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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/16/2024 and 12/09/2024 have been considered by the examiner and initialed copies of the IDS are hereby attached.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-8, 11 and 20 of this application is patentably indistinct from claims 1-10 of Application No. 18/771,617 (US PGPUB US20250028021A1). Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-8, 11 and 20 provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-10 of copending Application No. 18/771,617 (reference application) as the corresponding claims are identical. This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 0047 recites, “see comments on the fig 13 where some Rx sections will be corrected by Rajesh”. This appears to be a typo.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Claims 1 and 20 recite, “wherein the phased array aperture operates with a hybrid dual mode comprising a radar mode and an active beaming steering mode”. This limitation is unclear as a radar can in fact operate in an “active beaming steering” mode. The two modes of “radar mode” and “active beaming steering mode” are not mutually exclusive. It is unclear in the specification how these two modes are different from one another and therefore reciting them as two separate modes is unclear.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the beamforming mode" in "wherein the beamforming mode comprises an antenna beamforming mode". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as an “active beaming steering mode” has been introduced in claim 1 and not “beamforming mode”. The same rejection applies to claim 13.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the active beam steering mode". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as an “active beaming steering mode” has been introduced in claim 1 and not " active beam steering mode". The same rejection applies to claim 14.
The term “instantaneous beamforming” in claims 4 and 14 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “instantaneous beamforming” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In a phased array system beamforming is indeed “instantaneous” as the beam is rapidly changed using phase delays by the antenna arrays. Therefore, it unclear whether the Applicant intends this term to mean typical phased array beamforming or some other kind of beamforming. The Examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean just “beamforming”.
The term “all directions” in claims 7 and 17 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “all directions” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what is implied by “all directions” as this could imply 360 degree omnidirectional scanning or some other form of scanning. The Examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean just “wherein the phased array aperture operates with up to+/-60 degrees scan angle.”.
All other dependent claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to their dependency on a claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-4,6,8,11-14,16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mattheijssen et al. (US 20210359739 A1), hereinafter Mattheijssen.
Regarding claim 1, Mattheijssen discloses
An antenna apparatus (see Figs. 2A and 2C for apparatus of antennas system 110), comprising:
a plurality of receive antenna elements and a transmit antenna array comprising a plurality of transmit antenna elements (see Figs. 2A and 2C where the antenna system 110 includes a plurality of transmit antenna elements 122, further see paragraph 0076, “The controller 130 may configure a subset 124 of the patch antennas 122 to either transmit a radar signal or receive a (reflected) radar signal. In other examples the controller 130 may configure half of the patch antennas 122 to each transmit a radar signal which may be the same signal, or different signals and the other half to detect reflected radar signal or signals. In other examples the number of patch antennas 122 used for transmission and detection may be different.”), wherein the transmit antenna array is located centrally in a phased array aperture that includes the transmit array antenna and the plurality of receive antenna elements (see Figs. 2A and 2C where the transmit antenna array is located centrally in a phased array aperture, further see paragraph 0076, “The controller 130 may configure a subset 124 of the patch antennas 122 to either transmit a radar signal or receive a (reflected) radar signal. In other examples the controller 130 may configure half of the patch antennas 122 to each transmit a radar signal which may be the same signal, or different signals and the other half to detect reflected radar signal or signals. In other examples the number of patch antennas 122 used for transmission and detection may be different.”, where transmit antennas are “located centrally” in the phased array aperture 140 when half of the patch antennas are used to transmit); and
an isolation area that isolates the transmit antenna array from the plurality of receive antenna elements in the phased array aperture (see Fig. 2A and 2C, further see paragraph 0076, “The controller 130 may configure a subset 124 of the patch antennas 122 to either transmit a radar signal or receive a (reflected) radar signal. In other examples the controller 130 may configure half of the patch antennas 122 to each transmit a radar signal which may be the same signal, or different signals and the other half to detect reflected radar signal or signals. In other examples the number of patch antennas 122 used for transmission and detection may be different.”, where each antenna element is “isolated” from each other on the antenna board), wherein the phased array aperture operates with a hybrid dual mode comprising a radar mode and an active beaming steering mode (see Figs. 2B and 2D which shows that the phased array aperture of antenna system 110 operates in two modes, a radar mode and active beam steering mode, further see paragraph 0073, “The antenna system 110 may be re-configured between a radar mode of operation and a communications mode of operation in timeslots between (radar) image sensing and actual network-to-UE communication.”, further see paragraphs 0044-0047, “FIG. 2A shows the antenna system of FIG. 1 configured in a radar mode of operation…FIG. 2B shows the antenna system of FIG. 1 configured in a radar mode of operation…FIG. 2C shows the antenna system of FIG. 1 configured in a communications mode of operation…FIG. 2D shows the antenna system of FIG. 1 configured in a communications mode of operation.).
