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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 01/14/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in this application. Claims 1, 8, 13, and 15 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled or are new. Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 08/21/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 01/14/2026 regarding 35 USC 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. All 35 USC 112(b) rejections are overcome in consideration of amendments.
Applicant’s arguments filed 01/14/2026 regarding prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. All previous prior art rejections are overcome in consideration of amendments, however additional prior art rejections are presented below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/15/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
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 of this title, 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 1-5, 7-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volkov (US 20060273255 A1), hereinafter Volkov, in view of Kawaji (US 20220221554 A1), hereinafter Kawaji.
Regarding claim 1, Volkov, as shown below, discloses a radar system comprising the following limitations:
a first transmitter antenna configured for radiating a first millimeter wave electromagnetic signal (See at least Figs. 1, 10, Item 2, [0125] “source 2 transmits MMW/SMMW radiation 6”, [0184] “Each generator has either own antenna system 67, 68, 69 for directing the generated radiation in a free space, or a common antennae system 67”), the first millimeter wave electromagnetic signal comprising a set of stimulations characteristics, the set of stimulation characteristics comprising a first polarization (See at least [0122] “In another preferable embodiment these controlling systems also should distinctly encode the radiation generated by every said partial constituent sources (exhibiting own particular frequency composition and polarization state)”);
a first receiver antenna configured for receiving a second millimeter wave electromagnetic signal (See at least [0147] “receiving device 16 (further it is designated as an "RD") on the corresponding receiving elements 17, 18, 19 (if they represent themselves a immovable multi-element receiving array)”), the second millimeter wave electromagnetic signal comprising a set of reflection characteristics, comprising a second polarization (See at least Fig. 1, [0122] “controlling systems also should distinctly encode the radiation generated by every said partial constituent sources (exhibiting own particular frequency composition and polarization state). This will allow to distinctly decode and extracted from compound radiation received by receiving apparatus of imaging system (by receiving array and correspondent receiving electronic means).”)
a processing circuitry configured to detect an object based at least in part on a relationship between the set of stimulation characteristics and the set of reflection characteristics, the object being impacted by the first millimeter wave electromagnetic signal to cause the second millimeter wave electromagnetic signal to reflect off the object (See at least Fig. 1, Item 9, [0020] “a processor in order to forming the observed object image and surrounding area of location and for its mapping”),
Volkov does not explicitly disclose that is orthogonal to the first polarization; and
that is orthogonal to the first polarization (See at least [0128] “object 200 illustrated in FIG. 8 largely changes the polarization direction when reflecting the transmission wave. For example, the transmission wave transmitted from the transmission antenna 25A of the polarization direction of 0° is reflected off the peripheral portion of the object 200 such that the polarization direction is changed to 90°” The Examiner notes that 90 degree polarization is orthogonal.); and
(See at least [0104] “the electronic device according to the one embodiment enables a reflecting object to be appropriately detected even if the polarization direction of the reflected wave changes” Kawaji discloses comparing the first and second polarization through filtering and calculation of object characteristics. See also [0119]-[0122] and [0128]-[0129])
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar system disclosed by Volkov with the polarization system disclosed by Kawaji. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously increase accuracy (See at least [0030] “An object of the present disclosure is to provide an electronic device, a method for controlling an electronic device, and a program for controlling an electronic device that contribute to improvement of the object detection accuracy”).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Volkov and Kawaji, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Volkov further discloses
the processing circuitry is further configured to generate control instructions for a synthesizer to generate a signal that, when received by the first transmitter antenna, induces the first transmitter antenna to radiate the first millimeter wave electromagnetic signal having the first polarization (See at least Fig. 1, Item 22, [0122] “controlling systems also should distinctly encode the radiation generated by every said partial constituent sources (exhibiting own particular frequency composition and polarization state)”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Volkov and Kawaji, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Volkov further discloses
a second receiver antenna configured for receiving a third millimeter wave electromagnetic signal, the third millimeter wave electromagnetic signal comprising the first polarization (See at least [0147] “receiving device 16 (further it is designated as an "RD") on the corresponding receiving elements 17, 18, 19 (if they represent themselves a immovable multi-element receiving array” The Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘third millimeter wave” includes interpretation that the “third millimeter wave” is the same wave as the “first millimeter wave”); and a first switch for selecting between the first receiver antenna or the second receiver antenna. (See at least [0147] “spatial points 17, 18, 19, which are periodically scanned by one or some receiving elements of this receiving device” See also Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Volkov and Kawaji, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 3. Volkov further discloses
a second switch for selecting between the first transmitter antenna and the second transmitter antenna (See at least [0123] “In another embodiment of the invention only radiation central frequencies may be varied for part of constituent sources 3, 4, 5 of the radiation source 2 or for all of them for goal of a formation of frequency-distinctive partial constituent images.” Volkov discloses independently controlling the different antenna sources which is equivalent to switching between a first transmitter and second transmitter antenna. Further, the switch as claimed is not limited in interpretation to a binary on/off switch. See also Fig. 14).
Volkov does not explicitly disclose a second transmitter antenna configured for radiating a fourth millimeter wave electromagnetic signal, the fourth millimeter wave electromagnetic signal comprising the second polarization. However, Kawaji, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses:
a second transmitter antenna configured for radiating a fourth millimeter wave electromagnetic signal, the fourth millimeter wave electromagnetic signal comprising the second polarization (See at least [0122] “Suppose that the transmission wave is transmitted from the transmission antenna 25C′ of the polarization direction of 90° in the next time interval illustrated in FIG. 7” See also [0117]-[0122]); and
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar system disclosed by Volkov with the polarization system disclosed by Kawaji. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously increase accuracy (See at least [0030] “An object of the present disclosure is to provide an electronic device, a method for controlling an electronic device, and a program for controlling an electronic device that contribute to improvement of the object detection accuracy”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Volkov and Kawaji, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Volkov further discloses
the system further comprises a second receiver antenna configured for receiving a third millimeter wave electromagnetic signal, the third millimeter wave electromagnetic signal comprising the first polarization, wherein the first receiver antenna is configured to transmit the second millimeter wave electromagnetic signal to a first mixer, and wherein the second receiver antenna is configured to transmit the third millimeter wave electromagnetic signal to a second mixer (See at least Fig. 56, [0457] “In FIGS. 55 to 59 there are represented block diagrams of input units of the receiving channel of the receiving device 16 (see FIG. 1), allowing to amplify, to downconvert and partially to decode antenna-received signals (including doublet signals) the later may be perform by using square-law detector or by mixer ”, [0177] “each receiving array antenna element 47, 48 of array 46 hasis fed to own said receiving channel, which together forms a corresponding receiving element 17,18 of the RD 16”).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Volkov and Kawaji, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Volkov further discloses
the object comprises a reflector configured to be impacted by the first millimeter wave electromagnetic signal comprising the first polarization and reflecting the second millimeter wave electromagnetic signal comprising the second polarization (See at least [0113] “After reflecting of the radiation from the observed object a focusing of this radiation and its transferring to a receiving means are realized.”).
Regarding claim 8, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 8 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1, shown above.
Regarding claim 9, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 2. Accordingly, claim 9 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 2, shown above.
Regarding claim 10, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 3. Accordingly, claim 10 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 3, shown above.
Regarding claim 11, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 4. Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 4, shown above.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Volkov and Kawaji, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 8. Volkov does not explicitly disclose the first polarization comprises a vertical polarization and the second polarization comprises a horizontal polarization. However, Kawaji, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses:
the first polarization comprises a vertical polarization and the second polarization comprises a horizontal polarization (See at least [0100] “the reflected waves obtained as a result of the radio waves transmitted as vertically polarized waves being reflected off the object may include a horizontally polarized wave”); and
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the radar system disclosed by Volkov with the polarization system disclosed by Kawaji. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously increase accuracy (See at least [0030] “An object of the present disclosure is to provide an electronic device, a method for controlling an electronic device, and a program for controlling an electronic device that contribute to improvement of the object detection accuracy”).
Regarding claim 14, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 7. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 7, shown above.
Regarding claim 15, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1, shown above.
Regarding claim 16, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 2. Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 2, shown above.
Regarding claim 17, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 3. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 3, shown above.
Regarding claim 18, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 4. Accordingly, claim 18 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 4, shown above.
Regarding claim 19, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 12. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 12, shown above.
Regarding claim 20, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 7. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 7, shown above.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volkov, in view of Kawaji, in further view of Zou (CN 113871900 B), hereinafter Zou.
Regarding claim 6, The combination of Volkov and Kawaji, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Volkov and Kawaji does not explicitly disclose the system comprises transmission lines with matching lengths configured for delay matching. However, Zou, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the system comprises transmission lines with matching lengths configured for delay matching (See at least “The technical solution of the invention adopts the physical length of each receiving antenna micro-strip transmission line (13) are equal, the physical length of each transmitting antenna micro-strip transmission line (14) are equal in order to realize the transmission signal, and the same time delay and the same transmission loss between the received signals so as to equivalently obtain a virtual array with equal amplitude and same phase” ).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the sensing system disclosed by Volkov with the polarization system disclosed by Kawaji with the transmission line system disclosed by Zou. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously achieve equal signal properties (See at least The technical solution of the invention adopts the physical length of each receiving antenna micro-strip transmission line (13) are equal, the physical length of each transmitting antenna micro-strip transmission line (14) are equal in order to realize the transmission signal, and the same time delay and the same transmission loss between the received signals so as to equivalently obtain a virtual array with equal amplitude and same phase ).
Regarding claim 13, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 6. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 6, shown 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH W GOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-4186. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/KENNETH W GOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648