a radome, and that Horsfield instead discloses an anechoic chamber housing the antenna under test, such that Horsfield “teaches away” from the amended claims. This argument is not persuasive because it attacks Horsfield et al. (’320) in isolation, whereas the rejection is based on a combination of references. One cannot establish nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejection is predicated on a combination of those references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986); MPEP § 2145(IV). The rejection does not rely on Horsfield for the radome or for the relationship of the array to the radome. Rather, the radome, and the recitation that the array of radiating elements is “separated from and positioned beneath the radome,” are taught by the primary reference, Michaels (’505), which is directed to a radome test system in which the radiating array (antenna 12) is supported “spaced from the wall of radome 10” and in spaced relation to its inner surface. Horsfield is relied upon only for the narrower teaching of a fixed array of plural probes used to receive and measure the field emitted by individual radiating elements.
The “teaching away” contention is likewise unpersuasive. A reference teaches away only where it criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the claimed solution; the mere disclosure of an alternative or preferred embodiment does not constitute a teaching away. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP § 2145(X)(D). Horsfield’s use of an anechoic chamber for its own particular test arrangement does not criticize or discourage incorporating its fixed-probe-array teaching into the radome-based monitoring system of Michaels. Nor does Horsfield disparage radome-mounted or radome-adjacent probe placement. Applicant’s related assertion that “real time measurement” cannot occur under Horsfield is unsupported by the record; moreover, the claims do not recite real-time measurement, and arguments directed to features not claimed cannot distinguish the claims as presented.
Applicant argues that amended Claim 1 recites elements — specifically, the array being “separated from” the radome — that are not disclosed, taught, or suggested by the cited art of record. This argument is not persuasive. The added limitation is expressly taught by Michaels (’505), which discloses that the antenna 12 — comprising an array of dipoles (col. 3) — is supported by fixture 16 “in a position spaced from the wall of radome 10” (col. 3) and “in spaced relation to the inner … surface” of the radome, with the array disposed on the inner side of the radome so that radiated signals pass outward through the radome wall. An array held at a distance from, and on the inner side of, the radome is precisely an array that is “separated from and positioned beneath the radome.” The amendment therefore does not distinguish the claims over the art of record, and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues the dependent claims are allowable solely by virtue of their dependency from independent Claims 1 and 11. Because Claims 1 and 11 remain properly rejected for the reasons above, and because no separate argument has been presented for the dependent claims, Claims 2–10 and 12–14 remain rejected for the reasons set forth in the rejection. Accordingly, Claims 1–14 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Previously noted in the Non-Final filed on 08/19/2025: The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michaels (US 5,371,505) in view of Horsfield et al. (WO 2020/181320 A1) and further in view of Navarro et al. (US 2009/0153394 A1) and further in view of Awadin et al. (US 2018/0159638 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, Michaels (‘505) teaches:
A system for monitoring the functioning of an array of radiating elements in an antenna array of a radar (col. 13, lines 48-51: “In application of the invention any suitable form of antenna, comprising one or more dipoles or horns arranged in an array or other configuration, for example, can be employed to provide radiated test signals” and col. 13, lines 51-55: “Typically the frequency of the radiated test signals will be chosen to correspond to one or more frequencies in the intended operating frequency band of the radome“) the system comprising;
Michaels (‘505) does not explicitly teach, but Horsfield et al. (‘320) teaches a plurality of probes arranged to be one of embedded in or attached to a surface of a radome to measure parameters of a field radiated from the array of radiating elements ([0010]: “a fixed array of over-the-air probes, each over-the-air probe configured to receive PIM signals emitted from at least one of the plurality of radiating elements” and [0132]: “using a fixed probe array rather than a single movable probe may allow PIM measurements to be performed more rapidly“).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the radome-based antenna testing system of Michaels (‘505) with the fixed probe array of Horsfield et al. (‘320). One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide multiple simultaneous measurements rather than sequential measurements from a single probe, thereby reducing measurement time and improving efficiency. Horsfield et al. (‘320) teaches that using a fixed probe array allows measurements to be performed more rapidly as no time is lost in waiting for a moveable probe to physically move from element to element ([0132]).
Michaels (‘505) teaches the array of radiating elements being separated from and positioned beneath the radome (col. 3, lines 27-30: “area 10a is a portion of the radome 10 lying between the antenna 12 and the reflector 14, which are respectively positioned in spaced relation to the inner and outer surfaces of area 10a of the radome” and col. 3, lines 38-40: “Fixture 16 is movably mounted to support structure 20 and supports antenna 12 in a position spaced from the wall of radome 10“). Michaels expressly teaches that the antenna 12 — comprising an array of dipoles — is held by fixture 16 in a position spaced from the wall of radome 10 and in spaced relation to the inner surface of the radome, with the antenna disposed at the inner side of the radome so that radiated signals pass outward through the radome wall. The antenna thus being maintained at a distance from, and on the inner side of, the radome directly teaches the array of radiating elements being separated from and positioned beneath the radome, as recited in amended Claims 1 and 11.
Michaels (‘505) teaches a means for acquiring the measured parameters from the plurality of probes (col. 3, lines 67-col. 4, line 10: “data storage means, shown as memory 22 connected to electronics subsystem 24” and “such data may be derived based upon reflected test signals received“); and
Michaels (‘505) teaches a means for processing the measured parameters to identify faulty operation of at least one radiating element of the array of radiating elements based on the measured parameters and to identify the at least one radiating elements identified as having faulty operation (col. 4, lines 34-38: “data processing means, shown as processor 28, for processing data representative of the reflected test signals (received by antenna 12) to derive reflection and transmission coefficients representative of signal transmission characteristics for selected area 10a of the radome” and col. 4, lines 14-32: “comparison means, shown as comparator 26 coupled to memory 22” and “data for area 10a can be subjected to comparison in comparator 26 in order to identify discrepancies in transmission characteristics“).
Claim 11 recites the corresponding method steps of “locating a plurality of probes … the array of radiating elements being separated from and positioned beneath the radome” and “acquiring the measured parameters … for processing the measured parameters to identify faulty operation … and to identify the at least one radiating element identified as having faulty operation,” and is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 1, the claim body being substantively identical.
Regarding Claims 2 and 12, Michaels (‘505) teaches a means for providing a report of the at least one faulty radiating element (col. 4, lines 14-32: “comparison means, shown as comparator 26 coupled to memory 22” and “data for area 10a can be subjected to comparison in comparator 26 in order to identify discrepancies in transmission characteristics“).
Regarding Claims 3 and 13, Michaels (‘505) does not explicitly teach, but Navarro et al. (‘394) teaches a means for adjusting operation of at least one radiating element of the array of radiating elements not identified as faulty to compensate for the at least one faulty radiating element ([0006]: “enables the phased array antenna to overcome element failures by use of a beam-steering computer to calculate revised element phase and amplitude parameters to help maintain desired beam profiles” and [0044]: “if the failures are not catastrophic, the beam-steering computer can reconfigure the scanning parameters to account for elements that are not functioning adequately“).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the radome testing system of Michaels (‘505) with the compensation techniques of Navarro et al. (‘394). One would have been motivated to do so in order to not only detect faulty antenna elements but also to compensate for their effects by adjusting the operation of non-faulty elements, thereby maintaining overall antenna performance even when some elements fail.
Regarding Claim 4, Michaels (‘505) teaches one or more conductors connecting the plurality of probes to the means for acquiring the measured parameters (col. 4, lines 57-59: “One or more coaxial transmission lines, shown at 30, are included for coupling signals between antenna 12 and electronics subsystem 24“).
Regarding Claim 5, Michaels (‘505) does not explicitly teach, but Awadin et al. (‘638) teaches wherein the number of probes is a minimum number of probes calculated from K*log(N) where K is a predetermined maximum number of faulty elements and N is the number of radiating elements in the array of radiating elements ([0009]: “where N is an integer. The N signal measurements are collected in a measurement vector” and [0010]: “A vector ĉ is established as ĉ=c-c₀, where c₀ is a vector including a set of excitation coefficients corresponding to error-free ones of the antenna elements of the massive uniform linear antenna array“).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the probe system of Michaels (‘505) with the minimum probe calculation method of Awadin et al. (‘638). One would have been motivated to do so in order to optimize the number of measurement probes needed for reliable fault detection while minimizing system complexity and cost, as using the minimum required number of probes would reduce hardware requirements without compromising detection performance.
Regarding Claim 6, Michaels (‘505) teaches a means for performing a near-field to far-field transformation process on the acquired measurement parameters (col. 4, lines 39-42: “processor 28 may be arranged to implement data analysis using data based on the received reflected test signals, or by automated procedures programmed into a computer, based upon analysis techniques” and col. 6, lines 52-55: “data representative of signal transmission characteristics, such as transmission amplitude and phase and back-scattered reflection amplitude and phase, can be derived and stored“).
Regarding Claim 7, Michaels (‘505) does not explicitly teach, but Awadin et al. (‘638) teaches wherein processing the measured parameters to identify faulty operation of the at least one radiating element comprises: performing a compressed sensing process ([0008]: “The method of identifying faulty antenna elements in massive uniform linear antenna arrays is a compressive sensing-based method“).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the processing system of Michaels (‘505) with the compressed sensing process of Awadin et al. (‘638). One would have been motivated to do so in order to improve the efficiency and accuracy of fault detection by utilizing advanced signal processing techniques that can identify faulty elements with fewer measurements and better reliability than traditional methods.
Regarding Claim 8, Michaels (‘505) does not explicitly teach, but Awadin et al. (‘638) teaches wherein the compressed sensing process ([Abstract], [0008]) comprises: receiving a plurality of distances between the plurality of probes and the array of radiating elements, wherein relative angles between the plurality of probes, the array of radiating elements and one or more field values are measured by the plurality of probes ([0026]: “Considering a linear antenna array made up of U antenna elements located on the x-axis, the position of the uth antenna element is denoted by xu.” and “To detect the faulty antenna elements, N far-field measurements are collected, where the (n+1)th measurement is” and “The vector {right arrow over (fu)}({right arrow over (r)}un, θn, ϕn,) is the electric field radiation pattern of the uth antenna element at the (n+1)th measurement point, and run=|{right arrow over (r)}un|=|{right arrow over (r)}n−{right arrow over (r)}u|, where {right arrow over (r)}u and {right arrow over (r)}n are the position vectors of the uth antenna element and the (n+1)th measurement point, respectively. The azimuth and elevation angles of the probe at the (n+1)th position are denoted by ϕn and 90°-ϕn, respectively” and [0028]: “For a linear array with isotropic antenna elements, the array factor is considered, rather than the far electric field, which can be written at the (n+1)th measurement position” and [0041]: “Unless stated otherwise, a ULA with inter-element spacing of λ is considered, with the angular space being sampled such that
PNG
media_image1.png
48
193
media_image1.png
Greyscale
”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the geometric measurement parameters of Awadin et al. (‘638) with the compressed sensing process to enable proper spatial correlation between probe measurements and antenna element locations, using the position vectors and angular measurements to establish the required distances and relative angles for accurate fault detection.
Regarding Claim 9, Michaels (‘505) does not explicitly teach, but Navarro et al. (‘394) teaches wherein the array of radiating elements is an electrically steered array ([0001]: “This disclosure relates generally to phased array antennas and more particularly to apparatus and methods used to calibrate Direct radiating Electronically Steerable Phased Array Antennas (ESAs)” and [0002]: “Steering of the antenna is accomplished by electronically adjusting the time delay or phase shift on individual elements“).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the radome-based monitoring system of Michaels (‘505) to electrically steered arrays as taught by Navarro et al. (‘394). One would have been motivated to do so because electrically steered arrays require precise monitoring of individual element performance to maintain beam steering accuracy, and the fault detection principles taught by Michaels (‘505) for antenna testing would be directly applicable to ensuring that electronic phase control systems operate properly. The monitoring of element health would be particularly important in electronically steered system where individual element failures can significantly degrade beam forming performance and steering accuracy.
Regarding Claim 10, Michaels (‘505) teaches wherein the array of radiating elements is a mechanically steered array (col. 14, lines 35-37: “positioning means, coupled to said reflector means, for adjusting the position of said reflector means relative to said selected area of said radome” and col. 3, lines 63-66: “Such adjustments may be made manually or may be automated by application of known techniques of position control technology“).
Regarding Claim 14, Michaels (‘505) does not explicitly teach, but Navarro et al. (‘394) teaches wherein the adjusting includes performing a beam forming process on the array of radiating elements ([0006]: “enables the phased array antenna to overcome element failures by use of a beam-steering computer to calculate revised element phase and amplitude parameters to help maintain desired beam profiles” and [0002]: “the combined energy of individual elements forming the antenna. Steering of the antenna is accomplished by electronically adjusting the time delay or phase shift on individual elements in such a way that, for example, the energy received by each element from a plane wave in a selected direction combines coherently, whereas the energy in other directions does not. This process, commonly referred to as beamforming, is the fundamental basis for the ESA concept“).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the radome-based fault detection system of Michaels (‘505) with the beam forming compensation techniques of Navarro et al. (‘394). One would have been motivated to do so because after identifying faulty antenna elements through the monitoring system, it would be necessary to compensate for those failures to maintain antenna performance. Navarro et al. (‘394) teaches that beam forming processes can be used to calculate revised element parameters to maintain desired beam profiles even when some elements fail, which would be the natural next step after fault detection to ensure continue proper antenna operation.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REMASH R GUYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-0115. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, Resha H Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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.
/REMASH R GUYAH/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights