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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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 2, 3, 4 and 10 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.
As per claims 2, 3, 4 and 10, the term “face each other” makes the claim indefinite. If the transmit (or receive) arrays are facing each other, then it would appear that one antenna is radiating directly into the other instead of outwards. Further clarification on the antenna configurations facing each other is required.
Examiner’s Note: 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.
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) 1-6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arkind, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0320425, published October 14, 2021 in view of Shams, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0296764, published September 23, 2021.
As per claim 1, Arkind discloses a two-dimensional phased subarray MIMO radar apparatus (Arkind, ¶115-116) comprising:
a transmission array configured to emit transmission signals, which are orthogonal to each other, towards a target object, extending in a first direction, and comprising a plurality of transmission phased subarrays; and a reception array configured to receive reflected signals, which are reflected from the target object, among the emitted transmission signals, extending in a second direction intersecting the first direction, and comprising a plurality of reception phased subarrays, wherein each of the plurality of transmission phased subarrays comprises a plurality of transmission antennas, and each of the plurality of reception phased subarrays comprises a plurality of reception antennas (Arkind, Fig. 6 showing Tx, item 16 and Rx, item 12),
wherein a first transmission phased subarray and a second transmission phased subarray are adjacent transmission phased subarrays among the plurality of transmission phased subarrays, and a spacing from an end of the first transmission phased subarray in the first direction to an end of the second transmission phased subarray in the first direction is a first spacing, the first spacing being greater than or equal to an aperture of each of the plurality of transmission phased subarrays (Arkind, Fig. 6 left and right),
and wherein a first reception phased subarray and a second reception phased subarray are adjacent reception phased subarrays among the plurality of reception phased subarray, and a spacing from an end of the first reception phased subarray in the second direction to an end of the second reception phased subarray in the second direction is a second spacing, the second spacing being greater than or equal to an aperture of each of the plurality of reception phased subarrays (Arkind, Fig. 6, top and bottom).
Arkind fails to expressly disclose subarrays.
Shams teaches a similar antenna configuration with sub-arrays and desired spacing (Fig. 5, items 542/544 and 533/534).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to break the array into subarrays in order to gain the benefit of improving beam control.
As per claim 2, Arkind as modified by Shams discloses the two-dimensional phased subarray MIMO radar apparatus of claim 1, wherein the transmission array is provided in plurality, wherein the plurality of transmission arrays are arranged to be spaced apart from each other and face each other, and wherein each of a first transmission array and a second transmission array is one of the plurality of transmission arrays, and the first transmission array and the second transmission array are arranged to be spaced apart from each other by a size of an aperture of the reception array (Arkind, Fig. 6).
As per claim 3, Arkind as modified by Shams further discloses the two-dimensional phased subarray MIMO radar apparatus of claim 1, wherein the reception array is provided in plurality, wherein the plurality of reception arrays are arranged to be spaced apart from each other and face each other, and wherein each of a first reception array and a second reception array is one of the plurality of reception arrays, and the first reception array and the second reception array are arranged to be spaced apart from each other by a size of an aperture of the transmission array (Arkind, Fig. 6).
As per claim 4, Arkind as modified by Shams further discloses the two-dimensional phased subarray MIMO radar apparatus of claim 1, wherein each of the transmission array and the reception array is provided in plurality, wherein the plurality of transmission arrays are arranged to be spaced apart from each other and face each other, and the plurality of reception arrays are arranged to be spaced apart from each other and face each other, wherein each of a first transmission array and a second transmission array is one of the plurality of transmission arrays, and each of a first reception array and a second reception array is one of the plurality of reception arrays, wherein the first transmission array and the second transmission array have the same size of aperture, and the first reception array and the second reception array have the same size of aperture, wherein the first transmission array and the second transmission array are arranged to be spaced apart from each other by the size of the aperture of the first reception array, and wherein the first reception array and the second reception array are arranged to be spaced apart from each other by the size of the aperture of the first transmission array (Arkind, Fig. 6).
As per claim 5, Arkind as modified by Shams further discloses The two-dimensional phased subarray MIMO radar apparatus of claim 4, further comprising: a transmission circuit comprising a plurality of first phase shifters corresponding, respectively, to the plurality of transmission antennas and configured to perform hybrid beamforming by steering a transmission subarray beam pattern of the plurality of transmission phased subarrays based on weights applied to the plurality of first phase shifters; and a reception circuit comprising a plurality of second phase shifters corresponding, respectively, to the plurality of reception antennas and configured to perform hybrid beamforming by steering a reception subarray beam pattern of the plurality of reception phased subarrays based on weights applied to the plurality of second phase shifters (Shams, ¶75 and 77).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide phase shifters in order to gain the obvious benefit of allowing for beam steering.
As per claim 6, Arkind as modified by Shams further discloses the two-dimensional phased subarray MIMO radar apparatus of claim 5, further comprising
a control circuit configured to generate an input digital signal (Arkind, ¶80-83),
a first control signal for controlling the transmission circuit and a second control signal for controlling the reception circuit, wherein the transmission circuit further comprises a plurality of digital-to-analog converters (Shams, ¶78) and a plurality of first mixers (Arkind, ¶80-83), wherein the plurality of digital-to-analog converters correspond, respectively, to the plurality of transmission phased subarrays and are configured to convert the input digital signal to first baseband signals, the first baseband signals being analog signals, wherein the plurality of first mixers correspond, respectively, to the plurality of transmission phased subarrays and are configured to convert each of the first baseband signals to an RF signal, the RF signal being a high-frequency signal, wherein each of the plurality of first phase shifters is configured to delay a phase of the RF signal based on the first control signal and then provide the RF signal to one of the plurality of transmission antennas, wherein the reception circuit further comprises a plurality of analog-to-digital converters and a plurality of second mixers, wherein each of the plurality of second phase shifters is configured to delay a phase of the reflected signals based on the second control signal and then provide the reflected signals to the plurality of second mixers, wherein the plurality of second mixers correspond, respectively, to the plurality of reception phased subarrays and are configured to convert the delayed reflected signals to second baseband signals, and wherein the plurality of analog-to-digital converters correspond, respectively, to the plurality of reception phased subarrays and are configured to convert the second baseband signals to output digital signals, the second baseband signals being analog signals (Arkind, Fig. 3 and Shams, Fig. 6 both showing the transmission and reception chains).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use DACs in order to gain the benefit of converting signals to analog. It is well within the skill of a person in the art to determine what well-known components to utilize.
As per claim 10, Arkind as modified by Shams further discloses the apparatus of claim 1 wherein each Tx and Rx is provided in plurality (Arkind, Fig. 6 showing more than one Tx and Rx elements and arrays).
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arkind and Shams as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Lee, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2014/0022109, published January 23, 2014.
As per claim 7, Arkind as modified by Shams further discloses the two-dimensional phased subarray MIMO radar apparatus of claim 6, wherein the number of each of the transmission antennas and the reception antennas is M, and the number of the transmission phased subarrays is P, and the number of the reception phased subarrays is Q, whereas M, P and Q are each an integer greater than or equal to 2, wherein, based on the second baseband signals, 2P*2M virtual reception phased subarrays are formed in a matrix format (Arkind, Fig. 6),
and each of the virtual reception phased subarrays comprises M*M virtual reception antennas, and a virtual subarray beam pattern is formed by the virtual reception phased subarrays (Arkind, ¶75).
Arkind as modified by Shams fails to explicitly disclose beam steering to cancel grating lobes.
Lee teaches a phase array which steers to cancel grating lobes (¶3).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to cancel grating lobes in order to gain the benefit of improving return data and increasing the field of view as taught by Lee.
As per claim 8, Arkind as modified by Shams and Lee discloses the two-dimensional phased subarray MIMO radar apparatus of claim 7, wherein each of a first grating lobe and a second grating lobe is one of the grating lobes adjacent to a main lobe of the virtual subarray beam pattern, and wherein the transmission circuit is configured to align a direction of a first null point occurred in the transmission subarray beam pattern with a direction of the first grating lobe, and the reception circuit is configured to align a direction of a second null point occurred in the reception subarray beam pattern with a direction of the second grating lobe of the grating lobes, thereby cancelling some of the first and second grating lobes (Lee, ¶3).
As per claim 9, Arkind as modified by Shams and Lee further discloses the two-dimensional phased subarray MIMO radar apparatus of claim 8, wherein a spacing between two adjacent transmission antennas among the plurality of transmission antennas and a spacing between two adjacent reception antennas among the plurality of reception antennas are each equal to a half-wavelength of the transmission signals (Arkind, ¶135 where various spacing are suggested).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the spacing limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided on form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS E WINDRICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~7-3:30.
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 5712726878. 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.
/MARCUS E WINDRICH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights