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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/17/2025 has been entered.
Interview Summary
A telephonic interview was performed on 02/09/2026 with Applicant’s Attorney James Shaurette, discussing possible amendment for allowance regarding claim 13. Examiner was informed that Non-Final Rejection is preferred in this Office Action.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 12/17/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-33 remain pending in the application. Newly added claim 34 is pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s argument (REMARKS page 13) about amended Claim 1 is moot based on the new ground rejections. Instead of Mohamadi (‘732), current prior art Moulder (‘038) teaches the newly added limitations:
“an interface supported by the {Fig.2 item 230 (Data Acq.) with buffer 136, 240 (interface); col.6 line 12 (computer/digital interface 240), 21-22 (data acquisition block 230); Examiner’s Note: buffer also for “an interface”. See circuit board in Fig.2 with mark below};
“a plurality of antennas supported by the {Fig.2 items 212 (Trans. Antennas), 216 (Rec. Antennas)};
“a plurality of conductors supported by the {Fig.2 connect lines};
“switching circuitry supported by the {Fig.2 items 214, 218 (RF switches)};
Applicant’s argument (REMARKS pages 14-16) about amended claim 13 is moot based on the new ground rejections.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (REMARKS pages 16-17) about Claim 7, Examiner disagrees because Moulder (‘038) discloses the claimed language “wherein the antennas of the first switched array module are configured to transmit the electromagnetic energy and the antennas of at least one of the additional switched array modules are configured to receive the electromagnetic energy” {Fig.2 items 212 (Trans. Antenna), 216 (Rec. Antennas); Fig.3B-C; Fig.4B (see multistatic sampled reflections of scene)}. For further clarification, Examiner added Fig.2 and Fig.3B-C in this Office Action. The claimed language does not exclude receiving signals from “the antennas of the first switched array module” and does not exclude transmitting signals from “the antennas of at least one of the additional switched array modules”. Therefore, Moulder (‘038) does disclose the claimed language in claim 7.
Applicant’s argument (REMARKS page 17) about Claim 10 is moot based on the new ground rejections. For more clarification, instead of using prior art Mohamadi (‘732), current prior art Moulder (‘038) used in this Office Action teaches the claimed language “all of the antennas are positioned adjacent to one side of the printed circuit board” {Fig.2; Fig.3B-C}.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (REMARKS page 17) about Claim 11, Examiner added more support for the prima facie obviousness in this 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 9-10, 12, 32, 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohamadi (US 9,316,732, hereafter Mohamadi) in view of Moulder et al. (US 11,194,038, hereafter Moulder).
Regarding claim 1, Moulder (‘732) discloses that An imaging system {col.2 lines 26 (systems), 29 (imaging systems)} comprising:
a printed circuit board { col.7 lines 4-7 (the system 100 may employ a linear array including one or more sets of eight single chip radar transceivers mounted on a single FR4 Substrate printed circuit board.)};
an interface { Fig.4 items 1010 (converter) connected to item 1020 (radar)}, and wherein the interface is configured to at least one of output and receive a plurality of electrical signals with respect to circuitry external of the printed circuit board { Fig.4 item 1010 (converter) connected with item 1020 (radar) and 1031 (TX array), 1033 (RX array)};
a plurality of antennas { Fig.4 item 1030; col.5 line 51 (antenna arrays 1030)}, and wherein the antennas are configured to at least one of transmit and receive electromagnetic energy with respect to a target imaging volume {Fig.2; Fig.4 items 1031 (TX array), 1033 (RX array); col.7 line 9 (rapid millimeter-wave scan)};
a plurality of conductors , and wherein the conductors are configured to communicate the electrical signals between the interface and the antennas { Fig.4 signal lines connected between item 1020 (radar), 1010 (converter), and 1030 (antennas)};
switching circuitry { Fig.6B item 134 connect with item 1020 (radar); Fig.6C item 136 (RF switch interface); col.7 line 63 (switch interface 134)}, and wherein the switching circuitry is configured to selectively couple the interface with different ones of the antennas and different ones of the conductors at a plurality of different moments in time {Fig.6C (see timer and timing); col.7 lines 61-64 (In FIG. 6B, an array of 24 transceivers 1000 may be implemented by the use of double pole switches 135 with high isolation that may be included in an IF switch interface 134 to time the routing)}; and
However, Mohamadi (‘732) does not explicitly disclose (see words with underlines) “an interface supported by the printed circuit board”, “a plurality of antennas supported by the printed circuit board”, “a plurality of conductors supported by the printed circuit board”, “switching circuitry supported by the printed circuit board”, and “a controller configured to control the switching circuitry to couple the different ones of the antennas with the interface at the plurality of moments in time to provide a plurality of different sampling points within an aperture of the imaging system”. In the same field of endeavor, Moulder (‘038) discloses that
an interface supported by the {Fig.2 item 230 (Data Acq.) with buffer 136, 240 (interface); col.6 line 12 (computer/digital interface 240), 21-22 (data acquisition block 230); Examiner’s Note: buffer also for “an interface”. See circuit board in Fig.2 with mark below};
a plurality of antennas supported by the {Fig.2 items 212 (Trans. Antennas), 216 (Rec. Antennas); Examiner’s Note: See circuit board in Fig.2 with mark below. };
a plurality of conductors supported by the {Fig.2 connect lines; Examiner’s Note: See circuit board in Fig.2 with mark below.};
switching circuitry supported by the {Fig.2 items 214, 218 (RF switches); Examiner’s Note: See circuit board in Fig.2 with mark below };
PNG
media_image1.png
495
920
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a controller {Fig.1 item 140 (computer)} configured to control the switching circuitry to couple the different ones of the antennas with the interface at the plurality of moments in time to provide a plurality of different sampling points within an aperture of the imaging system {Fig.4B (top); Fig.4C; col.2 lines 42-43 (Sampling each transmitter-receiver pair in each tiled multistatic array); col.4 lines 63-67 (Control of the switches 118 can be accomplished through the use of a suitable processor, such as a Complex Programmable Logic Device (CPLD), switch states, which can be toggled sequentially by sending a pulse to an); col.5 lines 1-2 (“Element Step” connector, This control scheme)}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mohamadi (‘732) with the teachings of Moulder (‘038) {arrange antennas, switches, interface, and connect lines on a circuit board and control switches to select transmit and receive antennas} to arrange antennas, switches, interface, and connect lines on a circuit board and control switches to select transmit and receive antennas. Doing so would construct monostatic and multistatic arrays and sample each transmitter-receiver pair as needed to measure subject and reconstruct microwave images quickly (e.g. at video rates in 3D) with cost-effective realization, fast acquisition at desired resolution, limit aperture size, and expense-effective processing, as recognized by Moulder (‘038) {col.1 lines 37-40 (The desires to measure subject quickly and reconstruct microwave images at video rates present two major challenges, cost-effective realization, Fast acquisition), 45-46 (resolution system operating in the tens of GHz, aperture size), 50-53 (allows an array with NT transmit elements and NR receive elements to form NTNR spatially diverse samples, wherein transmitters and receivers are co-located); col.2 lines 4-5 (expense of processing overhead), 42-43 (Sampling each transmitter-receiver pair in each tiled multistatic array)}.
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Mohamadi (‘732) and Moulder (‘038) discloses that in the imaging system,
the printed circuit board has an at least substantially planar surface and the transmit antennas are configured to transmit electromagnetic energy in a direction that is at least substantially perpendicular to the at least substantially planar surface {see Mohamadi (‘732) Fig.2; col.5 lines 18-20 (The rectangular radar transceiver array 110 may be arranged as shown to cover a scanning area defined by panels 104,106}.
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Mohamadi (‘732) and Moulder (‘038) discloses that in the imaging system,
the switching circuitry comprises a plurality of surface mounted devices supported by a surface of the printed circuit board {see Mohamadi (‘732) Fig.2 items 104 and 106 (panels); Fig.6B item 134 (switch) connected to item 1020 (radar); col.5 lines 18-20 (The rectangular radar transceiver array 110 may be arranged as shown to cover a scanning area defined by panels 104,106.)}.
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Mohamadi (‘732) and Moulder (‘038) discloses that the imaging system further comprising
amplification circuitry supported by the printed circuit board, and wherein the amplification circuitry is configured to increase an electrical characteristic of the electrical signals {see Mohamadi (‘732) col.3 lines 51-54 (an active antenna array (e.g., antenna-amplifier array) including a fully integrated feed network with associated power amplifiers that transmit (or low noise amplifiers to receive) a radar signal)}.
Regarding claim 7, which depends on claim 1, Mohamadi (‘732) discloses that in the imaging system,
the printed circuit board, the interface, the antennas, the conductors and the switching circuitry are components of a first switched array module, and further comprising a plurality of additional switched array modules { Fig.5; Fig.6B; col.6 lines 56-57 (Scanning system 100 may include a number, N., of radar transceivers)}, and
.
However, Mohamadi (‘732) does not explicitly disclose “wherein the antennas of the first switched array module are configured to transmit the electromagnetic energy and the antennas of at least one of the additional switched array modules are configured to receive the electromagnetic energy”. In the same field of endeavor, Moulder (‘038) discloses that
wherein the antennas of the first switched array module are configured to transmit the electromagnetic energy and the antennas of at least one of the additional switched array modules are configured to receive the electromagnetic energy {Fig.2 items 212 (Trans. Antenna), 216 (Rec. Antennas); Fig.3B-C; Fig.4B (see multistatic sampled reflections of scene)}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mohamadi (‘732) with the teachings of Moulder (‘038) { arrange antennas, switches, interface, and connect lines on a circuit board and control switches to select transmit and receive antennas} to arrange antennas, switches, interface, and connect lines on a circuit board and control switches to select transmit and receive antennas. Doing so would construct monostatic and multistatic arrays and sample each transmitter-receiver pair as needed to measure subject and reconstruct microwave images quickly (e.g. at video rates in 3D) with cost-effective realization, fast acquisition at desired resolution, limit aperture size, and expense-effective processing, as recognized by Moulder (‘038) {col.1 lines 37-40 (The desires to measure subject quickly and reconstruct microwave images at video rates present two major challenges, cost-effective realization, Fast acquisition), 45-46 (resolution system operating in the tens of GHz, aperture size), 50-53 (allows an array with NT transmit elements and NR receive elements to form NTNR spatially diverse samples, wherein transmitters and receivers are co-located); col.2 lines 4-5 (expense of processing overhead), 42-43 (Sampling each transmitter-receiver pair in each tiled multistatic array)}.
Regarding claim 9, which depends on claims 1 and 7, the combination of Mohamadi (‘732) and Moulder (‘038) discloses that in the imaging system,
the antennas of the first and additional switched array modules include transmit and receive antennas having opposite rotational handedness { see Mohamadi (‘732) Fig.12; col.6 lines 27-29 (Transmit antenna array 1031 and receive antenna array 1033 may have opposite polarizations,), 33-34 (the transmit signal in radar is circularly polarized)}.
Regarding claim 10, which depends on claim 1, Mohamadi (‘732) does not explicitly disclose “all of the antennas are positioned adjacent to one side of the printed circuit board”. In the same field of endeavor, Moulder (‘038) discloses that in the imaging system,
all of the antennas are positioned adjacent to one side of the printed circuit board {Fig.2; Fig.3B-C}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mohamadi (‘732) with the teachings of Moulder (‘038) {arrange antennas, switches, interface, and connect lines on a circuit board and control switches to select transmit and receive antennas, which are arranged on one side of a circuit board} to arrange antennas, switches, interface, and connect lines on a circuit board and control switches to select transmit and receive antennas, which are arranged on one side of a circuit board. Doing so would construct monostatic and multistatic arrays and sample each transmitter-receiver pair as needed to measure subject and reconstruct microwave images quickly (e.g. at video rates in 3D) with cost-effective realization, fast acquisition at desired resolution, limit aperture size, and expense-effective processing, as recognized by Moulder (‘038) {col.1 lines 37-40 (The desires to measure subject quickly and reconstruct microwave images at video rates present two major challenges, cost-effective realization, Fast acquisition), 45-46 (resolution system operating in the tens of GHz, aperture size), 50-53 (allows an array with NT transmit elements and NR receive elements to form NTNR spatially diverse samples, wherein transmitters and receivers are co-located); col.2 lines 4-5 (expense of processing overhead), 42-43 (Sampling each transmitter-receiver pair in each tiled multistatic array)}.
Regarding claim 12, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Mohamadi (‘732) and Moulder (‘038) discloses that in the imaging system,
the antennas are configured to at least one of transmit and receive the electromagnetic energy within a range of 3 to 300 GHz { see Mohamadi (‘732) col.3 lines 54-57 (8-12, GHz, 40-75, GHz, 71-76, 81086 GHz, 75-100GHz)}.
Regarding claim 32, which depends on claim 1, Mohamadi (‘732) does not explicitly disclose “each of the antenna arrays has a boundary array configuration”. In the same field of endeavor, Moulder (‘038) discloses that in the imaging system,
each of the antenna arrays has a boundary array configuration {Fig.3B; Fig.3C; Examiner’s note: see
PNG
media_image2.png
50
217
media_image2.png
Greyscale
in Fig.3B; Fig.3C }.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mohamadi (‘732) with the teachings of Moulder (‘038) { arrange antennas, switches, interface, and connect lines on a circuit board and control switches to select transmit and receive antennas and arrange antenna arrays in a boundary array configuration } to arrange antennas, switches, interface, and connect lines on a circuit board and control switches to select transmit and receive antennas and arrange antenna arrays in a boundary array configuration. Doing so would construct monostatic and multistatic arrays and sample each transmitter-receiver pair as needed to measure subject and reconstruct microwave images quickly (e.g. at video rates in 3D) with cost-effective realization, fast acquisition at desired resolution, limit aperture size, and expense-effective processing, as recognized by Moulder (‘038) {col.1 lines 37-40 (The desires to measure subject quickly and reconstruct microwave images at video rates present two major challenges, cost-effective realization, Fast acquisition), 45-46 (resolution system operating in the tens of GHz, aperture size), 50-53 (allows an array with NT transmit elements and NR receive elements to form NTNR spatially diverse samples, wherein transmitters and receivers are co-located); col.2 lines 4-5 (expense of processing overhead), 42-43 (Sampling each transmitter-receiver pair in each tiled multistatic array); col.6 lines 56-57 (FIGS. 3B and 3C depict an example multistatic array topology)}.
Regarding claim 34, which depends on claims 1 and 10, Mohamadi (‘732) does not explicitly disclose “the one side of the printed circuit board forms one side of a unit cell of a boundary array configuration”. In the same field of endeavor, Moulder (‘038) discloses that in the imaging system,
the one side of the printed circuit board forms one side of a unit cell of a boundary array configuration {Fig.3B-C}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mohamadi (‘732) with the teachings of Moulder (‘038) {arrange antennas, switches, interface, and connect lines on a circuit board and control switches to select transmit and receive antennas, which are arranged on one side of a circuit board as a unit cell} to arrange antennas, switches, interface, and connect lines on a circuit board and control switches to select transmit and receive antennas, which are arranged on one side of a circuit board as a unit cell. Doing so would construct monostatic and multistatic arrays and sample each transmitter-receiver pair as needed to measure subject and reconstruct microwave images quickly (e.g. at video rates in 3D) with cost-effective realization, fast acquisition at desired resolution, limit aperture size, and expense-effective processing, as recognized by Moulder (‘038) {col.1 lines 37-40 (The desires to measure subject quickly and reconstruct microwave images at video rates present two major challenges, cost-effective realization, Fast acquisition), 45-46 (resolution system operating in the tens of GHz, aperture size), 50-53 (allows an array with NT transmit elements and NR receive elements to form NTNR spatially diverse samples, wherein transmitters and receivers are co-located); col.2 lines 4-5 (expense of processing overhead), 42-43 (Sampling each transmitter-receiver pair in each tiled multistatic array)}.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohamadi (‘732) and Moulder (‘038) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Baker et al . (US 2019/0167500, hereafter Baker).
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claim 1, Mohamadi (‘732) and Moulder (‘038) do not explicitly disclose “the antennas and the conductors comprise conductive material upon a surface of the printed circuit board”. In the same field of endeavor, Baker (‘500) discloses that in the imaging system,
the antennas and the conductors comprise conductive material upon a surface of the printed circuit board {[0010] lines 11-13 (an RF transmission line , an RF trace on a printed circuit board , a printed circuit board microstrip , or a waveguide .); [0132] lines 1-4 (the antenna 12 is connected to the impedance matching circuitry 22 , and therefore to the transceiver 20 , by a length of RF transmission line , e . g . , printed circuit board ( PCB ) microstrip)}.
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying a known technique (e.g. antennas and transmission lines on printed circuit board comprise conductive materials) to a known device (e.g. radar) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g. operate electronic circuits for signal transmission, reception, and processing) and result in an improved system (e.g. transmitted and received radar signals can be processed properly (e.g. impedance-match, delay, etc.) using the conductive materials, as recognized by Baker (‘500) {[0010] lines 1-4 (RADAR apparatus may further include an impedance - matched delay line that may be coupled to the impedance matching circuitry and to the at least one RADAR antenna .)}).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohamadi (‘732) and Moulder (‘038) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lalezari (US 5,146,234, hereafter Lalezari).
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claim 1, Mohamadi (‘732) discloses that in the imaging system,
the antennas are { Fig.9; Col.10 line 10 (spiral antenna plates)}.
However, Mohamadi (‘732) and Moulder (‘038) do not disclose (see word with underline) “the antennas are edge-fed spiral antennas”. In the same field of endeavor, Lalezari (‘234) discloses that
the antennas are edge-fed spiral antennas { Fig.5A-C; col.6 lines 9-10 (an edge-fed double spiral antenna)}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the antenna in the combination of Mohamadi (‘732) and Moulder (‘038) with the teachings of Lalezari (‘234) {use edge-fed spiral antennas } to use edge-fed spiral antennas. Doing so would feed a pair of spiral antenna arms at an edge of one of the arms by a single feed so as to allow to construct broadband dual polarized antennas composed of oppositely sensed spiral metallizations within a desired antenna size, as recognized by Lalezari (‘234) {col.1 lines 7-8 (broadband dual polarized antennas composed of oppositely sensed spiral metallizations), 17 (Size is an important factor); col.6 lines 23-25 (first pair of spiral antenna arms 51a, 51b are edge fed at an edge of one of the arms 51a, 51b by a single feed 56a, which leads to a coaxial connector 57a.)}.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohamadi (‘732) and Moulder (‘038) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Ahmed et al. (US 10,585,185, hereafter Ahmed).
Regarding claim 8, which depends on claims 1 and 7, Mohamadi (‘732) discloses that in the imaging system,
the imaging aperture is two-dimensional {Fig.1; Fig.2}, and
However, Mohamadi (‘732) and Moulder (‘038) do not explicitly disclose “wherein the first and the additional switched array modules are positioned around a perimeter of the two- dimensional imaging aperture”. In the same field of endeavor, Ahmed (‘185) discloses that
wherein the first and the additional switched array modules are positioned around a perimeter of the two- dimensional imaging aperture {Fig.5}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Mohamadi (‘732) and Moulder (‘038) with the teachings of Ahmed (‘185) {arrange transmit and receive antenna to surround target imaging volume covering larger scanning aperture } to arrange transmit and receive antenna to surround target imaging volume covering larger scanning aperture. Doing so would simultaneously perform measurements using multiple transmitters and receivers so as to achieve a high scanning throughput without requiring the cooperation of the person to be scanned, as recognized by Ahmed (‘185) {col.1 lines 24-25 (achieves a high scanning throughput without requiring the cooperation of the person to be scanned); col.6 lines 26-27 (first panel 101, second panel 102), 35-36 (measurements, performed, simultaneously)}.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohamadi (‘732) and Moulder (‘038) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 9,917,355, hereafter Lee).
Regarding claim 11, which depends on claims 1 and 10, Mohamadi (‘732) and Moulder (‘038) do not explicitly disclose “the printed circuit board has a trapezoidal shape including parallel sides, and the antennas are positioned adjacent to one of the parallel sides of the printed circuit board that is longer than an other of the parallel sides of the printed circuit board”. In the same field of endeavor, Lee (‘355) discloses that
the printed circuit board has a trapezoidal shape including parallel sides, and the antennas are positioned adjacent to one of the parallel sides of the printed circuit board that is longer than an other of the parallel sides of the printed circuit board {Fig.6; Fig.8}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Mohamadi (‘732) and Moulder (‘038) with the teachings of Lee (‘355) { layout antennas on a trapezoidal shaped printed circuit board} to layout antennas on a trapezoidal shaped printed circuit board. Doing so would provide larger field of view of a system (e.g. radar) with less antennas so as to reduce a quantity of components used in a system and therefore required less space and reduce cost of the system, as recognized by Lee (‘355) {col.1 lines 53-56 (reduce a quantity of components mounted, increasing field of view of a vehicular radar system); col.4 lines 43-45 (an overall cost of the vehicle is reduced and less space, is required for mounting radar systems)}.
Claim 13-17, 19-26, 29-31,33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moulder (‘038) in view of Fernandes et al. (US 2014/0320331, hereafter Fernandes).
Regarding claim 13, Moulder (‘038) discloses that An imaging system { col.2 lines 19-21 (systems and methods for near-field microwave imaging of an image plane)} comprising:
a plurality of antenna arrays that are spaced from one another { Fig.2 item 210 (antenna array); Fig.3B for “spaced from one another”; col.6 lines 15-16 (switched multistatic antenna array 210)}, wherein each of the antenna arrays has a respective perimeter {Fig.3D-E};
wherein each of the antenna arrays comprises a plurality of transmit antennas that are configured to transmit electromagnetic energy toward a target imaging volume and a plurality of receive antennas that are configured to receive electromagnetic energy from the target imaging volume { Fig.1 items 112 (transmit elements) and 116 (receive elements), 10 (3D images of the scene); Fig.2 item 212 (trans. antenna), 216 (rec. antennas); col.4 lines 16-18 (The transceiver 120 provides stimulus to a transmit antenna element 112, and the resultant echo from the scene is captured by a receive antenna element 116.), 21(form complex 3D images of the scene 10); col.5 lines 4 (transmit elements 112), 10 (receive elements 116); col.6 line 17-18 (transmit antennas 212, receive antennas 216)};
a controller configured to select different pairs of the transmit and receive antennas at a plurality of different moments in time to provide a plurality of effective sampling points of an aperture {Fig.1 items 114 and 118 (switch); Fig.2 (CTRL); Fig.4B (sampled reflection of scene); col.4 lines 63-67 (Control of the switches 118 can be accomplished through the use of a suitable processor, such as a Complex Programmable Logic Device (CPLD).); col.8 lines 7-13 (A transmitter 122 in the transceiver 120 drives the transmit elements 112 via a transmit switch 114 in a time-multiplexed fashion, the receive elements 116 are time-multiplexed with receive switch 118 coupled to a receiver 124 in the transceiver 120 to sample the waves reflected and scattered from the scene. the array's 24 switch states, which can be toggled sequentially by sending a pulse)};
wherein some of the effective sampling points are located within the perimeters of the antenna arrays { Fig.3B}; and
wherein the receive antennas are configured to output a plurality of electrical signals corresponding to the electromagnetic energy received by the receive antennas { Fig.1 (RX path); Fig.2 receiving path in 202; Fig.4B;}.
However, Moulder (‘038) does not explicitly disclose “others of the effective sampling points are located external of all of the perimeters of the antenna arrays”. In the same field of endeavor, Fernandes (‘331) discloses that (see words with underline)
some of the effective sampling points are located within the perimeters of the antenna arrays and others of the effective sampling points are located external of all of the perimeters of the antenna arrays {Fig.4B (see marks below); [0049] lines 4-6 (the possible virtual sample points which may be utilized by the illustrated layout are shown as dots 66.)};
PNG
media_image3.png
543
445
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Moulder (‘038) with the teachings of Fernandes (‘331) {generate virtual sampling points} to generate virtual sampling points. Doing so would provide sufficient resolution to isolate scattering contributions from separate scatterers so as to achieve efficient screening, as recognized by Fernandes (‘331) {[0003] line 4 (efficient screening); [0035] lines 2-3 (Sufficient resolution to isolate scattering contributions from separate scatterers), 6-7 (provide a suitable combination of range and cross-range resolution)}.
Regarding claim 14, which depends on claim 13, the combination of Moulder (‘038) and Fernandes (‘331) discloses that in the imaging system,
the controller is configured to select some of the pairs of transmit and receive antennas of one of the antenna arrays to provide the some of the effective sampling points that are located within the perimeter of the one antenna array {see Moulder (‘038) Fig.4B (monostatic sampled reflections of point scatterer)} and to select others of the pairs of the transmit and receive antennas to provide the others of the effective sampling points that are located external of the perimeters of the antenna arrays {see Moulder (‘038) Fig.4B (multstatic sampled reflections of point scatterer)}, and wherein the others of the pairs of the transmit and receive antennas each include one of the transmit antennas of a first of the antenna arrays and one of the receive antennas of a second of the antenna arrays {see Moulder (‘038) Fig.1; Fig.4B; Examiner’s note: each tile 202 select one pair Tx and Rx antennas shown in Fig.1. Fig.4B shows antenna 1, 2,3 are from different 202 tiles. Therefore in multistatic case, tile 3 includes Tx and Rx. Tiles 1-2 receive transmitted signal from tile 3}.
Regarding claim 15, which depends on claim 13, the combination of Moulder (‘038) and Fernandes (‘331) discloses that in the imaging system,
the antenna arrays are arranged in a plurality of columns and the others of the effective sampling points are located at positions intermediate the columns {see Moulder (‘038) Fig.2 item 202; Fig.3C }.
Regarding claim 16, which depends on claim 13, the combination of Moulder (‘038) and Fernandes (‘331) discloses that in the imaging system,
the transmit and receive antennas of the antenna arrays are positioned in a common plane {see Moulder (‘038) Fig.2}.
Regarding claim 17, which depends on claims 13 and 16, the combination of Moulder (‘038) and Fernandes (‘331) discloses that in the imaging system,
the transmit antennas are configured to transmit electromagnetic energy in a direction that is at least substantially perpendicular to the common plane {see Moulder (‘038) Fig.3A}.
Regarding claim 19, which depends on claim 13, the combination of Moulder (‘038) and Fernandes (‘331) discloses that in the imaging system,
each of the antenna arrays comprises a plurality of unit cells {Fig.3B}, and wherein each of the unit cells comprises plural ones of the transmit and receive antennas arranged about a perimeter of the individual unit cell {see Moulder (‘038) Fig.3C}.
Regarding claim 20, which depends on claims 13 and 19, the combination of Moulder (‘038) and Fernandes (‘331) discloses that in the imaging system,
the perimeter of each unit cell is rectangular and a perimeter of each antenna array is rectangular {see Moulder (‘038) Fig.3B; Fig.3C }.
Regarding claim 21, which depends on claims 13 and 19-20, the combination of Moulder (‘038) and Fernandes (‘331) discloses that in the imaging system,
the transmit antennas of one of the unit cells are provided at opposite first sides of the one unit cell and the receive antennas of the one unit cell are provided at opposite second sides of the one unit cell {see Moulder (‘038) Fig.3B; Fig.3C }.
Regarding claim 22, which depends on claim 13, the combination of Moulder (‘038) and Fernandes (‘331) discloses that the imaging system further comprising:
a transceiver configured to receive the electrical signals from the receive antennas and to output signals that are indicative of the received electromagnetic energy {see Moulder (‘038) Fig.1 item 120 (transceiver) output to item 130 (data acquisition system)};
a data acquisition system configured to sample the signals from the transceiver and to output radar data corresponding to the signals {see Moulder (‘038) Fig.1 item 130 (data acquisition system) and 132 (ADC); col.6 lines 21-22 (data acquisition block 230); (An analog-to-digital converter (ADC) 132 in the data acquisition system 130 digitizes the IF signal)}; and
processing circuitry configured to process the radar data to generate a plurality of video images of the target imaging volume {see Moulder (‘038) Fig.1 items 134 (FPGA), 136 (buffer) 142 (GPUs), 144 (user interface); col.3 lines 26-28 (Fig.1, a multistatic imaging system configured to perform FFT-based field imaging at video rates.); col.6 line 2-5 (3D images at video rates, depending on number of frequency points in the data, the size and spatial resolution of the imaging domain, and the processing power of the GPUs 142)}.
Regarding claim 23, which depends on claims 13 and 22, the combination of Moulder (‘038) and Fernandes (‘331) discloses that the imaging system further comprising
a display configured to use the radar data to generate visual representations of the video images {see Moulder (‘038) Fig.1 item 140 (computer); col.5 lines 42-44 (The computer 140 displays the reconstructed image 14 to a user via a user interface 144,); col.11 lines 43-44 (display screens for visual presentation of output)}.
Regarding claim 24, which depends on claim 13, the combination of Moulder (‘038) and Fernandes (‘331) discloses that in the imaging system,
the effective sampling points are spaced at substantially the same distance from one another {see Moulder (‘038) Fig.4C; col.3 lines 37-39 (simulated image of 25 point scatterers, rendered with multistatic FFT imaging (430) and backprojection (431).)}.
Regarding claim 25, which depends on claim 13, the combination of Moulder (‘038) and Fernandes (‘331) discloses that in the imaging system,
the aperture is a two-dimensional aperture {see Moulder (‘038) Fig.2 items 202 form 2-D imaging aperture} and the effective sampling points are provided at locations across substantially an entirety of the aperture { see Moulder (‘038) Fig.4B see block on top }.
Regarding claim 26, which depends on claim 13, the combination of Moulder (‘038) and Fernandes (‘331) discloses that in the imaging system,
the controller is configured to select a plurality of the receive antennas to receive the electromagnetic energy transmitted from one of the transmit antennas {see Moulder (‘038) Fig.4B see blocks with “multstatic”}.
Regarding claim 29, which depends on claim 13, the combination of Moulder (‘038) and Fernandes (‘331) discloses that in the imaging system,
each of the antenna arrays comprises a plurality of unit cells, each of the unit cells comprises a plurality of switched array modules formed in a boundary array {see Moulder (‘038) Fig.1 (switched array); Fig.3B; Fig.3C }, and
the transmit and receive antennas are positioned at a perimeter of the respective unit cell {see Moulder (‘038) Fig.3B; Fig.3C }.
Regarding claim 30, which depends on claims 13 and 29, the combination of Moulder (‘038) and Fernandes (‘331) discloses that in the imaging system,
first ones of the switched array modules include transmit antennas positioned adjacent to opposite first sides of the boundary array and second ones of the switched array modules include receive antennas positioned adjacent to opposite second sides of the boundary array {see Moulder (‘038) Fig.3B; Fig.3C }.
Regarding claim 31, which depends on claim 13, the combination of Moulder (‘038) and Fernandes (‘331) discloses that in the imaging system,
the transmit antennas are configured to transmit the electromagnetic energy within a range of 3-300 GHz {see Moulder (‘038) col.4 line 43 (30 GHz),); col.5 line 8 (24-30 GHz)}.
Regarding claim 33, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claim 32. Accordingly, claim 33 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 32, shown above.
Claims 18 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moulder (‘038) and Fernandes (‘331) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Ahmed (‘185).
Regarding claim 18, which depends on claim 13, Moulder (‘038) and Fernandes (‘331) do not explicitly disclose “the transmit and receive antennas of the antenna arrays are positioned to be in respective planes that are angled relative to one another about the target imaging volume”. In the same field of endeavor, Ahmed (‘185) discloses that in the imaging system,
the transmit and receive antennas of the antenna arrays are positioned to be in respective planes that are angled relative to one another about the target imaging volume {Fig.3}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Moulder (‘038) and Fernandes (‘331) with the teachings of Ahmed (‘185) {arrange transmit and receive antenna to surround target imaging volume covering larger scanning aperture } to arrange transmit and receive antenna to surround target imaging volume covering larger scanning aperture. Doing so would simultaneously perform measurements using multiple transmitters and receivers so as to achieve a high scanning throughput without requiring the cooperation of the person to be scanned, as recognized by Ahmed (‘185) {col.1 lines 24-25 (achieves a high scanning throughput without requiring the cooperation of the person to be scanned); col.6 lines 26-27 (first panel 101, second panel 102), 35-36 (measurements, performed, simultaeously)}.
Regarding claim 27, which depends on claim 13, Moulder (‘038) and Fernandes (‘331) do not explicitly disclose “the antenna arrays have a combined surface area, and the aperture has a surface area that is larger than the combined surface areas of the antenna arrays”. In the same field of endeavor, Ahmed (‘185) discloses that in the imaging system,
the antenna arrays have a combined surface area, and the aperture has a surface area that is larger than the combined surface areas of the antenna arrays {Fig.2; Fig.3}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Moulder (‘038) and Fernandes (‘331) with the teachings of Ahmed (‘185) {arrange transmit and receive antenna to surround target imaging volume covering larger scanning aperture } to arrange transmit and receive antenna to surround target imaging volume covering larger scanning aperture. Doing so would simultaneously perform measurements using multiple transmitters and receivers so as to achieve a high scanning throughput without requiring the cooperation of the person to be scanned, as recognized by Ahmed (‘185) {col.1 lines 24-25 (achieves a high scanning throughput without requiring the cooperation of the person to be scanned); col.6 lines 26-27 (first panel 101, second panel 102), 35-36 (measurements, performed, simultaneously)}.
Claims 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moulder (‘038) and Fernandes (‘331) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Mohamadi (‘732).
Regarding claim 28, which depends on claim 13, Moulder (‘038) and Fernandes (‘331) do not explicitly disclose “the transmit and receive antennas are cross-circular polarized with respect to one another”. In the same field of endeavor, Mohamadi (‘732) discloses that in the imaging system,
the transmit and receive antennas are cross-circular polarized with respect to one another {Fig.12; col.6 lines 27-29 (Transmit antenna array 1031 and receive antenna array 1033 may have opposite polarizations,), 33-34 (the transmit signal in radar is circularly polarized)}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Moulder (‘038) and Fernandes (‘331) with the teachings of Mohamadi (‘732) {use opposite circular polarizations for transmit and receive antennas} to use opposite circular polarizations for transmit and receive antennas. Doing so would obtain a mirror polarization after a single metallic reflection so as to provide an efficient way of detecting multiple reflections and single reflections from objects under interrogation, as recognized by Mohamadi (‘732) {col. 6 lines 33-39 (If the transmit signal in radar is circularly polarized, after a single metallic reflection the polarization may mirror, from left to right and vice versa. This mirroring could be an efficient way of detecting multiple reflections (e.g., from complex shapes) and single reflections (e.g., from simpler flat shapes) from objects under interrogation.)}.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONGHONG LI whose telephone number is (571)272-5946. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571)270-5144. 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.
/YONGHONG LI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3648