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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/11/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
Claims 1 and 13 are amended.
Claims 5-8, 10-12, and 14-16 were previously cancelled.
Claims 1-4, 9, 13, and 17-19 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-10, filed 03/11/2026, with respect to Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are moot because they do not apply to the specific combination of references being used in the current rejection. However, for clarity of record, Examiner responds to specific arguments regarding prior art Schmitz.
Applicant appears to argue that Claim 1 recites a “single transmission unit” (e.g., pg. 8), distinguishing the claimed invention from Schmitz’s multiple independent transmitters. Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that Schmitz explicitly teaches an antenna array embodiment, where the independent transmitters are merely antennas of the single array ([0041]).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, line 9, the phrase “the transmission unit is an antenna array” should be “wherein the transmission unit is an antenna array”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites contingent limitation(s) (“if one of the harmonic components of a certain sub-region exceeds a preset value”). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See MPEP 2111.04 II.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitz (US 2022/0003861) in view of Xia (CN 106778549 A) and Freedman (US 5,128,683).
Regarding Claim 1, Schmitz teaches:
A scanning nonlinear junction detection method, used to detect electronic apparatus containing nonlinear junctions ([0001]: “a method for determining a position of an object which comprises at least one non-linear component”; [0010]), comprising following steps:
S1. dividing a detection region into multiple sub-regions, transmitting, by a transmission unit, signals to all the sub-regions one by one ([0065]: “the angle of incidence α1, α2, αn of each transmitted signal 41, 42, 4 n can be set by mechanically and/or electronically pivoting the antenna lobes 71, 72, 7 n of the transmitting devices 61, 62, 6 n and runs through the pivoting range.”; [Figs. 3, 5]);
S2. receiving, by a reception unit, signals fed back from the sub-regions, obtaining amplitude of harmonic components measured from all the sub-regions according to the signals fed back; … determining that a nonlinear junction is present in the sub-region ([0065]: “the object signals 51, 52, 5 n emitted by the non-linear components 3 having twice and/or three times the frequency of the transmitted signals 41, 42, 4 n are received by means of at least one receiving device 121, 122, 12 n.”; “the backscatter power of the object signals 51, 52, 5 n is determined”);
the transmission unit is an antenna array including multiple transmission antennas ([0041]: “array”; “antennas as transmitting devices.”), wherein relationships between … the transmission antennas are controlled to change a beam angle of the transmission unit ([0026-0027]; [0065]: “electronically pivoting the antenna lobes”), thereby altering a main lobe direction … ([0065]: “angle of incidence”; “This process is repeated until a predefined pivoting range or the entire pivoting range has been passed through”).
Schmitz does not explicitly teach – but Xia teaches: if one of the harmonic components of a certain sub-region exceeds a preset value, determining that a nonlinear junction is present in the sub-region (Xia [0013]: “Based on the total energy value of the second harmonic crossing the threshold point... irregular multi-metal junction objects (such as keys), regular objects with mainly metal junction characteristics (such as metal shell electronic devices), and regular objects with mainly semiconductor junction characteristics are detected.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Schmitz and determine that a nonlinear junction is present in the sub-region if one of the harmonic components of a certain sub-region exceeds a preset value, as taught by Xia. Using a preset threshold for detection is considered ordinary and well-known in the art, and using a preset threshold to determine if a nonlinear junction is present is beneficial for improving detection accuracy.
Schmitz does not explicitly teach – but Freedman teaches: wherein relationships between electrical signal phases of the transmission antennas are controlled to change a beam angle of the transmission unit, thereby altering a main lobe direction, so that all the transmission antennas of the transmission unit, simultaneously transmit detection signals to all the sub-regions one by one to conduct the scanning detection (Freedman [col. 7, lines 1-3]: “Each TR module phase-shifts its signal by an amount determined by appropriate beam direction control signals”; [col. 7, lines 8-12]: “the cumulative result of this process performed over the entire aperture of antenna 18b is the generation of a pulse of high-power radiation transmitted in the desired direction.”; [col. 11, lines 18-21]: “active array antenna 18b of FIGS. 1 and 2 is capable of producing pencil beams in certain discrete azimuth and elevation directions.”; [col. 12, line 59]: “main beam”; [col. 14, lines 11-13]: “the system according to the invention produces sequential pencil beams at various angles to cover the desired volume.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Schmitz’s electronic pivoting technique and use phased array beamforming to simultaneously transmit detection signals to all the sub-regions one by one, as taught by Freedman. Schmitz teaches using an antenna array and electronically pivoting antenna lobes to scan sub-regions ([0041]; [0065]). Freedman teaches that controlling the phase relationship across all array elements is a well-known method of electronically steering the combined main lobe, such that the cumulative result of all elements transmitting simultaneously is a single beam directed toward one sub-region at a time (Freedman [col. 7]). Substituting Schmitz’s electronic antenna pivoting with Freedman’s phase-controlled beam steering comprises simple substitution of one known technique for another to obtain the predictable result of precise electronic control of the main lobe direction toward a specific sub-region, thereby improving detection by focusing on one sub-region at a time.
Regarding Claim 2, Schmitz teaches: the scanning nonlinear junction detection method, characterized in that in step S1, the sub-regions are arranged in m rows… ([Figs. 3, 5]: showing the regions in a row).
Schmitz does not explicitly teach – but Freedman teaches: the sub-regions are arranged in m rows and n columns, where m>1, n>1 (Freedman [Fig. 6A]; [col. 11, lines 20-21]: “discrete azimuth and elevation directions”).
It would have been obvious to modify Schmitz and arrange subregions in m rows and n columns, as taught by Freedman. Freedman teaches that a phased array beam is sequenced through a two-dimensional grid of azimuth and elevation. Modifying Schmitz to scan in two dimensions in this manner is beneficial for enabling detection of nonlinear junctions in a two-dimensional region.
Regarding Claim 9, Schmitz teaches: the scanning nonlinear junction detection method, characterized in that the transmission antennas are arranged in multiple rows … ([Figs. 4, 5]; [0068]: “transmitting devices 61, 62, 6 n and the receiving devices 121, 122, 12 n are combined in an array 8”).
Schmitz does not explicitly teach – but Freedman teaches: the transmission antennas are arranged in multiple rows and multiple columns (Freedman [col. 9, line 37-39]: “the rectangular aperture includes 55 columns in which an antenna element may appear, and 59 rows”).
It would have been obvious to modify Schmitz and arrange the transmission antennas in multiple rows and columns, as taught by Freedman. Two-dimensional arrays organized in rows and columns are well-known in the art and are beneficial for improving spatial resolution and enabling beam-steering in both the azimuth and elevation directions.
Regarding Claim 13, Schmitz teaches: the scanning nonlinear junction detection method, characterized in that a main lobe direction when the transmission unit scans each of the sub-regions directs to a center point of each of the sub-regions (Fig. 2; [0062]: “main lobe”).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitz (US 2022/0003861) in view of Xia (CN 106778549 A) and Freedman (US 5,128,683), as applied to Claim 2 above, and further in view of Bilik (US 2018/0356506).
Regarding Claim 3, Schmitz teaches: the scanning nonlinear junction detection method, characterized in that an effective space angle of the transmission unit includes a horizontal angle θ… ([0065]: “angle of incidence”).
Schmitz does not explicitly teach – but Bilik teaches: an effective space angle of the transmission unit includes a horizontal angle θ, a pitch angle φ; a space angle coordinate range of the detection region is (−0.5n*θ to 0.5n*θ, −0.5m*φ to 0.5m*φ) (Bilik [0035]: “azimuth/elevation plane”; Fig. 5).
In that Schmitz teaches a space angle of the transmission unit including a horizontal angle, and Bilik teaches a space angle of the transmission unit including a horizontal and a pitch angle, and using the horizontal and pitch angle for a coordinate range, it would have been obvious to modify Schmitz and include a pitch angle in the space angle, and use the horizontal and pitch angles for a coordinate range, as taught by Bilik. Transmission units with space angles including horizontal and pitch angles, and using the horizontal and pitch angles as a coordinate system, are well-known in the art. Modifying Schmitz with the teachings of Bilik comprises combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 4, Schmitz teaches: the scanning nonlinear junction detection method, characterized in that a space angle coordinate range of each of the sub-regions is … ([Figs. 3, 5]: showing discrete regions).
Schmitz does not explicitly teach – but Bilik teaches: [a*θ to (a+1)*θ, (b+1)*φ to b*φ], where −0.5n≤a≤0.5n−1, −m/2≤b≤0.5m−1 (Bilik [0035]; [Fig. 5]: teaching using azimuth and elevation angle coordinates).
In that Schmitz teaches discrete subregions based on a horizontal angle, and Bilik teaches using horizontal and pitch angles for a coordinate system, it would have been obvious to modify Schmitz and use horizontal and pitch angles for a space angle coordinate range of each sub-region, as taught by Bilik. Using the horizontal and pitch angles as a coordinate system for the sub-regions is well-known in the art. Modifying Schmitz with the teachings of Bilik comprises combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitz (US 2022/0003861) in view of Xia (CN 106778549 A) and Freedman (US 5,128,683), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of O’Keeffe (US 2019/0120939).
Regarding Claim 17, Schmitz does not explicitly teach – but O’Keeffe teaches: the scanning nonlinear junction detection method, further comprising step S3: setting the sub-region in which the nonlinear junction is located as a new detection region, and repeating steps S1 and S2, until a precise position of the nonlinear junction is found (O’Keeffe [0009]: “The method iteratively scans the laser with a smaller point spacing in a region estimated to contain a time-flight-boundary (e.g. an object edge) and thereby iteratively generating smaller regions wherein the boundary is estimated in successive scans.”).
It would have been obvious to modify Schmitz and set the sub-region in which the nonlinear junction is located as a new detection region, and repeat steps S1 and S2, until a precise position of the nonlinear junction is found, as taught by O’Keefe. Iteratively scanning a sub-region in which a nonlinear junction is detected is beneficial for improving detection accuracy.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitz (US 2022/0003861) in view of Walker (US 2012/0071105).
Regarding Claim 18, Schmitz teaches:
A scanning nonlinear junction detection device, comprising: a transmission unit (1) used to transmit detection signals to all sub-regions of a detection region ([0062]: “transmitting device”; [0065]: “This process is repeated until a predefined pivoting range or the entire pivoting range has been passed through.”), a reception unit (2) used to receive signals fed back from the sub-regions ([0062]: “receiving device”), a detection signal control unit (3) used to control detection signals from the transmission unit (1) ([0059]: “circuit device 10”),
a reception data processing unit (4) used to obtain amplitude of harmonic components obtained from the sub-regions according to the signals fed back … ([0059]: “circuit device 10”; [0065]: “the non-linear components 3 having twice and/or three times the frequency of the transmitted signals”).
Schmitz does not explicitly teach – but Walker teaches:’
a control and display unit (5) used to control and display operating conditions and results of the detection signal control unit (3) and the reception data processing unit (5) (Walker [0044]: “a display screen ... to alert a human operator that a target device has been detected.”; “allowing the operator to configure and control the detection system”).
It would have been obvious to modify Schmitz and use a control and display unit to control and display detection results of the detection device, as taught by Walker. Using a control and display unit to control and display detection results is well-known in the art and is beneficial for improving the usability of the device and improving a user’s ability to detect a device.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitz (US 2022/0003861) in view of Walker (US 2012/0071105), as applied to Claim 18 above, and further in view of Freedman (US 5,128,683).
Regarding Claim 19, Schmitz teaches: the scanning nonlinear junction detection device, characterized in that the transmission antennas are arranged in multiple rows … ([Figs. 4, 5]; [0068]: “transmitting devices 61, 62, 6 n and the receiving devices 121, 122, 12 n are combined in an array 8”).
Schmitz does not explicitly teach – but Freedman teaches: the transmission antennas are arranged in multiple rows and multiple columns (Freedman [col. 9, line 37-39]: “the rectangular aperture includes 55 columns in which an antenna element may appear, and 59 rows”).
It would have been obvious to modify Schmitz and arrange the transmission antennas in multiple rows and columns, as taught by Freedman. Two-dimensional arrays organized in rows and columns are well-known in the art and are beneficial for improving spatial resolution and enabling beam-steering in both the azimuth and elevation directions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH Y. ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-0170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-4PM.
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 J. 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 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.
/NOAH YI MIN ZHU/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/BRADY W FRAZIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights