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 .
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.
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.
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 19, the claims are rejected as being incomplete for omitting essential step(s) or an end result. The omitted step(s) is the step(s) wherein the claimed limitation is actually doing something tangible with the end result, i.e. the first complex received signal is put to use or output a concrete result.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, the term “small” renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear of what encompasses and is meant by the term “small”. The metes and bound of the claims cannot be ascertained by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Other claims are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim(s).
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 1-2, 10-11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mayer et al (IDS reference – 2020/0363520).
PNG
media_image1.png
700
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, and similarly claims 1 and 20, Mayer et al disclose in Fig 1 above a phased array receiver comprising:
a first receiver path (i.e. each antenna 10 as shown in Fig 10 above has its own path to process the received signal) configured to generate a first digital received signal based on a first signal received from a first antenna (i.e. “The radar echo reflected by an object (not shown) is received by antenna elements 10 and is respectively mixed with oscillator signal OSC in mixers 12, producing in each case an intermediate frequency signal Z1, Zi, Zn that is outputted to an evaluation unit 16.”) ([0027]) and a local clock signal (i.e. time signal module 20; “Each evaluation unit 16 contains a pre-processing stage 18 having a time signal module 20 in which the intermediate frequency signal is digitized and is recorded, over a specified measurement period, as a function of time. In this way, a digital time signal S1, Si, Sn is formed…”) ([0028]);
a second receiver path (i.e. each antenna 10 as shown in Fig 10 above has its own path to process the received signal) configured to generate a second digital received signal based on a second signal received from a second antenna (i.e. “The radar echo reflected by an object (not shown) is received by antenna elements 10 and is respectively mixed with oscillator signal OSC in mixers 12, producing in each case an intermediate frequency signal Z1, Zi, Zn that is outputted to an evaluation unit 16.”) ([0027]) and the local clock signal (i.e. time signal module 20; “Each evaluation unit 16 contains a pre-processing stage 18 having a time signal module 20 in which the intermediate frequency signal is digitized and is recorded, over a specified measurement period, as a function of time. In this way, a digital time signal S1, Si, Sn is formed…”) ([0028]); and
a circuit configured to combine the first digital received signal and the second digital received signal to generate a first complex received signal (i.e. “In a summation device 26, the spectra are coherently added…”) ([0028]),
wherein the second antenna is spaced by a predetermined distance from the first antenna (i.e. “An FMCW radar sensor having a plurality of antenna elements at a distance from one another in a row…”) (Abstract).
While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, as best understood, Mayer et al disclose in Fig 1 above the first antenna and the second antenna are configured for a small direction of arrival of a received signal (i.e. reads on azimuth angle θ) ([0030]). While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
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.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer et al in view of Smith (US 2006/0084405).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Mayer et al disclose the predetermined distance between the antennas (i.e. “An FMCW radar sensor having a plurality of antenna elements at a distance from one another in a row…”). However, Mayer et al do not explicitly disclose the predetermined distance is λ/2, where λ = c/f, c is the speed of light, and f is a predetermined frequency of a carrier signal as claimed. Smith teaches in the same field of endeavor the predetermined distance between the antennas is λ/2 (Fig 2A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mayer et al in view of Smith by incorporating the predetermined distance is λ/2 as taught by Smith to gain advantage of diversify the antenna system design based on user preference; and also since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143). While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9, 13-19 are rejected 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 and if overcome 35 USC 112(b) rejection.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2023/0129253 discloses a configurable array having a plurality of antenna elements arranged in at least four adjacent groups of array elements on a panel array, the first group of elements having an inter-element spacing based on a transmit signal wavelength, a second group of elements having an inter-element spacing based on a receive signal wavelength, and a third and fourth group of elements having an inter-element spacing based on a wavelength between the transmit signal wavelength and the receive signal wavelength.
US 11,233,533 discloses an impulse radio ultra-wideband multi-antenna time delay receiver and a method for acquiring an angle of arrival based on the same. The receiver includes M antennas, M radio frequency paths, an analog front end, an analog-digital converter and a digital processing unit, wherein each antenna is correspondingly connected with one of the radio frequency paths, output ends of all the M radio frequency paths are connected with the analog front end, an output end of the analog front end is connected with an input end of the analog-digital converter, and an output end of the analog-digital converter is connected with the digital processing unit, wherein the radio frequency path corresponding to the m.sup.th antenna is provided with a time delayer, 1<m≤M, and m and M are respectively natural numbers greater than 1.
US 2013/0120190 discloses a phased array transmitter includes a plurality of vector modulators, an in-phase/quadrature (I/Q) signal generator, and a multiphase generator. The output phases of the plurality of vector modulators, and hence the direction of transmission of the phased array transmitter, are set and controlled by adjusting both the magnitude ratios of I/Q signal pairs generated by the I/Q signal generator and applied to I and Q inputs of the plurality of vector modulators and phases of a plurality of local oscillator (LO) signal phases generated by the multiphase generator and applied to LO inputs of the plurality of vector modulators. Setting and controlling the output phases of the vector modulators by varying both the magnitude ratios of the I/Q signal pairs and the phases of the LO signal phases allows the output phases of the plurality of vector modulators to be more precisely set and controlled than if the output phases were to be set and controlled only through the LO paths or only through the I/Q signal paths of the plurality of vector modulators.
WO 2025/149219 discloses a method for receiving and analyzing received signals. The method is characterized by the steps of: receiving each received signal by means of a respective receiving antenna of at least two receiving antennas (A); allocating a respective receiving chain of at least two receiving chains (EK) to each receiving antenna of the receiving antennas and allowing a signal path between each receiving antenna of the receiving antennas and the receiving chain allocated to the respective receiving antenna by switching a selection circuit (SS); and ascertaining a phase difference between the received signals.
EP 2,662,929 discloses a method for processing received signals in a phased array antenna. The received signals processing method involves assigning, once or permanently, one individual phase value, which is normally distributed from a phase range within a decorrelation unit (8), to each receiving element (E-1 to E-N) of a phased-array antenna. The normally distributed phase values are added up to oscillator signals (LO-1 to LO-N). The phase displacement corresponding to a receiving direction of the antenna is deployed on complex baseband-signals (IQ-1 to IQ-N) within another decorrelation unit (9) in each receiving path. An independent claim is included for a phased-array antenna.
CN 102857280 discloses a four-dimensional antenna array-based secure communication system and its method, its basic structure comprises an antenna unit, a high speed radio frequency switch, high-precision oscillator, power amplifier and switch control circuit and so on. The invention is featured with innovation is through control each array element (or sub array) in an antenna array working time sequence for moving the phase center of the array, information modulated the antenna end, synthesis signal to be transmitted only in a specific direction, the other direction cannot be synthesized signal to be transmitted can be QPSK, 2PSK, M spreading sequences and several kinds of demodulating manners and simplify the structure of the transmitter. Compared with traditional secure communication mode, this method provides a new physical layer encryption mode, can be effective against eavesdropping receiver side lobe direction. The invention is used in a wireless communication system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUONG P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 10:00-10:00 EST.
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, JACK KEITH can be reached at (571) 272-6878. 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.
/CHUONG P NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights