DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the
first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments
The amendment filed 10/31/2025 is entered.
Claims 1-16 and 19-21 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 12, 14, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, line 7, the word “presenting” should be “representing”
In Claim 1, line 11, the phrase “for obtaining” should be “to obtain”
In Claim 1, line 16, the word “being” should be “are”
In Claim 3, line 2, add the word “a” before “phasor”
In Claim 3, line 2, add the word “an” before “amplitude”
In Claim 3, line 2, add the word “a” before “phase”
In Claim 8, line 17, add a comma (“,”) after the phrase “frequency F”
In Claim 8, line 34, add the word “a” before “calibrated real parameter”
In Claim 8, line 34, add the word “a” before “calibrated real parameter”
In Claim 8, line 35, add the word “a” before “medium real parameter”
In Claim 12, line 9, the word “presenting” should be “representing”
In Claim 12, line 13, the phrase “for obtaining” should be “to obtain”
In Claim 12, line 18, the word “being” should be “are”
In Claim 14, line 7, the phrase “in in turn” appears to be a typo
In Claim 14, line 15, the phrase “up to” should be “until”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 14 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 14, the claim recites the limitation “respective calibrated parameters” in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-16, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bekers (D. Bekers et al., “Mutual-Coupling Cased Phased-Array Calibration: A Robust and Versatile Approach,” 2013) in view of Lomes (US 2011/0122016) and Lebron (R. M. Lebrón et al., “Validation and Testing of Initial and In-Situ Mutual Coupling-Based Calibration of a Dual-Polarized Active Phased Array Antenna,” 2020).
Regarding Claim 1, Bekers discloses:
A computer implemented method for self-calibration of a Phased Array Antenna (PAA) having an array of N antenna elements, each of them being configured to operate as a transmit antenna element and/or as a receive antenna element; the method being implemented by a processor and memory circuitry (PCM) ([p. 630, Section I]: “array with combined transmit/receive modules”; [Section II]; [p. 632, Section III]: “Matlab 2011b implementation on a Dell Optiplex 990 PC”) and comprising:
- building an overdetermined system of linear equations respectively presenting different couples of antenna elements, each of the equations expressing a difference between a value of a real parameter, determined for a specific couple, and a sum of unknowns including unknown calibrated parameters of the antenna elements forming the specific couple ([p. 631, Section II]: “over-determined matrix equation for the complex logarithms of the transmit and receive module coefficients.”),
- solving the system of equations for obtaining a solution in the form of values of corrections to be applied to corresponding antenna elements in the array, in order to reduce the difference in each of the equations by bringing internal parameters of the antenna elements in a specific couple closer to their respective unknown calibrated parameters ([p. 631, Section II]: “We can then resolve the (logarithms of the) module coefficients”; “… calibrated by the derived system of equations.”),
wherein each of said couples being formed from a transmit antenna element and a receive antenna element positioned at an arbitrary distance from one another in the PAA array ([p. 631, Section II]: “normalized row and column distances between the two elements.”),
wherein said value of the real parameter is a measurement of phase and/or amplitude performed at a specific couple of antenna elements ([p. 631, Section III]: “we randomly generate module coefficients with amplitudes between 0.5 and 1 (6 dB of power variation per module) and phases”; “active coupling”; [p. 632]: Fig. 2),
wherein said sum of unknowns includes an unknown calibrated receive parameter and an unknown calibrated transmit parameter of the respective receive and transmit antenna elements in said specific couple ([Section II]: “transmit and receive module coefficients”),
said correction values being respectively related to said unknowns in said equations and being applicable for adjusting suitable internal parameters of the corresponding antenna elements in order to cause reduction of said difference and to approach the respective unknown calibrated parameters of the antenna elements ([p. 631, Section II]: “calibration”; “resolve the (logarithms of the) module coefficients”; [p. 632, Section III]: “before and after calibration”),
wherein, given the correction values are indicative of said difference in the equations, adjustment of the antenna elements based on the correction values allows reducing said difference and approaching the calibrated state … ([p. 631, Section II]: “calibration”; “resolve the (logarithms of the) module coefficients”; [p. 632, Section III]: “before and after calibration”).
Bekers does not explicitly teach – but Lomes teaches:
wherein the error can thereby be reduced till a desired error value E as parameters of the antenna elements sufficiently approach the respective unknown calibrated parameters thereof (Lomes [0105-0107]: “xvi) calculate an updated value of the phase component of the calibration ratio for the point RF-source in the new position, xvii) calculate error as weighted difference between two sets of calibration ratios, xviii) if error is not less than specified threshold, perform successive iteration”).
It would have been obvious to modify Bekers and check the calibration by comparing said difference with a predetermined error value E, as taught by Lomes. Comparing an error value to an error threshold is considered ordinary and well-known in the art and is beneficial for improving calibration accuracy.
Bekers does not explicitly teach – but Lebron teaches:
wherein, for two different couples comprising the same two elements but considered as performing transmission in two opposite directions, said couples formed from two transceivers capable to mutually exchange their functions, the values of mutual coupling are considered equal, for reducing the number of unknowns in the set of equations by building said system of linear equations from equations representing said different couples (Lebron [p. 13, Section VI]: “the mutual coupling-based technique assumes symmetrical mutual coupling between elements”).
It would have been obvious to modify Bekers and assume that, for two different couples comprising the same two antenna elements, while performing transmission in two opposite directions, values of mutual coupling are equal, and to simplify the equation based on the mutual couplings, as taught by Lebron. Assuming reciprocity between symmetrical couples is considered ordinary and well-known and is beneficial for reducing the computational complexity of the calibration process.
Regarding Claim 12, Bekers discloses:
A processor and memory circuitry (PMC) designed for calibrating a phased array antenna PAA having an array of N antenna elements, the array including a group of antenna elements capable of operating as transmit elements, and a plurality of antenna elements capable of operating as receive elements, said PMC comprising a computer with memory and an interface assembly, the PMC being configured to be operatively connected to and to establish data and control communication with said PAA ([p. 630, Section I]: “array with combined transmit/receive modules”; [Section II]; [p. 632, Section III]: “Matlab 2011b implementation on a Dell Optiplex 990 PC”) for performing the following operations:
- building an overdetermined system of linear equations respectively presenting different couples of the antenna elements, wherein each of the equations expressing a difference between a value of a real parameter, determined for a specific couple, and a sum of unknowns including unknown calibrated parameters of the antenna elements forming the specific couple ([p. 631, Section II]: “over-determined matrix equation for the complex logarithms of the transmit and receive module coefficients.”),
- solving the system of equations for obtaining a solution in the form of values of corrections to be applied to corresponding antenna elements in the array, for adjusting suitable internal parameters of the corresponding antenna elements in order to approach the respective unknown calibrated parameters thereof and to cause reduction of said difference ([p. 631, Section II]: “We can then resolve the (logarithms of the) module coefficients”; “… calibrated by the derived system of equations.”),
wherein each of said couples being formed from a transmit antenna element and a receive antenna element positioned at an arbitrary distance from one another in the PAA array ([p. 631, Section II]: “normalized row and column distances between the two elements.”),
wherein said value of the real parameter is a measurement of phase and/or amplitude performed at a specific couple of antenna elements ([p. 631, Section III]: “we randomly generate module coefficients with amplitudes between 0.5 and 1 (6 dB of power variation per module) and phases”; “active coupling”; [p. 632]: Fig. 2),
wherein said sum of unknowns includes an unknown calibrated receive parameter and an unknown calibrated transmit parameter of the respective receive and transmit antenna elements in said specific couple ([Section II]: “transmit and receive module coefficients”),
correction values being respectively related to said unknowns in said equations and being applicable for adjusting suitable internal parameters of the corresponding antenna elements in order to cause reduction of said difference and to approach the respective unknown calibrated parameters of the antenna elements ([p. 631, Section II]: “calibration”; “resolve the (logarithms of the) module coefficients”; [p. 632, Section III]: “before and after calibration”),
wherein, given the correction values are indicative of said difference in the equations, adjustment of the antenna elements based on the correction values allows reducing said difference and approaching the calibrated state … ([p. 631, Section II]: “calibration”; “resolve the (logarithms of the) module coefficients”; [p. 632, Section III]: “before and after calibration”).
Bekers does not explicitly teach – but Lomes teaches:
wherein the error can thereby be reduced till a desired error value E as parameters of the antenna elements sufficiently approach the respective unknown calibrated parameters thereof (Lomes [0105-0107]: “xvi) calculate an updated value of the phase component of the calibration ratio for the point RF-source in the new position, xvii) calculate error as weighted difference between two sets of calibration ratios, xviii) if error is not less than specified threshold, perform successive iteration”).
It would have been obvious to modify Bekers and check the calibration by comparing said difference with a predetermined error value E, as taught by Lomes. Comparing an error value to an error threshold is considered ordinary and well-known in the art and is beneficial for improving calibration accuracy.
Bekers does not explicitly teach – but Lebron teaches:
wherein, for two different couples comprising the same two elements but considered as performing transmission in two opposite directions, said couples formed from two transceivers capable to mutually exchange their functions, the values of mutual coupling are considered equal, for reducing the number of unknowns in the set of equations by building said system of linear equations from equations representing said different couples (Lebron [p. 13, Section VI]: “the mutual coupling-based technique assumes symmetrical mutual coupling between elements”).
It would have been obvious to modify Bekers and assume that, for two different couples comprising the same two antenna elements, while performing transmission in two opposite directions, values of mutual coupling are equal and simplifying the equation, as taught by Lebron. Assuming reciprocity between symmetrical couples is considered ordinary and well-known and is beneficial for reducing the computational complexity of the calibration process.
Regarding Claim 2, Bekers teaches: wherein:
- said value of the real parameter is a measurement taken at a receive element of a specific couple of antenna elements ([Section II]: “measured coupling coefficients”),
- said sum of unknowns including an unknown calibrated receive parameter and an unknown calibrated transmit parameter of the respective receive and transmit antenna elements in said specific couple ([Section II]: “transmit and receive module coefficients”),
- the correction values being respectively related to said unknowns in said equations ([Section II]: “We can then resolve the (logarithms of the) module coefficients”),
Bekers does not explicitly teach – but Lomes teaches:
- the calibration is checked by comparing said difference with a predetermined error value E (Lomes [0105-0107]: “xvi) calculate an updated value of the phase component of the calibration ratio for the point RF-source in the new position, xvii) calculate error as weighted difference between two sets of calibration ratios, xviii) if error is not less than specified threshold, perform successive iteration”).
It would have been obvious to modify Bekers and check the calibration by comparing said difference with a predetermined error value E. Comparing a value to an error threshold is well-known and is beneficial for improving calibration accuracy.
Regarding Claim 3, Bekers discloses: wherein said real parameter is phasor, amplitude and/or phase ([p. 631, Section III]: “we randomly generate module coefficients with amplitudes between 0.5 and 1 (6 dB of power variation per module) and phases”).
Regarding Claim 5, Bekers discloses: the method comprising a preliminary step of determining said values of the real parameter for said couples, by performing measurements of said real parameter and/or by obtaining data on the measurements ([p. 631, Section II]: “measured coupling coefficients”; [p. 631, Section III]: “scattering-parameter data”).
Regarding Claim 6, Bekers discloses: the method further comprising a step of adjusting internal parameters of the antenna elements using the respective correction values ([p. 631, Section II]: “calibration”; “resolve the (logarithms of the) module coefficients”; [p. 632, Section III]: “before and after calibration”).
Regarding Claim 7, Bekers discloses: The method according to Claim 1, comprising solving said system of equations by a mathematical method or an artificial intelligence (Al) method ([p. 631, Section II]: “least square”; “Singular Value Decomposition”).
Regarding Claim 8, Bekers teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein said array of N elements comprises a plurality of antenna elements each configured to operate in a receiving mode as said receive element, and a group of antenna elements each configured to operate in a transmitting mode as said transmit element ([p. 630, Section I]: “transmit/receive modules”);
the method comprising the following steps performed in cooperation with said PMC:
- causing a specific element of said group of transmit elements to transmit a signal comprising a specific combination of frequency F, … and power P so as to expose said plurality of the receive elements to receiving the transmitted signal ([p. 630, Section I]: “active coupling”; [p. 631, Section II]: “The online part needs to executed for each frequency (range) for which a separate calibration needs to be available.”; [p. 631. Section III]: “module coefficients with amplitudes between 0.5 and 1 (6 dB of power variation per module)”; “Fig. 2 shows the variation of the amplitudes of the scattering parameters over frequency between the element pairs”),
- selecting a set of different couples formed between different receive elements of the plurality and said specific transmit element ([p. 630, Section II]: “sets of equal coupling”; [p. 631, Section II]: “The second step consists of establishing the equations from which the module coefficients are resolved by relating, within
each set, each two pairs of elements to each other.”),
- determining said real parameter at each of the selected couples, by measuring phasor at the receive element of the selected couple at said specific frequency and polarization ([p. 630, Section II]: “sets of equal coupling”; [p. 631, Section II]: “The second step consists of establishing the equations from which the module coefficients are resolved by relating, within each set, each two pairs of elements to each other.”; “ amplitudes … and phases …”);
- … causing … the remaining elements of said group to transmit a signal comprising the specific combination of frequency F specific … and power P so as to expose said plurality of the receive elements to receiving the transmitted signal, … ([p. 631, Section II]: “system of equations”; [p. 631. Section III]: “module coefficients with amplitudes between 0.5 and 1 (6 dB of power variation per module)”; “Fig. 2 shows the variation of the amplitudes of the scattering parameters over frequency between the element pairs”),
- building the overdetermined system of equations for said specific combination of frequency F, … and power P ([p. 631, section II]: “system of equations”; [p. 631. Section III]: “amplitudes”; “Fig. 2 shows the variation of the amplitudes of the scattering parameters over frequency between the element pairs”), wherein:
said overdetermined system of equations comprises respective equations for all said selected couples of elements in the array ([p. 631, Section II]);
each equation in the system is built for a specific selected couple of elements of the array when a first element of the couple is a transmit element and a second element of the couple is a receive element ([p. 631, section II]: “ratios of measured coupling coefficients between elements including their transmit and receive modules”); each said equation expresses relation between:
a value of the real parameter measured at the receive element of the couple ([p. 631, section II]: “measured coupling coefficients”), and between
… unknown parameters ([p. 631, section II]: “module coefficients”) …;
- applying a mathematical or an Al method for solving the system of equations ([p. 631, section II]; [p. 631, section III]), thereby
- obtaining the solution of the system of said equations ([p. 631, section II]; [p. 631, section III]), the solution comprising said values of corrections,
- adjusting the antenna elements by respectively using said values of corrections ([p. 631, section II]; [p. 631, section III]).
Bekers does not explicitly teach – but Lebron teaches:
antenna polarization AP (Lebron [p. 7, section IV]: “our study currently focuses on the vertical polarization”),
sequentially causing each of the remaining elements of said group to transmit a signal …, each time selecting a next set of different couples per a next specific transmit element and performing the measurements at the next set (Lebron [p. 4, Section II.B]: “signal transmitted from the element m and received by n”; “two linear equation systems”;), and
each said equation expresses a relation between … and between, three unknown parameters respectively comprising calibrated real parameter value of the transmit element, calibrated real parameter value of the receive element and medium real parameter value expressing the transmit and receive elements' mutual coupling (Lebron [p. 4]: Equation (8));
It would have been obvious to modify Bekers and transmit a signal with a specific antenna polarization, sequentially cause the transmit elements to transmit a signal, and include three unknown parameters respectively comprising calibrated real parameter value of the transmit element, calibrated real parameter value of the receive element and medium real parameter value expressing the transmit and receive elements' mutual coupling, as taught by Lebron. Transmitting a signal with a specific polarization is well-known and is beneficial for improving the accuracy of measuring coupling parameters and thereby improving calibration. Sequentially causing elements to transmit and receive signals is beneficial for sequentially measuring coupling parameters to build the system of equations. Using a calibrated real parameter value of the transmit element, a calibrated real parameter value of the receive element, and medium real parameter value expressing the transmit and receive elements' mutual coupling as the three unknowns is beneficial for building the system of equations used to calibrate the array.
Regarding Claim 9, Bekers discloses: wherein N> 5 ([p. 631, Section III]: “array of 8 × 8 patches”).
Regarding Claim 10, Bekers teaches:
The method according to Claim 1, … maintaining the system to remain overdetermined ([p. 631, Section II]: “Given the highly over-determined system, the least-squares solution is robust for e.g. measurement noise, fabrication errors, and element failure.”).
Bekers does not explicitly teach – but Lebron teaches:
comprising a step of reducing complexity of the overdetermined system of equations by removing one or more equations from said system, while still maintaining the system to remain overdetermined (Lebron [p. 13, Section V.C]: “data obtained from failed components should be left out of the computation of mutual coupling-based techniques”),
wherein said step of removing is applied to one or more equations relating to at least one irregular antenna element selected from a list comprising: a faulty element, a saturated element, an element with SNR lower than a predetermined minimum value (Lebron [p. 13, Section V.C]: “data obtained from failed components should be left out of the computation of mutual coupling-based techniques”).
It would have been obvious to modify Bekers and remove an equation from the system of equations, wherein said step of removing is applied to one or more equations relating to at least one irregular antenna element such as a faulty element. Removing an equation corresponding to a faulty element is beneficial for improving calibration accuracy.
Regarding Claim 11, Bekers does not explicitly teach – but Lebron teaches: wherein calibration of the transmit elements' parameters is performed separately from calibration of receive elements' parameters, by solving different systems of equations and obtaining different solutions with suitable values of corrections (Lebron [Section III.A]: “receive error ratio”; “transmit error ratio”).
It would have been obvious to separately calibrate the transmit and receive elements by solving different systems of equations and obtaining different solutions with suitable values of corrections, as taught by Lebron. Separately solving equations for calibrating the transmit and receive elements is well-known and is beneficial for isolating the calibration calculations and thereby improving calibration accuracy.
Regarding Claim 13, Bekers discloses: the PMC according to Claim 12, operative to enable adjusting the internal parameters of the antenna elements based on said values of corrections ([p. 631, Section II]: “calibration”; “resolve the (logarithms of the) module coefficients”; [p. 632, Section III]: “before and after calibration”).
Regarding Claim 14, Bekers teaches: wherein the interface assembly is configured to exchange data and control instructions with the PAA and to interact with a measuring unit and an adjustment unit, the PMC being further configured for performing the following functions in operative connection and said communication with the PAA ([p. 632, Section III]: “Matlab 2011b implementation on a Dell Optiplex 990 PC”):
a) by using the interface assembly, causing each of the transmit antenna elements, in in turn, to transmit power towards the remaining antenna elements (p. 630, Section I]: “active coupling”; “transmit and receive modules”);
b) by using the measurement unit, performing said measurements of real parameters of the receive antenna elements and forwarding data on the measurements to the computer ([Section II]: “measured coupling coefficients”),
c) by using the adjustment unit, adjusting real parameters of the antenna elements by applying at least some of the corrections to said antenna elements, thereby bringing the internal parameters of the elements closer to the respective calibrated parameters ([p. 631, Section II]: “We can then resolve the (logarithms of the) module coefficients”; “… calibrated by the derived
system of equations.”);
Bekers does not explicitly teach – but Lomes teaches:
d) repeating the calibration up to the difference between the value of real parameter and the sum of unknowns becomes equal or lower than a predetermined error value (Lomes [0105-0107]: “xvi) calculate an updated value of the phase component of the calibration ratio for the point RF-source in the new position, xvii) calculate error as weighted difference between two sets of calibration ratios, xviii) if error is not less than specified threshold, perform successive iteration”).
The rationale to modify Bekers with the teachings of Lomes would persist from Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 15, Bekers teaches:
The PMC according to Claim 13, configured to be operatively connected to and to establish data and control communication with said PAA for performing the following steps:
- … causing each specific at least one transmit element of the antenna to transmit a signal so as to expose receive elements of the antenna to receiving the transmitted signal, thereby forming said plural couples between different receive elements and said specific at least one transmit element ([p. 630, Section I]: “active coupling”; [p. 630, Section II]: “sets of equal coupling”),
- selecting all the couples formed between each transmit element of the antenna and the receive elements of the antenna ([p. 630, Section II]: “sets of equal coupling”; [p. 631, Section II]: “The second step consists of establishing the equations from which the module coefficients are resolved by relating, within each set, each two pairs of elements to each other.”),
- performing measurements of said real parameter at receive elements of the selected couples ([p. 630, Section II]: “sets of equal coupling”; [p. 631, Section II]: “The second step consists of establishing the equations from which the module coefficients are resolved by relating, within each set, each two pairs of elements to each other.”; “we randomly generate module coefficients with amplitudes between 0.5 and 1 (6 dB of power variation per module) and phases over the complete range of 360◦.”),
- building said linear equations for said measurements respectively, wherein each specific equation expresses the difference between the specific measurement and the sum of unknowns … ([p. 631, Section II]: “system of equations”),
- forming said overdetermined set of the linear equations from said equations ([p. 631, Section II]),
- solving said set of equations statistically ([p. 631, Section II]; [p. 631, Section III]),
- obtaining the solution of said set of equations in the form of said correction values for further adjusting the respective antenna elements ([p. 631, Section II]; [p. 631, Section III]).
Bekers does not explicitly teach – but Lebron teaches:
sequentially causing each specific transmit element of the antenna to transmit a signal … (Lebron [p. 4, Section II.B]: “signal transmitted from the element m and received by n”; “two linear equation systems”;), and
the sum of unknowns including a calibrated transmit parameter and a calibrated receive parameter of the respective transmit and receive antenna elements forming the specific couple, (Lebron [p. 4]: Equation (8));
The rationale to modify Claim 15 would persist from Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 16, Bekers teaches: the method according to Claim 1, using a Mutual Coupling Method (MCM) modified to build each of said equations for a specific couple of antenna elements spaced at an arbitrary distance from one another in the PAA array ([p. 630, Section I]: “mutual-coupling (calibration) method”; [p. 631, Section II]: “normalized row and column distances between the two elements.”).
Bekers does not explicitly teach – but Lebron teaches:
wherein for two different couples comprising the same two antenna elements being transceivers, while performing transmission in two opposite directions, values of mutual coupling are considered equal (Lebron [p. 13, Section VI]: “the mutual coupling-based technique assumes symmetrical mutual coupling between elements”).
It would have been obvious to modify Bekers and assume that, for two different couples comprising the same two antenna elements being transceivers, while performing transmission in two opposite directions, values of mutual coupling are equal, as taught by Lebron. Assuming reciprocity between symmetrical couples is well-known and is beneficial for reducing the computational complexity of the calibration process.
Regarding Claim 19, Bekers discloses: A computer implemented algorithm comprising a computer-readable code to perform the steps of the method according to Claim 1 ([p. 632, Section III]: “Matlab 2011b implementation on a Dell Optiplex 990 PC”).
Regarding Claim 20, Bekers discloses: A non-transitory computer readable storage medium having embedded thereon the computer-readable code of Claim 19 ([p. 632, Section III]: “Matlab 2011b implementation on a Dell Optiplex 990 PC”).
Regarding Claim 21, Bekers does not explicitly teach – but Lomes teaches: wherein the degree of calibration is estimated by calculating a difference between the correction values at a previous iteration and the updated correction values at the present iteration of the method (Lomes [0105-0107]: “xvi) calculate an updated value of the phase component of the calibration ratio for the point RF-source in the new position, xvii) calculate error as weighted difference between two sets of calibration ratios, xviii) if error is not less than specified threshold, perform successive iteration”).
It would have been obvious to modify Bekers and check the calibration by comparing said difference with a predetermined error value E, as taught by Lomes. Comparing an error value to an error threshold is considered ordinary and well-known in the art and is beneficial for improving calibration accuracy.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bekers (D. Bekers, R. van Dijk and F. van Vliet, “Mutual-Coupling Cased Phased-Array Calibration: A Robust and Versatile Approach,” 2013), Lomes (US 2011/0122016), and Lebron (R. M. Lebrón et al., “Validation and Testing of Initial and In-Situ Mutual Coupling-Based Calibration of a Dual-Polarized Active Phased Array Antenna,” 2020), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Warfield (J. N. Warfield, “Binary Matrices in System Modeling,” 1973).
Regarding Claim 4, Bekers teaches: wherein said overdetermined system of equations ([p. 631, Section II]: “over-determined matrix equation”) is presented as
A*Y = Q ([p. 631, Section II]: “matrix equation”), where:
Q is a measurements vector of said values of the real parameter for the couples ([p. 631, Section II]: “the vector in the right-hand side consists of the logarithms of ratios of measured coupling coefficients”),
Y is a vector of unknowns, including said unknown calibrated parameters of the antenna elements of the couples ([p. 631, Section II]: “complex logarithms of the transmit and receive module coefficients”),
A is a … matrix built for N elements ([p. 631, Section II]: “system matrix in the left-hand side of the equation”),
and wherein
said solution of the system of equations is presented as a vector of said correction values ([p. 631, Section II]: “resolve the (logarithms of the) module coefficients”; “Singular Value Decomposition”).
Bekers does not explicitly teach – but Warfield teaches: a binary matrix ([p. 441, Section II]: “Binary matrices are useful because they can represent the presence or absence of a specified kind of relation between pairs of elements of a system”).
It would have been obvious to modify Bekers and use a binary matrix to represent N elements, as taught by Warfield. Binary matrices are well-known in the art and are beneficial for representing relationships between elements in a system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 14-15, filed 10/31/2025, regarding Claim Objections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Several claim objections have not been addressed by Applicant.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 15-20, filed 10/31/2025, regarding Claim Rejections under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of Claims 1-2, 4, 8, 10, 12, 15, and 17-18 have been overcome.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 17, filed 10/31/2025, regarding Claim Rejections under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claim 14 remains rejected as explained in the 112 rejection above.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 20-25, filed 10/31/2025, regarding Claim Rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant appears to argue that the combination Bekers, Lomes, and Lebron does not teach or render obvious certain limitations of Claims 1 and 12. Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the combination of Bekers, Lomes, and Lebron teaches or renders obvious the limitations as explained in the rejections above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 NOAH Y. ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-0170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-4PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William J. Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NOAH YI MIN ZHU/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648