DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
With respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3, 7, 9-12 under 35 USC 102, Applicant’s arguments filed 04/14/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new ground rejection.
With respect to the rejection of claim 8 under 35 USC 103, Applicant’s arguments filed 04/14/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new ground rejection.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 13, 16-18, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shinoda (US 2003/0164791 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Shinoda teaches an antenna, wherein the antenna supports a first working mode ([0031] sharp angle/long distance) and a second working mode ([0031] wide angle/short distance), and wherein the antenna comprises:
a first antenna subarray group comprising a first antenna subarray ([0031], Fig. 1, antenna elements 1d-1g) and a third antenna subarray (Fig. 1, antenna elements 2d-2e);
a second antenna subarray group comprising a second antenna subarray (Fig. 1, antenna elements 2a-2c); and
a third antenna subarray group (Fig. 1, antennas 3d-3e),
wherein the first antenna subarray group, the second antenna subarray group, and the third antenna subarray group are physical antenna subarrays (Fig. 1 describes physical antennas),
wherein the first antenna subarray group and the second antenna subarray group are used in the first working mode (Fig. 1, [0031] For example, when the antenna switches 4 to 7 are turned on by the switch control device 10 and the plural antenna elements 1a to 1j, 2a to 2e and 3a to 3e are connected, a beam shape from the transmitting array antenna 1 is turned a sharp angle/long distance as shown by full lines st and sr in FIG. 1),
wherein the first antenna subarray group and the third antenna subarray group are used in the second working mode ( [0031] as antenna aperture length is reduced when the antenna switches 4 to 7 are turned off, that is, the antenna switches 4 to 7 are disconnected from the groups of antenna elements respectively composed of plural antenna elements 1a to 1c, 1h to 1j, 2a to 2c and 3a to 3c, a beam shape from/to the transmitting array antenna 1 and the receiving array antennas 2 and 3 is turned a wide angle/short distance as shown by dotted lines wt and wr in FIG. 1.), and
wherein the second antenna subarray (Fig. 1, antenna elements 2a-2c) is between the first antenna subarray ([0031], Fig. 1, antenna elements 1d-1g) and the third antenna subarray (Fig. 1, antenna elements 2d-2e) in a first direction (Fig. 1, vertical direction).
Regarding claim 3, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Shinoda.
Shinoda further teaches the antenna, wherein in the first direction, a fourth antenna subarray (Fig. 1, 1a-1c or 3a-3c) in either of the first antenna subarray group or the third antenna subarray group is not positioned between the first antenna subarray and the third antenna subarray.
Regarding claim 13, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Shinoda.
Shinoda further teaches the antenna, wherein the first antenna subarray and the second antenna subarray are configured to couple to a first channel through switching, and wherein the third antenna subarray is configured to couple to a second channel ([0031] the detectable range of distance up to a mobile obstacle and relative velocity can be switched to a sharp angle/long distance or a wide angle/short distance by switching the antenna switches 4 to 7).
Regarding claim 16, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Shinoda.
Shinoda further teaches the antenna, wherein the first antenna subarray group, the second antenna subarray group, and the third antenna subarray group are configured to transmit a signal or receive the signal ([0029]).
Regarding claim 17, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 1. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 18, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 1. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 20, all the limitations of claim 17 are taught by Shinoda.
Shinoda further teaches the antenna, wherein the first antenna subarray group, the second antenna subarray group, and the third antenna subarray group are configured to transmit a signal or receive the signal ([0031]).
Regarding claim 21, all the limitations of claim 17 are taught by Shinoda.
Shinoda further teaches the antenna, further comprising a first channel configured to couple the first antenna subarray and the second antenna subarray through a switching mechanism to perform mode switching between the first working mode and the second working mode ([0031] the detectable range of distance up to a mobile obstacle and relative velocity can be switched to a sharp angle/long distance or a wide angle/short distance by switching the antenna switches 4 to 7).
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 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinoda (US 2003/0164791 A1) in view of Iwasa (US 2023/0147240 A1).
Regarding claim 7, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Shinoda.
Shinoda does not explicitly teach the antenna wherein a first distance between the first antenna subarray and the second antenna subarray is equal to a second distance between the second antenna subarray and the third antenna subarray.
Iwasa teaches an antenna, wherein a first distance between a first antenna subarray and a second antenna subarray is equal to a second distance between the second antenna subarray and a third antenna subarray ([0086] equidistantly at intervals of about a half-wavelength).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of instant application to apply the equidistance between the antenna elements as taught by Iwasa to the teachings of Shinoda in order to minimize the misdetection of the radar (Iwasa, [0086]).
Regarding claim 8, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Shinoda.
Shinoda does not explicitly teach the antenna further comprising a plurality of second antenna subarrays between the first antenna subarray and the third antenna subarray, wherein a first distance between the first antenna subarray and the second antenna subarray, a second distance between two adjacent second antenna subarrays, and a third distance between the second antenna subarray and the third antenna subarray are equal in the first direction.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to use a plurality of second antenna subarrays because it would be merely duplication of parts. The court has held the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see MPEP 2144.04).
However, Shinoda still does not explicitly teach the antenna further wherein a first distance between the first antenna subarray and the second antenna subarray, a second distance between two adjacent second antenna subarrays, and a third distance between the second antenna subarray and the third antenna subarray are equal in the first direction.
Iwasa teaches an antenna, wherein antenna elements are placed equidistantly ([0086] equidistantly at intervals of about a half-wavelength).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of instant application to apply the equidistance between the antenna elements as taught by Iwasa to the teachings of Shinoda in order to minimize the misdetection of the radar (Iwasa, [0086]).
Regarding claim 9, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 7. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7 above.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinoda (US 2003/0164791 A1).
Regarding claim 10, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Shinoda.
Shinoda does not explicitly teach the antenna further comprising: a fourth antenna subarray that belongs to the first antenna subarray group or the third antenna subarray group; and a fifth antenna subarray that is directly adjacent to the fourth antenna subarray and that belongs to the first antenna subarray group or the third antenna subarray group.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to use multiple antenna subarrays because it would be merely duplication of parts. The court has held the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see MPEP 2144.04).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 12, 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 11, the prior arts fail to teach or reasonably suggest an antenna, wherein a first radiation distance of the antenna in the first working mode is less than or equal to a second radiation distance of the antenna in the second working mode, in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 12, the prior arts fail to teach or reasonably suggest an antenna, wherein a first antenna virtual aperture corresponding to the first working mode is less than or equal to a second antenna virtual aperture corresponding to the second working mode, in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 19, the prior arts fail to teach or reasonably suggest a terminal, wherein a first radiation distance of the antenna in the first working mode is less than or equal to a second radiation distance of the antenna in the second working mode, in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEOKJIN KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Alexander Taningco can be reached at (571) 272-8048. 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.
/SEOKJIN KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights