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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 05/01/2026 has been entered. Claims 1,3,5-11,13,15-20 are pending in the application.
Applicant’s amendment overcomes the objection to the Specification from the previously filed Office Action.
Applicant’s amendment overcomes the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections from the previously filed Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amendments to independent claim(s) 1, 11 and 20 are moot based on the new grounds of rejection below.
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) 1,3,5-8,11,13,15-17 and 20 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 1, Mattheijssen discloses [Note: what Mattheijssen fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
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 is configured to operate in a hybrid dual mode comprising multiple input multiple output (MIMO) 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.; further see paragraphs 0075-0076, 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, further more in paragraph 0076, “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.”, also indicates MIMO radar mode), and
Everett discloses,
wherein the isolation area corresponds to one or more shielding structures that isolate the transmit antenna array from the plurality of receive antenna elements (see Fig. 1, isolation component 106 between the transmit antenna array 102 and receiving antenna array 104, further see paragraph 0079, “As shown in FIG. 1, isolation component 106 may be configured to isolate transmit antenna assembly 102 from receive antenna assembly 104. In some embodiments, isolation component 106 may be a radio frequency (RF) isolator. In other words, isolation component 106 operates to ensure that the electromagnetic radiation output by transmit antenna assembly 102 is isolated from the electromagnetic radiation detected by receive antenna assembly 104. Doing so can prevent the receive elements from detecting signal output directly from the transmit elements, without reflecting off any objects.”).
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 prevent the receive elements from detecting signal output directly from the transmit elements, without reflecting off any objects (see paragraph 0079 of Everett).
Regarding claim 3, Mattheijssen further discloses
The antenna apparatus of claim 1 wherein the active beaming steering 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 5, the combination of Mattheijssen and Everett discloses [Note: what Mattheijssen fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
The antenna apparatus of claim 1
Everett discloses,
wherein element positions of antenna 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 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 7, the combination of Mattheijssen and Everett 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 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 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 13, the same cited section and rationale as claim 3 is applied.
Regarding claim 15, the same cited section and rationale as claim 5 is applied.
Regarding claim 16, the same cited section and rationale as claim 6 is applied.
Regarding claim 17, the same cited section and rationale as claim 7 is applied.
Regarding claim 20, the same cited section and rationale as claims 1 and 8 are 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 Everett et al. (US 20230375687 A1) further in view of CORNIC et al. (US 20220229172 A1), hereinafter CORNIC.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Mattheijssen and Everett discloses [Note: what the combination of Mattheijssen and Everett 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 each of the plurality of transmit antenna elements and each 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 in view of Everett. All three references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they all 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 Everett et al. (US 20230375687 A1) further in view of Gellaboina et al. (US 20120281096 A1), hereinafter Gellaboina.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Mattheijssen and Everett discloses [Note: what the combination of Mattheijssen and Everett 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 in view of Everett. All three references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they all 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 an 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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1,3,5-8, 11 and 20 are provisionally rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of copending Application No. 18/771,617 (reference application) in view of Everett et al. (US 20230375687 A1). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both encompass sustainably the same system, and the same basic invention is unequivocally claimed among the dependent claims of both the application and the patent.
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 20 of the instant application, claims 1,2, 9 and 10 of the copending Application No. 18/771,617 disclose, “An antenna apparatus, comprising: a plurality of receive antenna elements and a transmit antenna array comprising a plurality of transmit antenna elements, 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; and an isolation area that isolates the transmit antenna array from the plurality of receive antenna elements in the phased array aperture, wherein the phased array aperture is configured to operate in operates with a hybrid dual mode comprising a multiple input multiple output (MIMO) radar mode and an active beaming steering mode”.
Claims 1,2, 9 and 10 of copending Application No. 18/771,617 fail to disclose the feature of, “and wherein the isolation area corresponds to one or more shielding structures that isolate the transmit antenna array from the plurality of receive antenna elements” of claims 1,11 and 20 of the instant application.
Everett discloses,
wherein the isolation area corresponds to one or more shielding structures that isolate the transmit antenna array from the plurality of receive antenna elements (see Fig. 1, isolation component 106 between the transmit antenna array 102 and receiving antenna array 104, further see paragraph 0079, “As shown in FIG. 1, isolation component 106 may be configured to isolate transmit antenna assembly 102 from receive antenna assembly 104. In some embodiments, isolation component 106 may be a radio frequency (RF) isolator. In other words, isolation component 106 operates to ensure that the electromagnetic radiation output by transmit antenna assembly 102 is isolated from the electromagnetic radiation detected by receive antenna assembly 104. Doing so can prevent the receive elements from detecting signal output directly from the transmit elements, without reflecting off any objects.”).
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 copending Application No. 18/771,617. 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 prevent the receive elements from detecting signal output directly from the transmit elements, without reflecting off any objects (see paragraph 0079 of Everett).
In regards to claims 3,5-8 of the instant application, copending Application No. 18/771,617 (reference application) further discloses these features in corresponding claims 2-7 of copending Application No. 18/771,617 (reference application).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights