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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: “FoV” in line 1. The acronym FoV should be accompanied by the language they represent when first introduced. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 objected to because of the following informalities: “the number of radiating elements included in the 1-1st reception channel antenna and the number of radiating elements included in the 1-2nd reception channel antenna” in lines 1-3. It appears that “reception channel antenna” does not radiate signal, therefore should not have “radiating elements”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 objected to because of the following informalities: “antenna” in lines 2-3. It appears that it should be “antennas”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a power supply unit for supplying” in claim 1 line 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 8 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitations: 1) " the 1-1st reception channel antenna" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “1-1st reception channel antenna” is not defined or mentioned in claim 1. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as "a 1-1st reception channel antenna". 2) " the 1-2nd reception channel antenna" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “1-2nd reception channel antenna” is not defined or mentioned in claim 1. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as " a 1-2nd reception channel antenna". 3) “the number of radiating elements included in the 1-1st reception channel antenna and the number of radiating elements included in the 1-2nd reception channel antenna” in lines 1-4. It is indefinite because it is not clear how the “radiating elements” perform “reception” functionality in reception channel antenna because “radiating elements” emit signals. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “the number of
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 1-6, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cong et al. (CN 210666009, hereafter Cong) in view of Cong (CN 214151047, hereafter Cong-2) and Welle et al . (US 20190107426, hereafter Welle).
Regarding claim 1, Cong (‘009) discloses that A wide FoV radar module for three-dimensional detection { Page 13 line 6 from bottom (three-dimensional detection field of view of the expansion the millimetre wave radar sensor); Examiner’s note: “field of view of the expansion” for “wide FoV” } comprising:
a plurality of transmission channel units (Tx) including A (A is a natural number of two or more) number of transmission channel antennas and being each connected to a radar chip { Fig.1 item 10 (series feed transmitting antenna array, TX1, TX2, TX3), 1011 (antenna patches), 30 (radar chip); page 12 line 15 from bottom (series feed transmitting antenna array 10); page 13 lines 1 (micro-unit antenna patches 1011), 22 (Fig.1), 27 (radar chip 30), 34 (transmitting antenna Tx1, Tx2, Tx3) };
a plurality of reception channel units (Rx) including B (B is a natural number of two or more) number of reception channel antennas and being each connected to the radar chip { Fig.1 items 20 (receiving feed antenna array, Rx1, Rx2, Rx3, Rx4), 2011 (micro-unit antenna patches), 30 (radar chip); page 13 lines 3 (micro-unit antenna patches 2011), 8 (W columns of millimeter wave receiving feed antenna array 20), 27 (radar chip 30), 1 from bottom (Rx1, Rx2,); page 14 lines 1 (Rx3, Rx refers to millimeter wave receiving feed antenna array 20)}; and
,
wherein one or more of the plurality of transmission channel units includes:
C (C is a natural number greater than or equal to 0 and less than or equal to A) number of 1-1st transmission channel antennas arranged in a first direction { Fig.1 items TX1, TX2 }; and
D (D is a natural number greater than or equal to 0 and less than or equal to A, C+D=A) number of 1-2nd transmission channel antennas { Fig.1 items TX3 } .
However, Cong (‘009) does not explicitly disclose (see words with underline) “a power supply unit for supplying power to the transmission channel units, the reception channel units and the radar chip” and “D (D is a natural number greater than or equal to 0 and less than or equal to A, C+D=A) number of 1-2nd transmission channel antennas arranged in a second direction different from the first direction”. In the same field of endeavor, Cong-2 (‘047) discloses that
D (D is a natural number greater than or equal to 0 and less than or equal to A, C+D=A) number of 1-2nd transmission channel antennas arranged in a second direction different from the first direction { Fig.82 item TX3 }
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Cong (‘009) with the teachings of Cong-2 (‘047) {arrange one set of transmit antenna in a different direction from other transmit antennas} to arrange one set of transmit antenna in a different direction from other transmit antennas. Doing so would provide wider horizontal field of view to a plurality of object so as to improve the performance of the antenna for radar intelligent monitoring system, as recognized by Cong-2 (‘047) {page 1 abstract lines 1-2 (radar intelligent monitoring system); page 4 line 18 (large range, wide angle to the plurality of objects); page 10 lines 17-18 from bottom (a wider horizontal field of view, to improve the performance of the antenna)}.
However, Cong-2 (‘047) does not explicitly disclose (see words with underline) “a power supply unit for supplying power to the transmission channel units, the reception channel units and the radar chip”. In the same field of endeavor, Welle (‘426) discloses that
a power supply unit for supplying power to the transmission channel units, the reception channel units and the radar chip {Fig.1 items 130 (power supply device), 102, 103 (radar chip), 109-112 (transmission elements), 113-119 (receiving elements); [0046] line 2 (radar chip 102 , 103), 13-14 (a power supply device 130), 17-18 (transmission elements 109 , 110 , 111 , 112), 21-22 (receiving elements 113 to 119)}.
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying a known technique (e.g. electronic device, such as radar, works as designed by means of power supply) to a known device (e.g. radar) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g. radar operates as designed) and result in an improved system (e.g. radar operates as designed by power supply to provide the measured value, as recognized by Welle (‘426) {[0046] lines 12-15 (providing the measured value , by means of a power supply device 130 , in the form of a 4 - 20 mA current value 108 proportional to the measured value.)}).
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1, Cong (‘009) does not explicitly disclose “the second direction is a direction rotated by 90° clockwise or counterclockwise from the first direction”. In the same field of endeavor, Cong-2 (‘047) discloses that in the wide FoV radar module,
the second direction is a direction rotated by 90° clockwise or counterclockwise from the first direction { Fig.82 items TX1, TX2 with TX3 by 90° clockwise }.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Cong (‘009) and Welle (‘426) with the teachings of Cong-2 (‘047) {arrange one set of transmit antenna in a different direction (e.g. by 90° clockwise) from other transmit antennas} to arrange one set of transmit antenna in a different direction (e.g. by 90° clockwise) from other transmit antennas. Doing so would provide wider horizontal field of view to a plurality of object so as to improve the performance of the antenna for radar intelligent monitoring system, as recognized by Cong-2 (‘047) {page 1 abstract lines 1-2 (radar intelligent monitoring system); page 4 line 18 (large range, wide angle to the plurality of objects); page 10 lines 17-18 from bottom (a wider horizontal field of view. to improve the performance of the antenna)}.
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Cong (‘009), Cong-2 (‘047), and Welle (‘426) discloses that in the wide FoV radar module,
the number of radiating elements included in the 1-1st transmission channel antenna and the number of radiating elements included in the 1-2nd transmission channel antenna are different from each other {see Cong (‘009) Fig.23, number of elements in the channel with items Tx1-8 are different from the number of elements in the channel with item Tx9-12}.
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claims 1 and 3, the combination of Cong (‘009), Cong-2 (‘047), and Welle (‘426) discloses that in the wide FoV radar module,
the number of radiating elements included in the 1-1st transmission channel antenna exceeds the number of radiating elements included in the 1-2nd transmission channel antenna {see Cong (‘009) Fig.23, number of elements in the channel with items Tx1-8 exceeds the number of elements in the channel with item Tx9-12}.
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claims 1 and 3, the combination of Cong (‘009), Cong-2 (‘047), and Welle (‘426) discloses that in the wide FoV radar module,
the number of radiating elements included in the 1-1st transmission channel antenna is twice the number of radiating elements included in the 1-2nd transmission channel antenna {see Cong (‘009) Fig.23, number of elements in the channel with items Tx1-8 are twice the number of elements in the channel with item Tx9-12}.
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Cong (‘009), Cong-2 (‘047), and Welle (‘426) discloses that in the wide FoV radar module,
if the number of the 1-1st transmission channel antenna is plural, each of the two or more 1-1st transmission channel antennas is arranged with a step of a predetermined length in the first direction {see Cong (‘009) Fig.1 items TX1, TX2}.
Regarding claim 9, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Cong (‘009), Cong-2 (‘047), and Welle (‘426) discloses that in the wide FoV radar module,
A, which is the number of transmission channel antenna, is less than B which is the number of reception channel antenna { see Cong (‘009) Fig.1 number of elements in items TX1-3 is less than number of elements in items Rx1-4}.
Regarding claim 10, which depends on claim 1, Cong (‘009) does not explicitly disclose “the 1-1st transmission channel antenna has a symmetrical shape with respect to the second direction, and the 1-2nd transmission channel antenna has a symmetrical shape with respect to the first direction”. In the same field of endeavor, Cong-2 (‘047) discloses that in the wide FoV radar module,
the 1-1st transmission channel antenna has a symmetrical shape with respect to the second direction, and the 1-2nd transmission channel antenna has a symmetrical shape with respect to the first direction {Fig.82 items Tx1, Tx2, Tx3}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Cong (‘009) and Welle (‘426) with the teachings of Cong-2 (‘047) {arrange one set of transmit antenna in a different direction (e.g. symmetrical shape) from other transmit antennas} to arrange one set of transmit antenna in a different direction (e.g. symmetrical shape) from other transmit antennas. Doing so would provide wider horizontal field of view to a plurality of object so as to improve the performance of the antenna for radar intelligent monitoring system, as recognized by Cong-2 (‘047) {page 1 abstract lines 1-2 (radar intelligent monitoring system); page 4 line 18 (large range, wide angle to the plurality of objects); page 10 lines 17-18 from bottom (a wider horizontal field of view. to improve the performance of the antenna)}.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cong (‘009), Cong-2 (‘047), and Welle (‘426) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zou et al. (US 2019/0341694, hereafter Zou).
Regarding claim 7, which depends on claim 1, Cong (‘009), Cong-2 (‘047), and Welle (‘426) does not explicitly disclose “the reception channel unit includes: one or more 1-1st reception channel antennas arranged in the first direction; and one or more 1-2nd reception channel antennas arranged in a second direction different from the first direction”. In the same field of endeavor, Zou (‘694) discloses that in the wide FoV radar module, the reception channel unit includes:
one or more 1-1st reception channel antennas arranged in the first direction {Fig.2 items 224, 222; [0039] lines 8-19 (receiving antenna 222, receiving antenna 224)}; and
one or more 1-2nd reception channel antennas arranged in a second direction different from the first direction { Fig.2 items 226, 228; [0039] lines 12-13 (receiving antenna 226, receiving antenna 228)}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Cong (‘009), Cong-2 (‘047), and Welle (‘426) with the teachings of Zou (‘694) {arrange receiving antennas in different directions} to arrange receiving antennas in different directions. Doing so would provide a two-dimensional antenna system so as to provide a simple and low-cost antenna design for the obstacle avoidance function of applications (e.g. UAVs), as recognized by Zou (‘694) {[0005] lines 6-9 (provides a simple and low-cost antenna design for the obstacle avoidance function of UAVs, especially an antenna design used for two-dimensional obstacle avoidance.); [0012] lines 1-2 (Fig.2, a two-dimensional antenna system)}.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cong (‘009), Cong-2 (‘047), and Welle (‘426) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vollbracht et al . (US 2021/0239791, hereafter Vollbracht).
Regarding claim 8, which depends on claim 1, Cong (‘009), Cong-2 (‘047), and Welle (‘426) do not explicitly disclose “the number of radiating elements included in the 1-1st reception channel antenna and the number of radiating elements included in the 1-2nd reception channel antenna are different from each other”. In the same field of endeavor, Vollbracht (‘791) discloses that in the wide FoV radar module,
the number of radiating elements included in the 1-1st reception channel antenna and the number of radiating elements included in the 1-2nd reception channel antenna are different from each other {Fig.16 items 100 (radar), 110 (receiver), 213, 223, 222 (antenna elements); [0134] lines 3-4 (receiver 110 of the radar circuit 100.); [0185] lines 1-2 (antenna elements 213 , 222 , 223); Examiner’s note: number of antennas in receiver channel 135 and channel 136 are different}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Cong (‘009), Cong-2 (‘047), and Welle (‘426) with the teachings of Vollbracht (‘791) {use different number of antenna elements in different receive channels} to use different number of antenna elements in different receive channels. Doing so would realize a certain desired field of view with a low cost, compact and simple construction antenna device so as to improve the performance of radar devices without unduly increasing their constructive complexity, as recognized by Vollbracht (‘791) {[0006] line 6 (keep production costs low); [0007] lines 1-3 (improve the performance of radar devices without unduly increasing their constructive complexity); [0068] lines 3-4 (the antenna device may have a compact and simple construction); [0185] lines 3 (realizes the fields of view 240 , 242 shown in FIG . 15.)}.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20230349745 discloses that “a power supply unit for supplying power to the transmission channel units, the reception channel units and the radar chip” { Fig.1 item 101 (power supply), 105, 106 (radar devices); [0039] lines 5-6 (The components of the system are supplied with power via a power supply unit 101), 10 (radar devices 105, 106)}, which further support the rejection of claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONGHONG LI whose telephone number is (571)272-5946. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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.
/YONGHONG LI/Examiner, Art Unit 3648