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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malone et al. (US. 6,016,122; hereinafter “Malone”) in view of Kirino (US. 6,496,147 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Malone teaches an antenna unit (see Malone, fig. 1, antenna 1100), comprising:
a coupler having first and second input-output ports (see Malone, fig. 1, terminals 1210, 1260), a first coupled port (see Malone, fig. 1, terminal 1250), and a first isolated port (see Malone, fig. 1, T-line 1500, col. 3, lines 5-35);
a first phase-shifting modulator (see Malone, fig. 1, 1300) including a transmission medium coupled to the first coupled port (see Malone, fig. 2, 1330), a reflector (see Malone, fig. 1, ground 1260), and active devices each having a respective first device port coupled to a respective location of the transmission medium, and a respective second device port coupled to the reflector (see Malone, fig. 2, variable capacitors 1310,1320 as active devices, coupled to 1330, 1340, 1335, 1345); and
a first antenna element coupled to the first phase-shifting modulator via the first isolated port (see Malone, fig. 1, antenna 1100).
Malone is silent to teaching that wherein the first phase-shifting modulator including control nodes and a respective control port coupled to a respective one of the control nodes.
In the same field of endeavor, Kirino teaches an antenna unit wherein the first phase-shifting modulator including control nodes and a respective control port coupled to a respective one of the control nodes (see Kirino, fig. 1(a), control voltage generators 111, 112, col. 8, lines 30-44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Malone with the teaching of Kirino in order to provide low cost adaptive and active antenna (see Kirino, col 4, lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Malone and Kirino teaches the antenna unit of claim 1 wherein the coupler is disposed in a layer of an antenna (see Kirino, fig. 2(a), hybrid coupler 103, col. 10, lines 55-65).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Malone and Kirino teaches the antenna unit of claim 1 wherein:
the first phase-shifting modulator is disposed in a layer of an antenna (see Malone, fig. 4, 4320); and
the first antenna element is disposed in another layer of the antenna (see Malone, fig. 4, 4100).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Malone and Kirino teaches the antenna unit of claim 1 wherein the first phase-shifting modulator includes a reflective reactance modulator (see Malone, fig. 4, col. 8, lines 30-35).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Malone and Kirino teaches the antenna unit of claim 1 wherein the first antenna element includes an approximately planar conductor (see Malone, fig. 4, 4100).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Malone and Kirino teaches the antenna unit of claim 1, further comprising: wherein the coupler has a second coupled port; a second phase-shifting modulator coupled to the second coupled port; and a second antenna element coupled to the second phase-shifting modulator (see Malone, fig. 1, second 1210, 1250, 1500; see Kirino, fig. 2(a), coupler 103).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Malone and Kirino teaches the antenna unit of claim 6 wherein the second phase-shifting modulator includes an input port coupled to the second coupled port and includes an output port coupled to the second antenna (see Malone, fig. 1, second 1210, 1250, 1500; see Kirino, fig. 2(a), coupler 103).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Malone and Kirino teaches the antenna unit of claim 6 wherein: the coupler includes a second isolated port; and the second antenna element is coupled to the second phase-shifting modulator via the second isolated port (see Malone, fig. 1, second 1210, 1250, 1500; see Kirino, fig. 2(a), coupler 103)..
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Malone and Kirino teaches the antenna unit of claim 6 wherein the second antenna element is offset from the first antenna element in a dimension along which the first and second input-output ports lie (see Kirino, fig. 1(b), 106a, 106b).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Malone and Kirino teaches the antenna unit of claim 6 wherein the second phase-shifting modulator includes a reflective reactance modulator (see Malone, fig. 4, col. 8, lines 30-35).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Malone and Kirino teaches the antenna unit of claim 6 wherein the second antenna element includes an approximately planar conductor (see Malone, fig. 4, 4100).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Malone and Kirino teaches the antenna unit of claim 1 wherein the first antenna element has an approximately square shape (see Malone, fig. 4, 4100).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Malone and Kirino teaches the antenna unit of claim 1 wherein one of the input-output ports of the coupler is configured for coupling to a transceiver (see Malone, fig. 7, transceiver 720).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Malone and Kirino teaches the antenna unit of claim 1 wherein one of the input-output ports of the coupler is configured for coupling to a terminator (see Malone, fig. 1, 1260, ground).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Malone and Kirino teaches the antenna unit of claim 1 wherein the first phase-sifting modulator further comprises impedance networks each coupled between a respective active device and the reflector (see Malone, col 3, lines 20-30, low impedance to ground).
Regarding claim 16, Malone teaches an antenna (see Malone, fig. 1), comprising:
an array of antenna units each including a respective coupler having first and second input-output ports (see Malone, fig. 1, terminals 1210, 1260), a coupled port (see Malone, fig. 1, terminal 1250), and an isolated port (see Malone, fig. 1, T-line 1500, col. 3, lines 5-35),
a respective phase-shifting modulator (see Malone, fig. 1, 1300) including a transmission medium coupled to the first coupled port (see Malone, fig. 2, 1330), a reflector (see Malone, fig. 1, ground 1260), and active devices each having a respective first device port coupled to a respective location of the transmission medium, a respective second device port coupled to the reflector (see Malone, fig. 2, variable capacitors 1310,1320 as active devices, coupled to 1330, 1340, 1335, 1345); and
a respective antenna element coupled to the respective phase-shifting modulator via the isolated port (see Malone, fig. 1, antenna 1100).
Malone is silent to teaching that that comprising control nodes and a respective control port coupled to a respective one of the control nodes.
In the same field of endeavor, Kirino teaches a device comprising control nodes and a respective control port coupled to a respective one of the control nodes (see Kirino, fig. 1(a), control voltage generators 111, 112, col. 8, lines 30-44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Malone with the teaching of Kirino in order to provide low cost adaptive and active antenna (see Kirino, col 4, lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Malone and Kirino teaches the antenna of claim 16 wherein the antenna element of one antenna unit is spaced from an antenna element of another antenna unit at least by a distance that is less than one half of a wavelength of a free-space wavelength of a signal that the antenna units are configured to receive (see Malone, col. 4, lines 13-18, one quarter wavelength).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Malone and Kirino teaches the antenna of claim 16 wherein an input-output port of a coupler of a first one of the antenna units is coupled to an input-output port of a coupler of a second antenna unit (see Malone, fig. 1, distribution point 1210, col. 3, lines 10-15).
Regarding claim 20, Malone teaches a subsystem (see Malone, fig. 1), comprising:
an antenna (see Malone, fig. 1, antenna 1100), including:
an array of antenna units each including a respective coupler having first and second input-output ports (see Malone, fig. 1, terminals 1210, 1260), a coupled port (see Malone, fig. 1, terminal 1250), and an isolated port (see Malone, fig. 1, T-line 1500, col. 3, lines 5-35),
a respective phase-shifting modulator (see Malone, fig. 1, 1300) including a transmission medium coupled to the first coupled port (see Malone, fig. 2, 1330), a reflector (see Malone, fig. 1, ground 1260), and active devices each having a respective first device port coupled to a respective location of the transmission medium, a respective second device port coupled to the reflector (see Malone, fig. 2, variable capacitors 1310,1320 as active devices, coupled to 1330, 1340, 1335, 1345); and
a respective antenna element coupled to the respective phase-shifting modulator via the isolated port (see Malone, fig. 1, antenna 1100);
a transceiver circuit configured to generate, and to provide to the antenna, a transmit reference wave, and to receive, from the antenna, a receive reference wave (see Malone, fig. 7, transceiver 720);
a beam-steering controller circuit configured to generate respective control signals to cause the antenna to generate, with each respective antenna element, a respective transmit signal in response to the at transmit reference wave, to form, from the transmit signals, a transmit beam pattern including a main transmit beam, to steer the main transmit beam, to receive, with each respective antenna element, a respective receive signal, to form, from the receive signals, a receive beam pattern including a main receive beam, to steer the main receive beam, and to generate, in response to the main receive beam, the receive reference wave (see Malone, fig. 7, controller 730).
Malone is silent to teaching that the subsystem is a radar subsystem comprising control nodes; and a respective control port coupled to a respective one of the control nodes; and
a master controller circuit configured to detect, in response to the receive reference wave from the transceiver circuit, an object.
In the same field of endeavor, Kirino teaches a subsystem is a radar subsystem (see Kirino, col. 1, lines 10-16) comprising control nodes; and a respective control port coupled to a respective one of the control nodes (see Kirino, fig. 1(a), control voltage generators 111, 112, col. 8, lines 30-44); and
a master controller circuit configured to detect, in response to the receive reference wave from the transceiver circuit, an object (see Kirino, fig. 10(a), control 708, col. 1, line 10-20, automobile collision radar).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Malone with the teaching of Kirino in order to provide low cost adaptive and active antenna (see Kirino, col 4, lines 5-10).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malone and Kirino as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Ding (US. Pub. No. 2019/0207322 A1)
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Malone and Kirino teaches the antenna of claim 16.
The combination of Malone and Kirino is silent to teaching that wherein the antenna element of one antenna unit is spaced from an antenna element of another antenna unit at least by a distance approximately equal to one half of a free-space wavelength of a signal that the antenna units are configured to receive.
In the same field of endeavor, Ding teaches an antenna system wherein the antenna element of one antenna unit is spaced from an antenna element of another antenna unit at least by a distance approximately equal to one half of a free-space wavelength of a signal that the antenna units are configured to receive (see Ding, fig. 2, para. [0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Malone and Kirino with the teaching of Ding in order to improve radar resolution and quality (see Ding, para. [0002-4]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Malone is silent to teaching the claimed “isolated port”. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, Malone teaches an isolation layer between connection terminals. The examiner submits that Malone’s connection terminal is isolated. (see Malone, fig. 3, col. 7, lines 30-50).
Thus, the examiner submits that Malone teaches the claimed isolated port.
Regarding claim 17, In response to applicant's argument that Malone cannot be modified, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Malone and Kirino with the teaching of Ding in order to improve radar resolution and quality (see Ding, para. [0002-4]).
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 WEN WU HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7852. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at (571) 272-7867. 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.
/WEN W HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648