Regarding claim 2, Mattheijssen further discloses
The antenna apparatus of claim 1 wherein the radar mode comprises a multiple input multiple output (MIMO) radar mode (see paragraph 0075, “FIG. 2A shows the antenna system 110 configured as a radar image sensor. The antenna system 110 includes a controller 130 and an antenna array 140 including an array of patch antennas 122 which may be dual-polarised. As illustrated the patch antennas 122 are circular as this has been found to give optimal performance. However in other examples different shapes of patches may be used for the patch antennas 122. The antenna array 140 shows a 4 by 6 array of antenna patches 122. However, it will be appreciated that in other examples fewer or more antenna patches may be used. In other examples, instead of or as well as patch antennas, an array of waveguide antennas may be used which may be referred to as launcher antennas. The controller 130 may control a transmitter/receiver chain (not shown) connected to each antenna patch 122. The controller 130 is connected to the antenna array via connection 126 which may include multiple separate connections with two connections per antenna patch 122.”, where “The controller 130 may control a transmitter/receiver chain (not shown) connected to each antenna patch 122. The controller 130 is connected to the antenna array via connection 126 which may include multiple separate connections with two connections per antenna patch 122.” indicates a MIMO operation by the radar antenna system).
Regarding claim 3, Mattheijssen further discloses
The antenna apparatus of claim 1 wherein the beamforming mode comprises an antenna beamforming mode (see Figs 2C and 2D which shows the antenna apparatus operating in the “beamforming mode”, further see paragraph 0077, “FIGS. 2C and 2D show the antenna system 110 configured for communication. The controller 130 may configure a first beamforming antenna 142 having in the non-limiting example shown two antenna patches 122 forming a first communication channel 146. The controller 130 may configure a beamforming antenna 144 of the antenna array 140 and having in the non-limiting example shown four antenna patches 122 to form a second communication channel 148. Each of the first beamforming antenna 142 and the second beamforming antenna 144 may both transmit and receive communication signals.”).
Regarding claim 4, Mattheijssen further discloses
The antenna apparatus of claim 1 wherein:
the radar mode comprises a multiple input multiple output (MIMO) radar mode (see paragraph 0075, “FIG. 2A shows the antenna system 110 configured as a radar image sensor. The antenna system 110 includes a controller 130 and an antenna array 140 including an array of patch antennas 122 which may be dual-polarised. As illustrated the patch antennas 122 are circular as this has been found to give optimal performance. However in other examples different shapes of patches may be used for the patch antennas 122. The antenna array 140 shows a 4 by 6 array of antenna patches 122. However, it will be appreciated that in other examples fewer or more antenna patches may be used. In other examples, instead of or as well as patch antennas, an array of waveguide antennas may be used which may be referred to as launcher antennas. The controller 130 may control a transmitter/receiver chain (not shown) connected to each antenna patch 122. The controller 130 is connected to the antenna array via connection 126 which may include multiple separate connections with two connections per antenna patch 122.”, where “The controller 130 may control a transmitter/receiver chain (not shown) connected to each antenna patch 122. The controller 130 is connected to the antenna array via connection 126 which may include multiple separate connections with two connections per antenna patch 122.” indicates a MIMO operation by the radar antenna system); and
the active beam steering mode comprises an antenna instantaneous beamforming mode (see Figs 2C and 2D which shows the antenna apparatus operating in the “beamforming mode”, further see paragraph 0077, “FIGS. 2C and 2D show the antenna system 110 configured for communication. The controller 130 may configure a first beamforming antenna 142 having in the non-limiting example shown two antenna patches 122 forming a first communication channel 146. The controller 130 may configure a beamforming antenna 144 of the antenna array 140 and having in the non-limiting example shown four antenna patches 122 to form a second communication channel 148. Each of the first beamforming antenna 142 and the second beamforming antenna 144 may both transmit and receive communication signals.”, where phased array beamforming as recited in paragraph 0005 is “instantaneous beamforming”, further see paragraph 0005, “] Beamforming requires two or more antennas to be operated in either transmit (TX) or receive (RX) mode. In transmit mode the phase and amplitude of the signal is adjusted for each of the relevant antenna to form the desired beam direction.”).
Regarding claim 6, Mattheijssen further discloses
The antenna apparatus of claim 1 wherein the phased array aperture operates in frequencies at or within a range of 24.05-26.5 GHz or 57-64 GHz, or 75 - 85 Ghz (see paragraph 0091, “The antenna system may be reconfigured from long range to short range radar. A longer range radar may use lower frequencies but still be wideband for time resolution. A short range radar may use higher frequencies and/or greater bandwidth to limit self-interference due to other radar transmitters. For example, embodiments of the antenna systems may be configured as a long range radar using a frequency of 76 GHz to 77 GHz corresponding to a bandwidth of 1 GHz. Embodiments of the antenna systems may be configured as a short range radar using a frequency of 76 GHz to 81 GHz corresponding to a bandwidth of 4 GHz.”).
Regarding claim 8, Mattheijssen further discloses
The antenna apparatus of claim 1 wherein the phased array aperture comprising a partial phased array aperture comprising multiple different sets of different antennas among the plurality of receive antenna elements and the plurality of transmit antenna elements (see Figs. 2A and 2C sets of 122/124/142 antenna groups, further see paragraph 0076, “The controller 130 may configure a subset 124 of the patch antennas 122 to either transmit a radar signal or receive a (reflected) radar signal. In other examples the controller 130 may configure half of the patch antennas 122 to each transmit a radar signal which may be the same signal, or different signals and the other half to detect reflected radar signal or signals. In other examples the number of patch antennas 122 used for transmission and detection may be different.”).
Regarding claim 11, the same cited section and rationale as claim 1 is applied.
Regarding claim 12, the same cited section and rationale as claim 2 is applied.
Regarding claim 13, the same cited section and rationale as claim 3 is applied.
Regarding claim 14, the same cited section and rationale as claim 4 is applied.
Regarding claim 16, the same cited section and rationale as claim 6 is applied.
Regarding claim 20, the same cited section and rationale as claims 1 and 8 are applied.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 5,7,15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattheijssen et al. (US 20210359739 A1) in view of Everett et al. (US 20230375687 A1), hereinafter Everett.
Regarding claim 5, Mattheijssen discloses [Note: what Mattheijssen fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The antenna apparatus of claim 1
Everett discloses,
wherein element positions of antennal elements among the plurality of receive antenna elements and the plurality of transmit antenna elements are randomized (see paragraph 0065, “In some embodiments, active beam-steering circuit 304 may be configured to switch between antenna elements to steer an electromagnetic beam being transmitted by transmit antenna assembly 102. For example, active beam-steering may include causing a different antenna element or subset of antenna elements to output electromagnetic radiation having a particular phase shift so that a resulting electromagnetic beam—formed by combining the electromagnetic radiation output by each antenna element—is directed towards a target location.”, further see paragraph 0097, “. Antenna T/R sub-array 502 comprises one or more switches 602, 608, and 614. Switches 602, 608, and 614 function in tandem to ensure that antenna T/R sub-array 502 operates in either transmit or receive mode... The path of RFin 622 in transmit mode may be depicted by the route corresponding to arrows pointing towards antenna elements 616. Although three switches are depicted for a transmission line (e.g., one or more switches 602, one or more switches 608, and one or more switches 614), more or fewer switches may be present. For example, each antenna element 616 may include or be in communication with a dedicated switch, each column may be associated with a switch, each row may be associated with a switch, etc. Antenna elements 616 are depicted for each transmission line, where each transmission line may have one or more antenna elements 616, the same number of antenna elements 616, different numbers of antenna elements 616, etc.”, where selecting via switches with transmit and receive paths will be transmitting and receiving the signal is indeed antennal element positions being “randomized”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Everett into the invention of Mattheijssen. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a radar antenna system using an antenna array beam steering. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to utilize fewer antenna elements while providing greater angular resolution by the system and thus leading to a more compact and cost-effective system.
Regarding claim 15, the same cited section and rationale as claim 5 is applied.
Regarding claim 7, Mattheijssen discloses [Note: what Mattheijssen fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The antenna apparatus of claim 1
Everett discloses,
wherein the phased array aperture operates with beam steering in all directions with up to+/-60 degrees scan angle (see paragraph 0055, “In some embodiments, the radar assembly may include frequency scanning array components that operate to cause each antenna element to output a portion of the electromagnetic beam, with frequency changing over an amount of time so as to execute a scan of physical space. For example, in one dimension, the frequency scanning array components may function to move the electromagnetic beam from [−θ, +θ] or [−ϕ, +ϕ] where θ represents the angle of elevation and can range between 0 and 90-degrees, and ϕ represents the azimuth angle and can range between 0 and 180-degrees, though the example ranges are not to be construed as limiting.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Everett into the invention of Mattheijssen. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a radar antenna system using an antenna array beam steering. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to utilize fewer antenna elements while providing greater angular resolution by the system and thus leading to a more compact and cost-effective system.
Regarding claim 17, the same cited section and rationale as claim 7 is applied.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattheijssen et al. (US 20210359739 A1) in view of CORNIC et al. (US 20220229172 A1), hereinafter CORNIC.
Regarding claim 9, Mattheijssen discloses [Note: what Mattheijssen fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The antenna apparatus of claim 1 f
CORNIC discloses,
further comprising a lens associated with at least one of:
antenna elements associated with only the plurality of transmit antenna elements or only the plurality of receive antenna elements; or
antenna elements associated with all of the plurality of transmit antenna elements and all of the plurality of receive antenna elements (see paragraph 0072, “Each elementary antenna shown in FIG. 3 comprises a lens 13, notably a dielectric lens, associated with an array 11, 12 of elementary sources, said sources being configured to illuminate the lens and at least the apertures of said sources being arranged in the focal plane of said lens.”, further see paragraph 0079, “FIG. 4A illustrates the principle, in one dimension (elevation in the direction OZ), of an elementary antenna comprising a lens 13 associated with an array of elementary sources (array denoted by 11 for transmission and 12 for reception), allowing a depointing angle in elevation for the beam formed by said antenna dependent on the position of the elementary source in the focal plane of the lens.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by CORNIC into the invention of Mattheijssen. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a radar antenna system using an antenna array beam steering. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve the focus of the beam in a given direction.
Regarding claim 18, the same cited section and rationale as claim 9 is applied.
Claim(s) 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattheijssen et al. (US 20210359739 A1) in view of Gellaboina et al. (US 20120281096 A1), hereinafter Gellaboina.
Regarding claim 10, Mattheijssen discloses [Note: what Mattheijssen fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The antenna apparatus of claim 1
Gellaboina discloses,
wherein the phased array aperture (see Fig. 1A, phased array radar 112) provides for a direct three-dimensional (3D) volumetric measurement of material content having at least one of:
varying slope and uneven surfaces (see paragraph 0026, “Phased-array radar 112 has the ability to avoid obstacles in the tank 102, and can penetrate through the layers (e.g., oil layers) of liquid in the tank 102 to image the tank bottom with resolution in both planes to provide 3 dimensional (3D) data. The method can provide not only imaging results of the sludge profile 120 in 3D, but also provide more information about the surface of the liquid in 3D, and can be especially useful to monitor non-planar surfaces, and/or a non-horizontal roof or top of the tank 102.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Gellaboina into the invention of Mattheijssen. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a phased array antenna system using beam steering for target detection. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a application of the system in the accurate detection of fill level profiles in containers.
Regarding claim 19, the same cited section and rationale as claim 10 is applied.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
LEE (US 20210215817 A1) is considered close pertinent art to the claimed invention as it discloses an antenna array aperture which operates in multiple modes and an produces 3-dimensional image data of detected targets.
Ludlow et al. (US 20240039173 A1) is considered close pertinent art to the claimed invention as it discloses MIMO antenna sensor which performs beam forming which a lens feed structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAZRA N. WAHEED whose telephone number is (571)272-6713. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8 AM - 4:30 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, 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.
/NAZRA NUR WAHEED/Examiner, Art Unit 3648