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 on 08/25/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-23, 25, 28, and 30-31 remain pending in this application. Claims 1, 16, and 31 have been amended. No claims have been newly cancelled or are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/25/2026 regarding prior art rejections have been fully considered, but are moot under new grounds of rejection. All previous prior art rejections are overcome in consideration of amendments, however, additional prior art rejections are presented below.
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 of this title, 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 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Icove (US 20100079282 A1), hereinafter Icove, in view of O’Donnell (US 20220146348 A1), hereinafter O’Donnell.
Regarding claim 1, Icove, as shown below, discloses a microwave passive sensor (See at least Fig. 22, [0123] “a passive microwave receiver”) comprising the following limitations:
a microwave receiver (See at least Fig. 22, [0123] “a passive microwave receiver”);
a low noise amplifier coupled to the microwave receiver (See at least Fig. 22, Item 2220, [0123] “The input is provided to a +22 dB low noise amplifier LNA2 2220”);
a mixer coupled to the low noise amplifier (See at least Fig. 22, Item 2225, [0123] “The filtered signal is mixed at mixer 2225 to bring the input signal down to intermediate frequency”); and
a baseband amplifier coupled to the mixer (See at least Fig. 22, Item 2230, [0123] “A 22 dB gain intermediate frequency amplifier 2230 amplifies the output of mixer 2225”)
Icove discloses a passive microwave sensor operating at microwave frequencies, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use additional or alternative passive technologies while operating in the microwave band. Icove does not explicitly disclose wherein the
wherein the microwave passive sensor does not include an oscillator or signal source (See at least [0044] “SAWR based sensors can thus be implemented that operate ‘passively’ in isolation without any active part, i.e. without any power supply or oscillators”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the microwave passive sensing system disclosed by Icove with the passive systems disclosed by O’Donnell. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously allow for robust and reliable measurement performance (See at least [0045] “Robust and reliable measurement performance is an important criterion for any wireless monitoring system. In a ‘passive’ wireless sensor measurement system the RF measurement chain must be designed to meet the challenges of the propagation environment.”).
Regarding claim 11, The combination of Icove and O’Donnell, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Icove additionally discloses
the microwave passive sensor is not synchronized or cooperative with a microwave source (See at least [0082] “the emitted energy of a human being or an automobile in the microwave regions of the electromagnetic spectrum can be detected using passive microwave detection by one or more antennae.”).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Icove, in view of O’Donnell, in further view of Testi (US 20200220526 A1), hereinafter Testi.
Regarding claim 2, The combination of Icove and O’Donnell, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Icove and O’Donnell does not explicitly disclose the low noise amplifier comprises two cascaded low noise amplifiers. However, Testi, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the low noise amplifier comprises two cascaded low noise amplifiers (See at least Fig. 4A, Items 404, 406, [0106] “two LNA stages are shown cascaded together”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the microwave passive sensing system disclosed by Icove with the passive systems disclosed by O’Donnell with the LNA system disclosed by Testi. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce power, time, and space concerns while achieving a desired frequency response (See at least [0002] “Calibrating BPFs (or LNAs with BPF capability) to achieve a desired frequency response can consume power, time, and chip real estate. Reducing time in calibrating on-chip BPFs may be advantageous”).
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Icove, in view of Brown, Jr. (US 20210104981 A1), hereinafter Brown, Jr.
Regarding claim 3, The combination of Icove and O’Donnell, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Icove and O’Donnell does not explicitly disclose the mixer is radio frequency (RF) coupled to the low noise amplifier with a first capacitor; and the baseband amplifier is RF coupled to the mixer with a second capacitor. However, Brown, Jr., in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the mixer is radio frequency (RF) coupled to the low noise amplifier with a first capacitor (See at least Fig. 3, Item 334, [0037] “coupling capacitors 334 may be electrically coupled between outputs of the LNA 332 and the inputs of the passive mixers 202A, 202B”); and
the baseband amplifier is RF coupled to the mixer with a second capacitor (See at least Fig. 3, Items 210A-210B, [0038] “The low impedance of the transimpedance amplifier 336A, 336B and impedance of the transmit filter 210A, 210B may provide isolation for the feed-forward path of the respective conversion circuit 208A, 208B.” Brown, JR. discloses transmit filters with capacitors between a mixing stage and baseband amplification stage.).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the microwave passive sensing system disclosed by Icove with the passive systems disclosed by O’Donnell with the capacitor system disclosed by Brown, Jr. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce distortion (See at least [0014] “canceling distortion (such as intermodulation distortion cancellation) may refer to eliminating the distortion or reducing the distortion”).
Regarding claim 5, The combination of Icove and O’Donnell, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Icove and O’Donnell does not explicitly disclose the mixer comprises a passive quadrature mixer. However, Brown, Jr., in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the mixer comprises a passive quadrature mixer (See at least Fig. 3, Items 202A-202B, [0036] “in-phase passive mixer 202A and the quadrature passive mixer 202B”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the microwave passive sensing system disclosed by Icove with the passive systems disclosed by O’Donnell with the mixer system disclosed by Brown, Jr. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce distortion (See at least [0014] “the mixer may eliminate or reduce an interdependence between in-phase (I) and quadrature (Q) channels of the mixer, which may further enable a simplified calibration process of the receiver and, even more beneficial, an online calibration process. As used herein, canceling distortion (such as intermodulation distortion cancellation) may refer to eliminating the distortion or reducing the distortion”).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Icove, in view of O’Donnell, in further view of Liu (CN 210297643 U), hereinafter Liu.
