DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s 10/02/2025 Amendments/Arguments, which directly traversed the rejections of the claims of the 07/02/2025 Office Action are acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 11, it recites the limitation “the threshold precision” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the system, apparatus, and method for antenna calibration that is accomplished through a series of mental processes and/or mathematical concepts. The claims also require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all claims elements, both individually and in combination, are directed to the manipulation of data by a general purpose computer and/or performing by a person utilizing mathematical calculations. Thus, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217—18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75—77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices {Alice, 573 U.S. at 219—20, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas {Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594—95 (1978)); and mental processes {Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” {Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” {id. at 184 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267—68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour {Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Supreme Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 192 (“We view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract...is not accorded the protection of our patent laws,…and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent- eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].”” Id. ((alteration in the original) quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requiring] generic computer implementation fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of § 101. USPTO’s January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“Memorandum”). Under Step 2A of that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Analysis
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim 1 ( and its dependents) recites a computer apparatus. Thus, the claim is a machine and/or manufacture, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 8 (and its dependents) recites a method. Thus, the claim is a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 15 (and its dependents) recites an antenna calibration system. Thus, the claim is a machine and/or manufacture, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One – Recitation of Judicial Exception
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, we evaluate whether the claims recites a judicial exception. For abstract ideas, Prong One represents a change as compared to prior guidance because we here determine whether the claim recites mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes.
Claim 8, and similarly claims 1 and 15, recites the steps of:
driving radiating elements in an electronically scanned array (ESA) antenna being calibrated;
calculating far field calibration coefficients for each of the radiating elements;
calculating one or more error maps corresponding to a face of the ESA antenna being calibrated; and
determining amplitude and phase adjustments for one or more T / R modules in the ESA being calibrated.
The “driving…” step may be performed by evaluating and judging which radiating elements need to be calibrated the movement which may be practically performed in the human mind using evaluation and judgement.
The “calculating far field calibration coefficients…” step may be performed by mathematical calculation for determining far field calibration coefficients which may be practically performed in the human mind using evaluation.
The “calculating one or more error maps…” step may be performed by mathematical calculation for determining the error map(s) which may be practically performed in the human mind using evaluation.
The “determining…” step may be performed by mathematical calculation for determining the amplitude and phase adjustments which may be practically performed in the human mind using evaluation.
Further, claim 15 recites “a near field range test environment” which may be practically performed in the human mind using judgement and opinion.
Therefore, such steps of as claimed in claims 1, 8, and 15 encompass processes that can be performed mentally; thus, fall within “mental processes” and/or “mathematical concepts” groupings of abstract ideas.
In addition, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 further claiming information gleaned from the mental processes and/or mathematical calculations.
Regarding claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, the further steps of calibrating the antenna as claimed may be practically performed in the human mind and/or mathematical calculations using evaluation, judgment, and opinion.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 also falls within the “mental processes” and/or “mathematical concepts” groupings of abstract ideas.
Since the claims recite an abstract idea, the analysis proceeds to Prong Two to determine whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two – Practical Application
If a claim recites a judicial exception, in Prong Two we next determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not directed to the judicial exception. This evaluation requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The only additional elements of claim 8, and similarly claims 1 and 15, is “receiving signals based on the driven radiating elements”. These limitations, at a high-level of generality, merely recites data gathering steps for further analyzing/determining steps. As such, it amounts to no more than insignificant extra--solution activity to the judicial exception. In addition, “one or more sensors” as claimed in claims 1 and 15 act only for data gathering and do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity which simply provide what all sensors provide. Further, claims 1-7 and 15-20 require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all claims elements, both individually and in combination, are directed to the manipulation of data by a general purpose computer and/or performing by a person. Accordingly, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Step 2B – Inventive Concept
For Step 2B of the analysis, it is determined whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, convention” in the field.
As stated above, claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Since this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements amount to no more than data gathering steps and mental processes. Merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide an inventive concept.
The courts have considered the following examples to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims *** are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over West et al (US 10,979,152) in view of McDevitt et al (US 2016/0043465).
West et al
PNG
media_image1.png
530
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
476
464
media_image2.png
Greyscale
McDevitt et al
PNG
media_image3.png
272
408
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
272
412
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, West et al disclose in Fig 1 and 7 above computer apparatus (i.e. system 100) (col 3, line 14) comprising:
one or more sensors (i.e. one or more sensors 110) (col 3, lines 23-35); and
at least one processor (i.e. processor 102) in data communication with a memory (i.e. memory 104) storing processor executable code (col 3, lines 16-35) for configuring the at least one processor to:
drive radiating elements in an electronically scanned array (ESA) antenna being calibrated when the ESA is in a transmit mode (i.e. “A calibrating system drives 700 the radiating elements of an ESA; in at least one embodiment, the radiating elements are all driven in a broad spectrum at a consistent power level.”) (col 6, lines 14-16);
receive signals from the one or more sensors based on the driven radiating elements when the ESA is in a receive mode (i.e. “Signals are then received 702, 704 from the radiating elements. In at least one embodiment, signals may be received 702, 704 successively as the ESA rotates. In at least one embodiment, multiple test probes disposed around the ESA in an anechoic box may receive 702, 704 signals at once, but from different sets of radiating elements.”) (col 6, lines 17-26); and
calculate far field calibration coefficients for each of the radiating elements (i.e. “The phase response from each of those signals are then compared 706 to a known, desirable phase response, for example form a calibrated, golden standard ESA. Based on the phase response comparison 706, phase calibration coefficients are computed 708 for each radiating element. Such computation 708 may be by a best-fit algorithm.”; “Likewise, the gain (power output) from each of those signals are compared 710 to a known, desirable gain. Based on the gain comparison 710, gain calibration coefficients are computed 712 for each radiating element. Such computation 712 may also be by a best-fit algorithm.”) (col 6, lines 26-37).
West et al do not explicitly disclose calculate one or more error maps corresponding to a face of the ESA antenna being calibrated; and determine amplitude and phase adjustments for one or more T / R modules in the ESA being calibrated as claimed. McDevitt et al teach in the same field of endeavor a processor (i.e. calibration computer 32 / radar computer 34) configured to calculate one or more error maps corresponding to a face of the ESA antenna being calibrated (i.e. reads on the graphs of histogram of amplitude errors of Fig 10H and the graphs of histogram of phase errors of Fig 10I above) ([0284]-[0285]); and determine amplitude and phase adjustments for one or more T / R modules in the ESA being calibrated (i.e. “The far field calibration test controls the TRMs 24 to radiate and the system to collect amplitude and phase data for each TRM 24. The far field calibration test applies signal level adjustment and controls amplitude taper and phase control. During phase measurements, different phase values are commanded and then averaged to provide a phase measurement. The far field calibration test applies the current amplitude and phase calibration coefficients. The processing that takes place in block 110 also includes the calibration computer 32 configuring the TX/RX switch 30 as indicated during the calibration test.”) ([0169]; [0171]; [0191]; [0196]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify West et al in view of McDevitt et al to incorporate such process of calculating one or more error maps corresponding to a face of the ESA antenna being calibrated; and determining amplitude and phase adjustments for one or more T/R modules in the ESA being calibrated as taught by McDevitt et al to gain the advantage of properly calibrating an antenna array to maintain overall antenna performance, and since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claim 7, West et al disclose the ESA antenna being calibrated is disposed in a near field range test environment (Fig 2-3; col 3, line 44 – col 4, line 63). While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claims 8 and 14, the claims are directed toward a method that is performed by a computer apparatus as claimed in claims 1 and 7. The cited portions of West et al in view of McDevitt et al used in the rejection of claims 1 and 7 disclose where the apparatus performs the claimed method as cited in claims 8 and 14. Therefore, claims 8 and 14 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1 and 7.
Regarding claim 15, West et al disclose in Fig 1 and 7 above an antenna calibration system (i.e. system 100) (col 3, line 14) comprising:
a near field range test environment (Fig 2-3; col 3, line 44 – col 4, line 63);
one or more sensors disposed in the near field range test environment (i.e. one or more sensors 110) (col 3, lines 23-35); and
at least one processor (i.e. processor 102) in data communication with a memory (i.e. memory 104) storing processor executable code (col 3, lines 16-35) for configuring the at least one processor to:
drive radiating elements in an electronically scanned array (ESA) antenna being calibrated when in a transmit mode (i.e. “A calibrating system drives 700 the radiating elements of an ESA; in at least one embodiment, the radiating elements are all driven in a broad spectrum at a consistent power level.”) (col 6, lines 14-16);
receive signals from the one or more sensors based on the driven radiating elements when the ESA is in a receive mode (i.e. “Signals are then received 702, 704 from the radiating elements. In at least one embodiment, signals may be received 702, 704 successively as the ESA rotates. In at least one embodiment, multiple test probes disposed around the ESA in an anechoic box may receive 702, 704 signals at once, but from different sets of radiating elements.”) (col 6, lines 17-26); and
calculate complex aperture calibration coefficients for each of the radiating elements (i.e. “The phase response from each of those signals are then compared 706 to a known, desirable phase response, for example form a calibrated, golden standard ESA. Based on the phase response comparison 706, phase calibration coefficients are computed 708 for each radiating element. Such computation 708 may be by a best-fit algorithm.”; “Likewise, the gain (power output) from each of those signals are compared 710 to a known, desirable gain. Based on the gain comparison 710, gain calibration coefficients are computed 712 for each radiating element. Such computation 712 may also be by a best-fit algorithm.”) (col 6, lines 26-37).
West et al do not explicitly disclose calculate one or more error maps corresponding to a face of the ESA antenna being calibrated; and determine amplitude and phase adjustments for one or more T / R modules in the ESA being calibrated as claimed. McDevitt et al teach in the same field of endeavor a processor (i.e. calibration computer 32 / radar computer 34) configured to calculate one or more error maps corresponding to a face of the ESA antenna being calibrated (i.e. reads on the graphs of histogram of amplitude errors of Fig 10H and the graphs of histogram of phase errors of Fig 10I above) ([0284]-[0285]); and determine amplitude and phase adjustments for one or more T / R modules in the ESA being calibrated (i.e. “The far field calibration test controls the TRMs 24 to radiate and the system to collect amplitude and phase data for each TRM 24. The far field calibration test applies signal level adjustment and controls amplitude taper and phase control. During phase measurements, different phase values are commanded and then averaged to provide a phase measurement. The far field calibration test applies the current amplitude and phase calibration coefficients. The processing that takes place in block 110 also includes the calibration computer 32 configuring the TX/RX switch 30 as indicated during the calibration test.”) ([0169]; [0171]; [0191]; [0196]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify West et al in view of McDevitt et al to incorporate such process of calculating one or more error maps corresponding to a face of the ESA antenna being calibrated; and determining amplitude and phase adjustments for one or more T/R modules in the ESA being calibrated as taught by McDevitt et al to gain the advantage of properly calibrating an antenna array to maintain overall antenna performance, and since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6, 9-13, and 16-20 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if overcome 35 USC 101 rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 12,149,294 discloses hybrid in-situ and signal of opportunity (SoOP) calibration for antenna arrays. Deployment of aircraft antennae is redesigned to support multiple services with shared physical elements that conform to the exterior of an aircraft to mitigate drag. Conformal arrays are, however, susceptible to structural changes in the fuselage that manifest as pointing errors and side lobe degradation. Embodiments provide an online calibration algorithm that leverages cooperative satellites in direct line-of-sight of a radio frequency (RF) device with an antenna array (e.g., an aircraft with a conformal antenna array) to optimally steer beams. These external calibration sources supplement an in-situ source mounted on a common platform with the antenna array (e.g., placed on the aircraft's tail). Models are established for potential sources of mismatch and the hybrid calibration method is demonstrated via simulations.
US 11,811,461 discloses a calibration method for a phased array of antennas, wherein the phased array of antennas comprises N antenna elements, the N antenna elements are decomposed into G sub-arrays, each of the G sub-arrays comprises M antenna elements, and the calibration method comprises: (a) inputting a set of digital control codes to RF devices in order to produce field signals corresponding to an operation order r to the G sub-arrays' radiations; (b) measuring the observation field signals of the G sub-arrays corresponding to the operation order r in a fixed position to produce a DFT relationship with respect to the RF devices' operations; and (c) repeating operations (a) to (b) corresponding to the operation order r from 1 to G for generating error-calibrating signals corresponding to the signals of the G sub-arrays.
US 2015/0349419 discloses a calibration method, applicable to element-level digital arrays operating in the receive mode, which utilizes the individual element plane wave spectra obtained from a single planar near-field scan. The method generates highly accurate near-field measurement derived amplitude and phase calibration of both large and small digital arrays as a function of array scan. The present disclosure provides digital array calibration methods and their potential uses in satellites and directional arrays.
EP 4,503,479 discloses a calibration method comprises the steps of: - simulating a surrounding radiation pattern for each channel of the array antenna; then, an angular range of misalignment of the array antenna being subdivided into one or more intervals, for each interval, - balancing the surrounding radiation patterns of each channel so as to determine a correction factor such that a dispersion on the surrounding radiation patterns is minimized; - measuring for each channel an overall error affecting an illumination law in transmission and/or reception; - correcting the overall error measured with the correction factor of the channel considered, so as to obtain a corrected error; and, - storing the corrected error for each channel in the calibration table of the pointing calculator of the array antenna.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUONG P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 10:00-10:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JACK KEITH can be reached at (571) 272-6878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHUONG P NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646