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 03/04/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-7 and 10-32 remain pending in this application. Claims 1 and 10 have been amended. Claims 8-9 have been cancelled. Claims 31-32 are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/04/2026 regarding prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. All previous prior art rejections are maintained for the same or similar reasoning as provided in the previous office action dated 12/05/2025. Additional prior art rejections are presented for new claims.
Regarding amendments to claim 1, the Examiner argues that the preamble of the claim and amendment made are merely intended use with no structural difference. If the intended use statements do not provide structural difference, the recitation does not limit the claim. See MPEP 2111.02. To satisfy an intended use limitation which is limiting, a prior art structure which is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963) (The claims were directed to a core member for hair curlers and a process of making a core member for hair curlers. The court held that the intended use of hair curling was of no significance to the structure and process of making.); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962) (statement of intended use in an apparatus claim did not distinguish over the prior art apparatus). Independent claim 1 as presented does not positively recite an object detection or radar signal that has structure differing from the structure of the prior art of record. The amendment to claim 1, recites a radar signal, however, structurally there is no difference between a generic radar signal and a communication or other RF signal. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the prior art rejection of claim 1 and its dependents as well as all similar independent and dependent claims. However, new claim 32 includes limiting structure that overcomes intended use interpretation. However, additional prior art rejections of claims 31 and 32 are presented below.
Regarding claim 19, the examiner maintains the rejection for the same or similar reasoning as provided in the previous office action. The “on-chip signal path” merely corresponds to the physical circuitry as described by Abecasis (see at least [0120] “the illustrated examples may be implemented as circuitry located on a single integrated circuit or within a same device” [0121] “physical circuitry or of logical representations convertible into physical circuitry” See also [0052], [0117]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-4, 6, 10-13, 15, 17, 19, 21-25, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abecasis (US 20150180533 A1), hereinafter Abecasis.
Regarding claim 1, Abecasis discloses
transmitting a transmit signal via a first antenna (See at least Fig. 5, Item 101, [0057] “The signal to be transmitted 185 is applied to the TX antenna 101. The TX antenna 101 transmits RF radiation 150.”);
receiving a first receive signal via a second antenna (See at least Fig. 5, Items 110, [0058] “RX antennas A and B 120 and 110 receive a desired signal 160 which is a far field signal.”);
receiving a second receive signal via a third antenna, the first receive signal and the second receive signal being associated with the transmit signal (See at least Fig. 5, Items 120, 160, [0058] “RX antennas A and B 120 and 110 receive a desired signal 160 which is a far field signal.”);
generating a first phase-shifted signal via a first phase shifter based on the first receive signal; generating a second phase-shifted signal via a second phase shifter based on the second receive signal (See at least Fig. 5, Items 130, 135, [0065] “FIG. 5 illustrates a pair of 90 degrees phase shifters 130 and 135”); and
combining the first phase-shifted signal and the second phase-shifted signal to generate a combined receive signal (See at least [0062] “The two phase changed signals from the RX antennas A and B 110 and 120 are then applied to the RF combiner 140.”), wherein at least one of generating the first phase-shifted signal or generating the second phase-shifted signal comprises controlling a phase-shift setting of at least one of the first phase shifter or the second phase shifter based on at least one of a mutual coupling component or a phase noise of the combined receive signal, the combined receive signal being associated with the transmit signal generated via a radio detection and ranging (RADAR) signal (See at least [0020] “a controller that may be arranged to adjust the phase shift applied on the signals from at least one of first and second receive antennas.”, [0086] “RF combined signal 190 will be a vectorial sum of leakage components that differ from each other by amplitude and their summation will not cancel them. In order to achieve cancellation the first phase shifter has to be adjusted so P1=P2.” Abecasis discloses controlling phase shifters for the purpose of cancellation of a leakage/unwanted signal/mutual coupling component of received signals)
Regarding claim 2, Abecasis, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Abecasis additionally discloses
the second antenna and the third antenna are different antennas. (See at least Fig. 5, Items 110, 120, [0058] “RX antennas A and B 120 and 110 receive” ).
Regarding claim 3, Abecasis, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Abecasis additionally discloses
the first receive signal comprises a horizontal polarization signal and wherein the second receive signal comprises a vertical polarization signal (See at least [0019] “the first receive antenna and the second receive antennas are configured to receive different polarization components of RF radiation”).
Regarding claim 4, Abecasis, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 3. Abecasis additionally discloses
the second antenna and the third antenna are a same antenna configured to provide the horizontal polarization signal and the vertical polarization signal (See at least [0010] “It is also possible to use two TX antennas and one RX antenna with the same equidistance spacing, as shown in FIG. 3” [0114] Although specific conductivity types or polarity of potentials have been described in the examples, it will be appreciated that conductivity types and polarities of potentials may be reversed.” Abecasis discloses the receive antenna as capable or receiving the horizontal and vertical polarization signal. However, the examiner notes that the teachings of Abecasis do not necessarily disclose simultaneously providing horizontal and vertical polarization.).
Regarding claim 6, Abecasis, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Abecasis additionally discloses
the phase-shift setting is controlled such that a mutual coupling component of the first phase-shifted signal is approximately 180° out-of-phase from a mutual coupling component of the second phase-shifted signal (See at least [0065] “FIG. 5 illustrates a pair of 90 degrees phase shifters 130 and 135”).
Regarding claim 10, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 10 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1, shown above.
Regarding claim 11, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 2. Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 2, shown above.
Regarding claim 12, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 3. Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 3, shown above.
Regarding claim 13, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 4. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 4, shown above.
Regarding claim 15, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 6. Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 6, shown above.
Regarding claim 17, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 8. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 8, shown above.
Regarding claim 19, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1, shown above.
Regarding claim 21, Abecasis, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 19. Abecasis additionally discloses
processing the receive signal comprises at least one of amplifying or phase shifting the receive signal (See at least Fig. 5, Items 130, 135, [0065] “FIG. 5 illustrates a pair of 90 degrees phase shifters 130 and 135”).
Regarding claim 22, Abecasis, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 19. Abecasis additionally discloses
using the signal to at least partially cancel the mutual coupling component comprises phase shifting the signal (See at least [0086] “RF combined signal 190 will be a vectorial sum of leakage components that differ from each other by amplitude and their summation will not cancel them. In order to achieve cancellation the first phase shifter has to be adjusted so P1=P2.” Abecasis discloses controlling phase shifters for the purpose of cancellation of a leakage/unwanted signal/mutual coupling component of received signals ).
Regarding claim 23, Abecasis, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 19. Abecasis additionally discloses
the other chain comprises a second receive chain coupled to a third antenna (See at least Fig. 5, Item 120, [0057] “The TX antenna 101 is situated equally spaced from two RX antennas 110 and 120.”).
Regarding claim 24, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 3. Accordingly, claim 24 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 3, shown above.
Regarding claim 25, Abecasis, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 19. Abecasis additionally discloses
the other chain is a second transmit chain coupled to the second antenna (See at least Fig. 3, [0010] “It is also possible to use two TX antennas and one RX antenna with the same equidistance spacing, as shown in FIG. 3 that shows a prior art communication system 10'.”).
Regarding claim 30, Abecasis, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 19. Abecasis additionally discloses
the other chain is used for signal reception (See at least Fig. 5, Item 120, [0057] “The TX antenna 101 is situated equally spaced from two RX antennas 110 and 120.”).
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.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abecasis, in view of Chuang (US 20200025869 A1), hereinafter Chuang.
Regarding claim 5, Abecasis, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Abecasis does not explicitly disclose measuring a power associated with the mutual coupling component; and determining the phase-shift setting of the at least one of the first phase shifter or the second phase shifter based on the power. However, Chuang, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
measuring a power associated with the mutual coupling component; and determining the phase-shift setting of the at least one of the first phase shifter or the second phase shifter based on the power (See at least [0024] “The leakage and clutter canceler 117 preferably further includes a power detector (not shown) which is configured to detect the power levels of the reflected signal R, the clutter C and the leakage signal L for adjusting the phase shift displacement of the phase shifter and the gain level of the varied gain amplifier” ).
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 phase system disclosed by Abecasis with the power and phase system disclosed by Chuang. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously obtain optimal leakage cancellation (See at least [0024] “the phase displacement of the phase shifter and the gain of the varied gain amplifier are adjusted to optimal value for automatic clutter and leakage cancellation”).
Regarding claim 14, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 5. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 5, shown above.
Claims 7, 16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abecasis, in view of Dunn (US 20230361807 A1), hereinafter Dunn.
Regarding claim 7, Abecasis, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Abecasis does not explicitly disclose amplifying the first receive signal to yield a first amplified receive signal, the first phase-shifted signal being generated based on the first amplified receive signal; and amplifying the second receive signal to yield a second amplified receive signal, the second phase-shifted signal being generated based on the second amplified receive signal. However, Dunn, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
amplifying the first receive signal to yield a first amplified receive signal, the first phase-shifted signal being generated based on the first amplified receive signal; and amplifying the second receive signal to yield a second amplified receive signal, the second phase-shifted signal being generated based on the second amplified receive signal (See at least Figs. 2, 4, Items 404a-d, 450, [0075] “reaches the first RF amplifier in RX channel (i.e., the LNA 450 of FIG. 4”).
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 phase system disclosed by Abecasis with the amplification system disclosed by Dunn. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously facilitate cancellation without post processing (See at least [0072] “This is advantageous, because it provides active cancellation as the signals are arriving, so no post processing in the receiver 460 is needed.”).
Regarding claim 16, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 7. Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 7, shown above.
Regarding claim 18, Abecasis, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 10. Abecasis does not explicitly disclose each of the first receive signal and the second receive signal includes a target reflection component associated with a reflection of the transmit signal from an object. However, Dunn, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
each of the first receive signal and the second receive signal includes a target reflection component associated with a reflection of the transmit signal from an object (See at least [0053] “in at least some examples, using the specific context of target detection systems (e.g., radar systems) configured to detect, track, monitor, and/or identify targets”).
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 phase system disclosed by Abecasis with the amplification system disclosed by Dunn. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously facilitate cancellation without post processing (See at least [0072] “This is advantageous, because it provides active cancellation as the signals are arriving, so no post processing in the receiver 460 is needed.”).
Regarding claim 20, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 18. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 18, shown above.
Claims 26-29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abecasis, in view of Campos (US 20160013855 A1), hereinafter Campos.
Regarding claim 26, Abecasis, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 19. Abecasis does not explicitly disclose the other chain is a second receive chain coupled to an unused antenna port. However, Campos, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the other chain is a second receive chain coupled to an unused antenna port (See at least [0105] “This information is obtained locally at the remote antenna unit site, additional beam-forming processing takes place to leverage unused antenna ports to produce beam steering.” Compos discloses use of unused antenna ports in a 4x4 MIMO system).
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 phase system disclosed by Abecasis with the unused antenna port system disclosed by Campos. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously leverage unused antenna ports to provide additional data (See at least [0105] “Location information that provides with the necessary information to generate beamforming can be carried in-band or can be deduced through triangulation mechanisms from the signal strength of the different antennas in the area around the wireless device.”).
Regarding claim 27, Abecasis, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 19 and 26. Abecasis does not explicitly disclose the second receive chain is configured to process a signal from a second transmit chain coupled to the unused antenna port. However, Campos, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the second receive chain is configured to process a signal from a second transmit chain coupled to the unused antenna port (See at least [0105] “This information is obtained locally at the remote antenna unit site, additional beam-forming processing takes place to leverage unused antenna ports to produce beam steering.” Compos discloses use of unused antenna ports in a 4x4 MIMO system).
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 phase system disclosed by Abecasis with the unused antenna port system disclosed by Campos. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously leverage unused antenna ports to provide additional data (See at least [0105] “Location information that provides with the necessary information to generate beamforming can be carried in-band or can be deduced through triangulation mechanisms from the signal strength of the different antennas in the area around the wireless device.”).
Regarding claim 28, Abecasis, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 19 and 26. Abecasis does not explicitly disclose the second receive chain is configured to process a signal from the first transmit chain received over the on-chip signal path. However, Campos, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the second receive chain is configured to process a signal from the first transmit chain received over the on-chip signal path (See at least [0060] “FIG. 9 illustrates a signal processor 260 as configured to facilitate signaling in accordance with one non-limiting aspect of the present invention. The signal processor 260 may include the baseband processor unit common to the signal processors shown above (12, 150, 250) while being configured to leverage the same chip as the wireless unit”).
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 phase system disclosed by Abecasis with the unused antenna port system disclosed by Campos. One would have been motivated to do so in order to realize a design which may advantageously increase capacity over single path systems (See at least [0003] “The multipath capabilities of MIMO systems allow data to be transmitted simultaneously over multiple paths between a plurality of transmitting devices and a plurality of receiving devices to effectively increase capacity over single path systems.”).
Regarding Claim 29, The combination of Abecasis and Campos, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 19, 26, and 28. The combination of Abecasis and Campos, does not explicitly disclose the on-chip signal path is configured to selectively couple to the first transmit chain and to selectively couple to the second receive chain. However, the mere rearrangement of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04.
Claims 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abecasis, in view of Arool Emmanuel (US 11841455 B1), hereinafter Arool, in further view of Rimini (US 20190305859 A1), hereinafter Rimini.
Regarding claim 31, Abecasis, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Abecasis does not explicitly disclose measuring the at least one of the mutual coupling component or the phase noise based on the
measuring the at least one of the mutual coupling component or the phase noise based on the (See at least Fig. 8, Col. 21 Lines 1-3 “the computing device may determine, using the first data, coupling data that indicates a measure of the mutual coupling”).
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 phase system disclosed by Abecasis with the measurement system disclosed by Arool Emmanuel. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously accurately identify interference and thereby accurately detect an environment (See at least Col. 20 Lines 15-18 “The third gain may help ensure that the coupled radar signals 116 do not interfere with the event component's 140 ability to accurately detect movement in the environment 102.”).
The combination of Abecasis and Arool Emmanuel does not explicitly disclose upconverting, via a first mixer, a mixer input signal based on the RADAR signal; downconverting, via a second mixer, the combined receive signal based on the RADAR signal to generate a downconverted signal; and. However, Rimini, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
upconverting, via a first mixer, a mixer input signal based on the RADAR signal (See at least Fig. 5, Item 124-1, [0031] “The intermediate-frequency circuit 122 includes at least one mixer 124, which performs frequency conversion between a baseband frequency and an intermediate frequency”);
downconverting, via a second mixer, the combined receive signal based on the RADAR signal to generate a downconverted signal (See at least Fig. 5, Item 124-2, [0031] “The intermediate-frequency circuit 122 includes at least one mixer 124, which performs frequency conversion between a baseband frequency and an intermediate frequency”); 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 phase system disclosed by Abecasis with the measurement system disclosed by Arool Emmanuel with the conversion system disclosed by Rimini. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously enable a cost and size reducing system (See at least [0023] “This can decrease cost and size of the hybrid transceiver”).
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Abecasis, Arool Emmanuel and Rimini, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 31. Abecasis does not disclose the RADAR signal comprises a frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) signal. However, Arool Emmanuel further discloses
the RADAR signal comprises a frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) signal (See at least Col. 17 Lines 21-25 “Various types of radar systems 126 may be utilized, such as a […] frequency-modulated continuous wave (FMCW) radar”).
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 phase system disclosed by Abecasis with the radar system disclosed by Arool Emmanuel with the conversion system disclosed by Rimini. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously enable improved monitoring techniques (See at least Col. 10 Lines 9-14 “In this way, the received radar signals 120 may be dominated by, or more strongly represent, the reflected signals 118 (desired) as compared to the coupled radar signals 116. This may be advantageous for the various monitoring techniques that the monitoring device 106 is performing.”).
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
Prosecution Insights