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 .
Introduction
This is a response to the applicant’s filing filed on 11/29/2023. In virtue of this filing, claims 1-30 are currently presented in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/29/2023 and 03/12/2025 has been considered by Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Drawings
The drawing submitted on 11/29/2023 has been considered by Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Specification
The specification submitted on 11/29/2023 has been considered by Examiner and made of record in the application file.
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 1 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 1, it is unclear what “an interconnection circuit coupled between the first antenna array and the first lens” in lines 4-5 is referring to interconnection circuit 802 as show in figure 8? It is clearly seen that the interconnection circuit 802 is coupled between first lens 804 and second lens 806, not coupled between the first antenna array and the first lens.
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.
Claim(s) 17-19, 22, 25 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Adams et al. (US Patent No.: 6,442,148, hereinafter, “Adam”).
Regarding claim 17, Adams teaches an apparatus for wireless communication, comprising: a memory; and one or more processors coupled to the memory, the one or more processors being configured to (see figure 1, satellite subsystem 10, it is inherently included memory and processor):
receive a first signal via a first antenna array coupled to a first lens (see figure 1, 1, array antenna 32a, BFN 26 is included Rotman lens, col.3, ln.58-65, col.4, ln.1-5);
control selective coupling of the first lens to a second lens via an interconnection circuit (see figure 1, in this case, matrix switch 14, channelizer 16 and matrix switch 18 can be integrated and they are read on the interconnection circuit, It is clearly seen that both matrix switched are controlling by ground controller to select to connect between the first lens to a second lens, col.4, ln.1-32, col.5, ln.52-67); and
transmit a second signal via a second antenna array coupled to the second lens (see figure 1, transmit the upconvert signal to transmit antenna 28, col.4, ln.1-32).
Regarding claim 18, Adams further teaches each of the first lens and the second lens comprises a Rotman lens (see figure 1, col.4, ln 1-25).
Regarding claim 19, Adams further teaches the first lens is selectively coupled to the second lens via one or more switches of the interconnection circuit (see figure 1, matrix switch 14 and 18, col.4, ln.1-15).
Regarding claim 22, Adams further teaches the one or more processors are configured to cause modulation of the first signal to generate a modulated signal via a modulator of the interconnection circuit, wherein the second signal comprises the modulated signal (see figure 1, channelizer 16, mixer 70a, col.5, ln.23-50).
Regarding claim 25, Adams further teaches the one or more processors are further configured to: receive a control signal indicating a configuration for transmission of the second signal; and configure the interconnection circuit based on the control signal, wherein the one or more processors are configured to transmit the second signal using the configuration (see figure 1, col.5, ln.52-67).
Regarding claim 30, claim 30 is rejected the same reason of claim 17 above.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, 14 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams et al. (US Patent No.: 6,442,148, hereinafter, “Adam”) in view of Chowdhury (US Pub. No.: 2013/0027240).
Regarding claim 1, Adams teaches an apparatus for wireless communications, comprising:
a first antenna array (see figure 1, array antenna 32a, col.3, ln.58-65, col.4, ln.1-5);
a first lens (see figure 1, BFN 26 is included Rotman lens, col.4, ln.1-5); and
a second antenna array, the second lens being coupled between the interconnection circuit and the second antenna array (see figure 1, array antenna 42a, BFN 30 is included Rotman lens, col.3, ln.58-65, col.4, ln.1-30, in this case, matrix switch 14, channelizer 16 and matrix switch 18 can be integrated and they are read on the interconnection circuit).
It should be noticed that Adams fails to teach an interconnection circuit coupled between the first antenna array and the first lens. However, Chowdhury teaches an interconnection circuit coupled between the first antenna array and the first lens (see figures 1 and 2B, Rotman lens 12R, electric filter 18, amplifiers 16R, array antenna 14R, [0065], applicant fails to define an interconnection circuit as claimed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Chowdhury into view of Adams in order to provide electrical to electromagnetic signal processing in the transmission and reception of a radar signal and multimodal capability.
Regarding claim 2, Adams further teaches each of the first lens and the second lens comprises a Rotman lens (see figure 1, col.4, ln 1-25).
Regarding claims 3 and 20, Chowdhury further teaches the first lens comprises a first plurality of antenna ports coupled to the first antenna array and a first plurality of beam ports coupled to the interconnection circuit; and the second lens comprises a second plurality of antenna ports coupled to the second antenna array and a second plurality of beam ports coupled to the interconnection circuit (see figures 1 and 3A, plurality beam port 60, lens 12T, 12R, antenna port 62, switching 36T, 36R, [0060]).
Regarding claim 4, Chowdhury further teaches the interconnection circuit includes switches configured to selectively couple each of the first plurality of beam ports to one or more of the second plurality of beam ports (see figures 1 and 3A, plurality beam port 60, lens 12T, 12R, antenna port 62, switching 36T, 36R, [0060]).
Regarding claim 5, Adams further teaches the interconnection circuit comprises at least one of one or more modulator circuits, one or more signal splitter and combiner circuits, one or more frequency translators, one or more polarization conversion circuits, one or more amplifiers, one or more filters, one or more rectifiers, one or more direct current (DC) signal combiners, one or more power detectors, control logic, or one or more receive processors (see figure 1, channelizer 16, col.3, ln.44-55).
Regarding claim 8, after combine, Adams and Chowdhury, teaches array antenna, KAPETANOVIC further teaches the interconnection circuit is configured to receive, via the second antenna array, a control signal indicating a configuration for backscatter type communication, wherein the interconnection circuit is configured based on the control signal (see figure 2, select modulation scheme for backscatter, [0026]).
Regarding claim 14, Chowdhury further teaches the first antenna array has a different field of view than the second antenna array (see figure 1, array antenna 14T transmit signal, array antenna 14R receive reflect signal, [0055]).
Regarding claim 21, Chowdhury further teaches the interconnection circuit includes switches, wherein, to control selective coupling of the first lens to the second lens, the one or more processors are configured to control selective coupling, via the switches, each of the first plurality of beam ports to one or more of the second plurality of beam ports (see figures 1 and 3A, plurality beam port 60, lens 12T, 12R, antenna port 62, switching 36T, 36R, [0060]).
Claim(s) 6-7 and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams et al. (US Patent No.: 6,442,148, hereinafter, “Adam”) in view of Chowdhury (US Pub. No.: 2013/0027240) as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of KAPETANOVIC et al. (US Pub. No.: 2024/0223270, hereinafter, “KAPETANOVIC”).
Regarding claims 6 and 23, Adams and Chowdhury, teaches array antenna. Adams and Chowdhury, in combination, fails to teach control logic configured to transmit, via the first antenna array, information indicating a capability of the apparatus associated with backscatter type communication. However, KAPETANOVIC teaches control logic configured to transmit, via the first antenna array, information indicating a capability of the apparatus associated with backscatter type communication (see figure 2, select modulation scheme for backscatter, [0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of KAPETANOVIC into view of Adams and Chowdhury in order to provide low power wireless communication.
Regarding claims 7 and 24, Chowdhury further teaches the information indicates at least one of: one or more beams supported for the backscatter type communication, a quantity of beams supported for the backscatter type communication, supported gain associated with the backscatter type communication, one or more frequencies supported for the backscatter type communication, or a beam switching latency (see figure 1, [0012], reflect signal 6, beam switching).
Claim(s) 9 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams et al. (US Patent No.: 6,442,148, hereinafter, “Adam”) in view of Chowdhury (US Pub. No.: 2013/0027240) and further in view of KAPETANOVIC et al. (US Pub. No.: 2024/0223270, hereinafter, “KAPETANOVIC”) as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of Kim (US Pub. No.: 2022/0386407).
Regarding claims 9 and 26, Adams, Chowdhury and KAPETANOVIC, in combination, fails to teach the interconnection circuit is configured to transmit, via the first antenna array, an acknowledgement or negative acknowledgement signal in response to receiving the control signal. However, Kim teaches an acknowledgement or negative acknowledgement signal in response to receiving the control signal (see [0077]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Kim into view of Adams, Chowdhury and KAPETANOVIC in order to provide a confirmation signal from receiver to sender.
Claim(s) 11 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams et al. (US Patent No.: 6,442,148, hereinafter, “Adam”) in view of Chowdhury (US Pub. No.: 2013/0027240) as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of Eid et al. (US Pub. No.: 2023/0208054, hereinafter, “Eid”).
Regarding claims 11 and 28, Adams and Chowdhury, in combination, fails to teach the interconnection circuit is configured to: select a configuration for backscattering communication; and transmit an indication of the configuration via the first antenna array. However, Eid teaches the interconnection circuit is configured to: select a configuration for backscattering communication; and transmit an indication of the configuration via the first antenna array (see [0049], control to select between mode).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Eid into view of Adams and Chowdhury in order to provide multi-mode operation.
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams et al. (US Patent No.: 6,442,148, hereinafter, “Adam”) in view of Chowdhury (US Pub. No.: 2013/0027240) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hislop (US Patent No.: 4,532,520).
Regarding claim 15, Adams and Chowdhury, in combination, fails to teach a third lens; and a third antenna array, the third lens being coupled between the interconnection circuit and the third antenna array. However, Hislop teaches a third lens; and a third antenna array, the third lens being coupled between the interconnection circuit and the third antenna array (see figure 3, Plurality of Rotman lens, plurality of antenna, plurality of switches, col.2, ln.19-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Hislop into view of Adams and Chowdhury in order to provide multi-mode operation.
Regarding claim 16, Hislop further teaches the first antenna array and the second antenna array are configured for signal reception and the third antenna array is configured for signal transmission (see figure 3, Plurality of Rotman lens, plurality of antenna, plurality of switches, col.2, ln.19-67).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 12-13, 27 and 29 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.
Regarding claims 10 and 27, the prior art made of record fails to clearly teach or fairly suggest the feature of the interconnection circuit is configured to transmit, via the first antenna array, a configuration recommendation for the backscatter type communication, the control signal indicating the configuration based on the configuration recommendation.
Regarding claims 12 and 29, the prior art made of record fails to clearly teach or fairly suggest the feature of the interconnection circuit is configured to: sweep a plurality of transmit beams; and receive, via the second antenna array, an indication of one of the plurality of transmit beams to be used for backscattering communication.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuan A. Pham whose telephone number is (571) 272-8097, the fax number is (571) 273-8097 and the email is tuan.pham01@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 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, Yuwen (Kevin) Pan can be reached on (571) 272-7855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TUAN PHAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights