3DETAILED 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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to amendments and remarks filed 08 July 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leꞵmann et al. (US 2023/0184932 A1) in view of Zeinolabedinzadeh (US 2025/0337464 A1) in view of Grobert (US 2005/0228841 A1) in view of Thomas (US 2006/0140291 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Leꞵmann discloses an apparatus comprising:
a receiver comprising a plurality of receive channels, each of the receive channels configured to receive a radio frequency (RF) signal ([0073] disclosing use of a radar sensor comprising four receive channels corresponding to a radar system known in the art); and at least one processing device configured to ([0006], [0028]-[0029] disclosing a computer implemented method executed by a processing device):
convert Doppler-filtered RF signals into a plurality of beams using beamforming ([0047]-[0054] disclosing determining “measured beam vector” for target objects by calculating the azimuth angle ΘD from the Doppler d for each target object; Fig. 1, target objects 23 and 25 (i.e., a measured beam for each target object), Fig. 6, step 602, [0084]).
Leꞵmann does not expressly disclose the following; however, Zeinolabedinzadeh suggests equalization is achieved by applying an equalization weight from a plurality of equalization weights to each beam of the plurality of beams ([0045], disclosing use of parallel receive paths and tunable delays to synthesize a tunable finite-impulse-response (FIR) filter; [0047] disclosing “analog FIR filter may use the same architecture with analog delay elements and coefficients implemented as amplifiers or attenuators to synthesize one or more filter responses.”; Fig. 7A, [0048] disclosing use of variable gain elements 125 and phase shifters 120 and “The phase shifters 120 may introduce negligible delay, and, as such, may not impact the operation of the synthesized FIR filter, but equalize and correct the beam shape as needed”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the equalization of Zeinolabedinzadeh to the invention of Leꞵmann utilizing a FIR filter because the tunable and adaptive filter of Zeinolabedinzadeh significantly enhances functionality ([0038]).
Grobert suggests applying equalization weights weight from the plurality of equalization weights so that the beams have the same frequency response as the frequency response of the reference beam ([0036] “equalization weights are applied for equalization utilizing a FIR filter and the equalizer adaptively adjusts a FIR filter which causes each auxiliary channel impulse response to match that of the reference channel”; Frequency response is the Fourier transform of impulse response; as such, It is inherent that the frequency responses are the same when the impulse responses are the same).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the FIR filter structure of Grobert to implement the equalizer in the invention of Leꞵmann because the adaptive nature of the equalizer can be implemented with low cost or low tolerance components without the need for factory tuning or adjustments ([0049]).
Thomas discloses radar systems known in the art which perform pulse compression on a plurality of RF signals received via the plurality of receive channels and generate pulse-compressed RF signals (Fig. 3, 314 and 314’, [0041] disclosing multiplying by a reference spectrum to effect pulse compression);
perform Doppler filtering on the pulse-compressed RF signals and generate Doppler-filtered RF signals (Fig. 3, PC Output 1 and 2, [0056], disclosing performing moving target indicator or doppler processing on PC Outputs 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the radar system of Thomas to provide the inputs for the invention of Leꞵmann because Leꞵmann discloses use of known radar receivers are applicable to the invention and the motivation is found in Thomas that such techniques provide more efficient multi-channel processing ([0011]).
Regarding claim 2, Leꞵmann discloses the he apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the at least one processing device is configured to:
combine the plurality of RF signals into a plurality of subarrays; perform the pulse compression on the plurality of subarrays to generate pulse-compressed subarrays; perform the Doppler filtering on the pulse-compressed subarrays to generate Doppler-filtered subarrays; and convert the Doppler-filtered subarrays into the plurality of beams using beamforming ([0074] disclosing “ it is possible to perform the method according to the disclosure also on sub-arrays of the full antenna array”).
Regarding claim 3, Leꞵmann does not expressly disclose the following; however, Thomas suggests the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the at least one processing device is further configured to apply single-tap complex gain/phase calibration to the plurality of RF signals received from the plurality of receive channels prior to performing the pulse compression ([0045], [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the radar system of Thomas to provide the inputs for the invention of Leꞵmann because Leꞵmann discloses use of known radar receivers are applicable to the invention and the motivation is found in Thomas that such techniques support processes that require the channels to be matched ([0047]).
Regarding claim 4, Leꞵmann suggests the apparatus of Claim 3, further comprising:
a plurality of waveform generator channels, each of the waveform generator channels configured to output an RF signal to one of the plurality of receive channels; and a reference signal generator configured to output a reference signal, wherein the reference signal generator comprises at least one of: an additional waveform generator channel; and digital reference signal data stored within a memory ([0072]-[0073] disclosing simulations of all combinations have been for four receiver channels; [0076], [0006], [0028]-[0029] disclosing a computer implemented method inherently including storing the inputs to the simulation in memory).
Leꞵmann does not expressly disclose the follow; however, Grobert suggests wherein the at least one processing device is configured to determine the plurality of equalization weights based on the reference signal and the plurality of RF signals received from the plurality of receive channels ([0051] disclosing ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the FIR filter structure of Grobert to implement the equalizer in the invention of Leꞵmann because the adaptive nature of the equalizer can be implemented with low cost or low tolerance components without the need for factory tuning or adjustments ([0049]).
Regarding claim 5, Leꞵmann does not disclose the following; however, Thomas suggest the apparatus of Claim 4, wherein the RF signals of the plurality of RF signals received via the plurality of receive channels are mismatched ([0045], [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the radar system of Thomas to provide the inputs for the invention of Leꞵmann because Leꞵmann discloses use of known radar receivers are applicable to the invention and the motivation is found in Thomas that such techniques support processes that require the channels to be matched ([0047]).
Regarding claim 6, Leꞵmann appears to disclose the apparatus of Claim 3, further comprising:
a tactical transmit output configured to transmit a plurality of RF signals into a free space environment (Fig. 1, [0042], [0073]);
a tactical receive input configured to receive the plurality of RF signals reflected from the free space environment (Fig. 1, [0042], [0073]); and
a plurality of waveform generator channels, each of the waveform generator channels configured to output an RF signal via the tactical transmit output (Fig. 1, [0042], [0073]);
wherein the receive channels are configured to receive the plurality of RF signals from the tactical receive input (Fig. 1, [0042], [0073]).
Regarding claims 7 and 9-13, the claims are directed towards the method performed by the apparatus of claims 1-6. Accordingly, claims 7 and 9-13 are rejected on the grounds presented above for claims 1-6.
Regarding claim 8, Leꞵmann appears to disclose the method of Claim 7, wherein the equalization weights are based on at least one of:
a reference beam ([0055] predicted ideal beam vector); and digital reference signal data stored within a memory ([0006], [0028]-[0029]).
Regarding claims 14-20, the claims are directed towards a non-transitory machine readable medium containing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform the method of claims 7-13. Leꞵmann discloses such implementations ([0006], [0028]-[0029]). Accordingly, claims 14-20 are rejected on the grounds presented above for claims 7-13.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 7 and 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Maitland-Warne et al. (US 2025/0258277 A1); Tang et al. (US 2025/0208248 A1) Silverstein et al. (US 2019/0024350 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph A Bednash whose telephone number is (571)270-7500. The examiner can normally be reached 7 AM - 4:30 PM 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, Huy Vu can be reached at (571)272-3155. 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.
/JOSEPH A BEDNASH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights