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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP 2023-124520, filed on July 31, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS’s) submitted on are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Comment
As a term of art, a transmitted signal typically refers to a signal being propagated from an antenna into the environment. However, Applicant appears to refer to a transmitted signal as a signal transmitted from the signal generator 100 of Fig. 4 to at least one radar unit 138a-d and/or antenna. see e.g., Spec. Paras. 4 and 27.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 – 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beasley (US 20110227784 A1).
As to claim 1, Beasley discloses a signal generating device connected to a first radar (Abstract “A DDS based system, such as a radar, includes means for generating a plurality of transmission signals using a DDS, …”), comprising:
a high-frequency signal generator configured to generate a high-frequency signal (Fig. 1 item 10);
a control signal generator configured to generate a first control signal for controlling the first radar (Fig. 1 items 14 – 15); and
a signal synthesizer configured to generate a first synthesized signal including the high-frequency signal and the first control signal (Fig. 1 items 10 and 13 – 15),
wherein a frequency of the high-frequency signal is higher than a frequency of the first control signal (Fig. 1 shows item 13 being 5 times larger than item 14).
As to claims 2, Beasley discloses the signal generating device of claim 1, wherein the high-frequency signal includes at least one of a transmitted signal for transmitting electromagnetic waves from the first radar and a reference signal of the first radar (Fig. 1 “T.X.”).
As to claim 3, Beasley discloses the signal generating device of claim 1, wherein the high-frequency signal includes a synthesized signal of a transmitted signal for transmitting electromagnetic waves from the first radar (Fig. 1 item 12 coupled to “T.X.”)) and a reference signal of the first radar (Fig. 1 item 22).
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 4, 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Beasley with Jung (US 9294178 B2).
As to claims 4 and 10, Beasley does not teach the signal generating device of claim 1, which is connected to a second radar, wherein: the control signal generator is configured to generate a second control signal for controlling the second radar; the signal synthesizer is configured to generate a second synthesized signal including the high-frequency signal and the second control signal; and a frequency of the high-frequency signal is higher than a frequency of the second control signal.
In particular, the real difference between Beasley and the subject matter of claim 4, is that Beasley is directed to a single radar that has one transmit antenna and one receive antenna as shown in Fig. 6. Beasley states that “The approach has the effect of changing the location of unwanted frequency spurs in each of the transmission signals, and hence the effects of these are decreased in the integration process. An improvement in the sensitivity of the system results. Although primarily suited to radar applications the invention may find utility in other systems such as sonar or lidar systems (see Abstract).” As such, it would be readily apparent to the ordinarily skill that any radar system needing improved sensitivity would make it obvious to use the signal generator of Beasley.
Regarding claim 10 in particular, Beasley does not discloses more than one radar. Note that beamforming can be done via a plurality of antenna or plurality of radars.
In the same field of endeavor, Jung shows a quadrature signal generator 105 coupled to a plurality of radars wherein the signal generator provides in-phase and quadrature signals to each radar as shown in Fig. 1. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, whether the signal generator, in the abstract, includes at least items 105 and 102 or just item 105 is arbitrary.
In view of the teachings of Jung, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled before filing to include beamforming architecture of Jung because beamforming is gaining popularity and commercial success due to beamforming’s ability to quickly perform radar operations with less multipath and interference thus improving overall radar functions as evidence by Fang (US 20190219683 A1) at Para. 3.
Alternatively, it would have been it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled before filing to include with and/or substitute the signal generator as taught by Beasley with the signal generator as taught by Jung to reduce spurs thus improving sensitivity. In this alternative modification, Jung would be the primary reference. See Jung Abstract.
As to claim 6, The combination of Beasley and Jung teaches the signal generating device of claim 4, further comprising a power distributor, wherein the power distributor is configured to receive one of the first synthesized signal and the second synthesized signal and distribute the one of the first synthesized signal and the second synthesized signal to the first radar and the second radar (Jung Fig. 1 shows power dividers. Power dividers eliminate the need for cable clutter thus improving energy efficiency and overload protection. Again, note that either one of Beasley or Jung can be the primary reference. If Jung is secondary reference, then the energy sufficiency as discussed is the motivation to combine.).
As to claim 8, the combination of Beasley and Jung teaches the signal generating device of claim 4, which is connected to a third radar, wherein: the control signal generator is configured to generate a third control signal for controlling the third radar; the signal synthesizer is configured to generate a third synthesized signal including the high-frequency signal and the third control signal; and a frequency of the high-frequency signal is higher than a frequency of the third control signal (As modified by Jung in claim 4, wherein Jung indicates more than three radars as shown in Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7 and 9 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 prior art does not teach all the features of claims 5, 7 and 9.
Relevant art includes Sherz which shows a controller 1060 connected to MMIC 1 item 1010 which is connected to other MMIC’s items 1020 – 1050. However, Sherz only shows one control signal 25 MHz coming from the controller. See Sherz Fig. 10. Claims 5, 7 and 9 depend from claim 4 which requires two control signals. Lyn (US 12474445 B2) teaches “There are a first distance between the first transmit antenna and the second transmit antenna, and a second distance between the first transmit antenna and the third transmit antenna, and the first distance is shorter than the second distance.” See Abstract. Lyn is silent regarding the size of amplitudes as claimed. Also, the Examiner having reviewed the prior art does not believe there to be a reasonable modification. For example, Otowa (US 2021/0263146 A1) teaches radars 30, 50 connected to one another, but the radars are configured for different coverage areas thus there is no need to synchronize the two radars 30, 50. See Abstract. As discussed supra, Sherz only has one control signal. Ginsburg (US 2016/0187464 A1) teaches that the master radar 102 synchronizes the slave radar 104. See Ginsburg Para. 17. As such, the prior art neither teaches nor makes obvious all the features of claims 5, 7 and 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL W JUSTICE whose telephone number is (571)270-7029. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 5:30 M-F.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at 571-270-5144. 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.
/MICHAEL W JUSTICE/Examiner, Art Unit 3648