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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “passive directional array” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Please also refer to the 112-b rejection below. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1 – 20 are 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.
Applicant does not accurately claim the scope of the invention. The claims require that sidelobes are directed to the runway during a landing procedure. Given the complex nature of antenna radiation pattern, there will always be at least one sidelobe directed to a runway regardless of whether the aircraft is in a landing operation. Looking at Applicant’s Figs. 1 and 3, the claimed invention is directed to an antenna array comprising an antenna radiation pattern wherein said radiation pattern comprises a first set of side lobes and a second set of side lobes wherein the first set of side lobes have a larger amplitude than the second set of sidelobes wherein the antenna radiation pattern is rotated such that the first set of sidelobes is directed away from a runway during a landing procedure and the second set of sidelobes is directed at the runway during the landing procedure. Because Applicant does not correctly claim the invention, it is unclear when infringement would occur because at least a plurality of sidelobes of all the several sidelobes will always be directed at a runway regardless of whether the aircraft is in a landing operation. Reasonable notice of when infringement occurs must be given so that infringement can be avoided. As such, the metes and bounds of the invention cannot be clearly defined, thus the claims are indefinite.
Also, the claims are directed to both an electromechanically steered passive array and an ESA antenna. However, the specification is directed to a single antenna array as shown in Figs. 4A and 4B. Moreover, it is not clear how both arrays are used to rotate the sidelobes. Although the specification does not show separate passive antenna arrays and ESA 400, the specification does not make clear whether the passive antenna array is a set of antenna elements that are part of the ESA 400 in contrast to the passive antennae array being separate the ESA 400. As such, the metes and bounds of the claims are not fully defined, thus the claims are indefinite.
Dependent claims 2 – 6, 8 – 13 and 15 – 20 are rejected due to a dependency on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sishtla (US 20220082687 A1) published March 17, 2022
As to claim 7 and 14, Sishtla discloses an aircraft comprising a radar system comprising an electromechanically steered passive directional array and ESA antenna comprising a plurality of radiating elements (As best understood per the 112 rejection, see Sishtla Para. 6 “The system may comprise a weather radar onboard an aircraft, the weather radar including an electronically scanned array (ESA) antenna”),
wherein the plurality of radiating elements are disposed in an array (ESA as cited would require a plurality of radiating elements – inherent.),
the array being disposed to produce side lobes directed at a runway (Figs. 4 – 6 shows several sidelobes from which it should be readily apparent that at least a plurality of sidelobes of said several sidelobes would be directed to the runway. As discussed in the 112 rejection, Applicant does not distinguish between larger and smaller sidelobes.)
during a landing procedure (Para. 2 “A traditional airborne weather radar system antenna beam may be tilted toward the ground to attempt to illuminate display doppler returns from hazardous weather near the ground and intended landing airfield. However, while tilted downward, these traditional radars also display strong ground clutter which may preclude display of an actual weather threat.”).
Regarding the 112 rejection above, Sishtla further discloses “As can be seen, the suppressed sidelobes 516 in the area of interest (within 10 degrees of the main beam 412) are now at least 60 dB below the main lobe 412. This suppression may eliminate the return power from any undesired ground clutter 160.” See Sishtla Para. 48 Figs. 5 – 6. This cited passage and cited figures of Sishtla better teaches what the Examiner believes to be relevant with respect to Applicant’s actual invention as discussed supra with 112 rejection. However, Applicant may argue that the smaller sidelobes 516 are not explicitly disclosed/taught as being directed directly to the runway while the larger sidelobes are directed away from the runway and that coincidences are not considered disclosure/teachings.
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 – 2, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Sishtla in view of Holt (US 20190064338 A1).
As to claim 1, the features of claim 1 are similar to claims 7 and 14. The only feature not taught by claim 1 by Sishtla is the feature wherein the plurality of radiating elements are disposed in an array within a rectangular array lattice.
In the same field of endeavor, Holt teaches a rectangular array as shown in figure 1.
In view of the teachings of Holt, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled before filing to use a rectangular array because said rectangular array is known for high directivity and narrow beams thus improving gain resulting in higher signal-to-noise thus improved accuracy.
As to claims 2, 8 and 15, Sishtla in view of Holt teaches the radar system of claims 1, 7 and 14 wherein the array lattice is rotated by ±45° (Holt Para. 46).
In view of Holt, it would have been obvious to apply ±45° scan because said scan provide maximum coverage in front of the aircraft whereas any scan outside of said scan would be either looking to far up, for which there is no apparent need thus taking time from important coverage area, or too far down, from which there would be excessive multipath from the ground.
Claims 3 – 6, 9 – 10 and 16 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Sishtla in view of Holt and in further view of Ingelhag (US 20250015512 A1) having effective filing date November 9, 2021.
As to claims 3, 9 and 16, Sishtla in view of Holt does not teach the radar system of claims 2, 8 and 15 wherein the radiating elements are electronically rotated to produce a polarization state corresponding to a polarization of an unrotated array.
In the same field endeavor, Ingelhag teaches “Further, as the second AiP 101 is rotated 180 degrees, the antenna elements 122 of the second AiP 101 are still (even when rotated) configured to transmit radio signals in a same polarization as the antenna elements 122 of the first AiP 100.” It should be clear that digital phasing or beamforming is being used to keep the polarization the same. Nonetheless, Ingelhag teaches beamforming at Para. 12.
In view of the teachings of Ingelhag, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before filing to allow for digital phasing/beamforming of a rotated array to match the polarization of an unrotated array to allow for bistatic measurements thus improving angular resolution.
As to claims 4, 10 and 17, Sishtla in view of Holt does not teach the radar system of claims 2, 8 and 15 wherein the radiating elements are electronically rotated to produce an arbitrary polarization state.
In the same field endeavor, Ingelhag teaches “Further, as the second AiP 101 is rotated 180 degrees, the antenna elements 122 of the second AiP 101 are still (even when rotated) configured to transmit radio signals in a same polarization as the antenna elements 122 of the first AiP 100.” It should be clear that digital phasing or beamforming is being used to keep the polarization the same. Nonetheless, Ingelhag teaches beamforming at Para. 12.
In view of the teachings of Ingelhag, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before filing to allow for digital phasing/beamforming to change polarization because beamforming is quick and is more accurate that mechanical rotation.
As to claims 5, Sishtla in view of Holt does not teach the radar system of claims 1, wherein the radiating elements are electronically rotated to produce a polarization state corresponding to a polarization state of an unrotated array.
In the same field endeavor, Ingelhag teaches “Further, as the second AiP 101 is rotated 180 degrees, the antenna elements 122 of the second AiP 101 are still (even when rotated) configured to transmit radio signals in a same polarization as the antenna elements 122 of the first AiP 100.” It should be clear that digital phasing or beamforming is being used to keep the polarization the same. Nonetheless, Ingelhag teaches beamforming at Para. 12.
In view of the teachings of Ingelhag, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before filing to allow for digital phasing of a rotated array to match the polarization of an unrotated array to allow for bistatic measurements thus improving angular resolution.
As to claims 6, Sishtla in view of Holt does not teach the electromechanically steered passive directional array and ESA antenna apparatus of claim 5 wherein the radiating elements are electronically rotated to produce an arbitrary polarization state.
In the same field endeavor, Ingelhag teaches “Further, as the second AiP 101 is rotated 180 degrees, the antenna elements 122 of the second AiP 101 are still (even when rotated) configured to transmit radio signals in a same polarization as the antenna elements 122 of the first AiP 100.” It should be clear that digital phasing or beamforming is being used to keep the polarization the same. Nonetheless, Ingelhag teaches beamforming at Para. 12.
In view of the teachings of Ingelhag, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before filing to allow for digital phasing/beamforming to change polarization because beamforming is quick and is more accurate that mechanical rotation.
Claims 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Sishtla in view of Landon (US 20120064825 A1).
As to claims 13 and 20, Sishtla does not teach the radar system of claim 7 and 14, wherein the array is configured to rotate from a first orientation of 0° polarization state to a second orientation of ±45° polarization state.
In the same field of endeavor, Landon teaches “The antenna is able to produce polarization orientations of 0 degrees, 45 degrees, 90 degrees, and 135 degrees, depending on the state of the switches and the relative power distribution between the first feed and the second feed (Para. 47).”
In view of the teachings of Landon, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before filing to apply various polarizations to various degrees to allow for more diversity thus improving security and reducing interference.
Claims 11 – 12 and 18 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Sishtla in view of Ingelhag (US 20250015512 A1) having effective filing date November 9, 2021
As to claims 11 and 18, Sishtla does not teach the radar system of claims 7 and 14, wherein the radiating elements are electronically rotated to produce a polarization state corresponding to a polarization state of an unrotated array.
In the same field endeavor, Ingelhag teaches “Further, as the second AiP 101 is rotated 180 degrees, the antenna elements 122 of the second AiP 101 are still (even when rotated) configured to transmit radio signals in a same polarization as the antenna elements 122 of the first AiP 100.” It should be clear that digital phasing or beamforming is being used to keep the polarization the same. Nonetheless, Ingelhag teaches beamforming at Para. 12.
In view of the teachings of Ingelhag, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before filing to allow for digital phasing of a rotated array to match the polarization of an unrotated array to allow for bistatic measurements thus improving angular resolution.
As to claims 12 and 19, Sishtla does not teach the electromechanically steered passive directional array and ESA antenna apparatus of claims 11 and 18 wherein the radiating elements are electronically rotated to produce an arbitrary polarization state.
In the same field endeavor, Ingelhag teaches “Further, as the second AiP 101 is rotated 180 degrees, the antenna elements 122 of the second AiP 101 are still (even when rotated) configured to transmit radio signals in a same polarization as the antenna elements 122 of the first AiP 100.” It should be clear that digital phasing or beamforming is being used to keep the polarization the same. Nonetheless, Ingelhag teaches beamforming at Para. 12.
In view of the teachings of Ingelhag, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before filing to allow for digital phasing/beamforming to change polarization because beamforming is quick and is more accurate that mechanical rotation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL W JUSTICE whose telephone number is (571)270-7029. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 5:30 M-F.
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.
/MICHAEL W JUSTICE/Examiner, Art Unit 3648