Regarding claim 4, The combination of Icove and O’Donnell, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Icove and O’Donnell does not explicitly disclose the mixer comprises a diode coupled to ground. However, Liu, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the mixer comprises a diode coupled to ground (See at least Figs. 1-2, “This embodiment provides a single-diode mixer circuit applied to Doppler microwave sensing module, comprising a first microstrip line M1, diode D1 and resistor R1, the resistor R1 of the output end is grounded”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the microwave passive sensing system disclosed by Icove with the passive systems disclosed by O’Donnell with the mixing diode grounding system disclosed by Liu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve adaptability and signal to noise ratio (See at least “the utility model (non-balance mixing circuit) can obtain better signal to noise ratio of the balanced mixing circuit by means of their own features. At the same time, the utility model further improves the how the single-diode mixer circuit applied to microwave induction module for the adaptability of the design”).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Icove, in view of O’Donnell, in further view of Luff (WO 0139362 A2), hereinafter Luff.
Regarding claim 6, The combination of Icove and O’Donnell, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Icove and O’Donnell does not explicitly disclose the mixer comprises: a first resistor coupled between a voltage source and a mixer output; an inductor coupled between the mixer output and a mixer input; and a diode coupled between the mixer input and a ground. However, Luff, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the mixer comprises: a first resistor coupled between a voltage source and a mixer output (See at least Fig. 4, Items R2, quadrature mixer 70, Page 7 Lines 15-16 “The second terminal of the load resistor R2 is coupled to a voltage source V.sub.cc”);
an inductor coupled between the mixer output and a mixer input (See at least Fig. 4, Item L3, Page 8 Line 17 “the inductor L3 is coupled to the RF signal input”); and
a diode coupled between the mixer input and a ground (See at least Fig. 6, Item Q1, Page 10 Lines 34-35 “The cathode of the first diode-connected transistor Ql is coupled to ground”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the microwave passive sensing system disclosed by Icove with the passive systems disclosed by O’Donnell with the mixer system disclosed by Luff. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve mixer performance (See at least Page 4 Lines 1-2 “The combination of all embodiments described results in a mixer performance significantly higher than the well known”).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Icove, in view of O’Donnell, in further view of Ze (US 20130057317 A1), hereinafter Ze.
Regarding claim 7, The combination of Icove and O’Donnell, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Icove further discloses
a mixer output (See at least Fig. 22, Item 2225, [0123] “The filtered signal is mixed at mixer 2225 to bring the input signal down to intermediate frequency”);
The combination of Icove and O’Donnell does not explicitly disclose the baseband amplifier comprises: a second resistor coupled between a voltage source and a negative input of an amplifier; a third resistor and a fourth capacitor connected in parallel between the negative input of the amplifier and a ground; a fourth resistor coupled between
the baseband amplifier comprises: a second resistor coupled between a voltage source and a negative input of an amplifier (See at least Fig. 3, Item R4, [0018] “the resistor R4 has one end connected to the negative baseband voltage signal BB_INN”);
a third resistor and a fourth capacitor connected in parallel between the negative input of the amplifier and a ground (See at least Fig. 3, Items C4, R6, C3, [0018] “capacitor C3 which has its other end connected to ground”);
a fourth resistor coupled between (See at least Fig. 3, Item R1); and
a fifth resistor and a third capacitor connected in parallel between the positive input of the amplifier and an output of the amplifier (See at least Fig. 3, Items C2, R3, [0018] “the capacitor C2 which has its other end connected to a first output end of the operational amplifier circuit 303 (LPF_OUTN)”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the microwave passive sensing system disclosed by Icove with the passive systems disclosed by O’Donnell with the amplification system disclosed by Ze. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously ensure high linearity while reducing chip area, thereby increasing efficiency (See at least [0011] “thus ensuring the high linearity of the up-conversion mixer while reducing the chip area and the current”).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Icove, in view of O’Donnell, in further view of Pezo (US 20260058683 A1), hereinafter Pezo, in further view of Chi (US 20200244302 A1), hereinafter Chi.
Regarding claim 8, The combination of Icove and O’Donnell, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Icove and O’Donnell does not explicitly disclose a gain block amplifier coupled to the low noise amplifier; and block amplifier
a gain block amplifier coupled to the low noise amplifier (See at least Fig. 1, Items 114, 108, [0093] “the amplifier 114 is implemented as a gain block”, [0086] “a low-noise amplifier (LNA) 108”); and
(See at least Fig. 1, Item 114, [0093] “the amplifier 114 is implemented as a gain block”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the microwave passive sensing system disclosed by Icove with the passive systems disclosed by O’Donnell with the gain block system disclosed by Pezo One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously achieve an increased compression point (See at least [0100] “In preferred embodiments, the amplifier 208 is implemented as a high-linearity gain block, which unlike the LNA 108, is able to provide signal amplification with an increased compression point”).
The combination of Icove, O’Donnell, and Pezo does not explicitly disclose a power divider coupled between the
a power divider coupled between the (See at least Fig. 4, Items 414, 406, 322, [0036] “The RF frontend IC device 400 further includes a down-converter 402 coupled to each of the transceivers 301 via power combiner/divider 406”, [0041] “Each of receivers 304 may further include a variable gain amplifier (e.g., variable gain amplifiers 414A-414B, collectively referred to as variable gain amplifier(s) 414”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the microwave passive sensing system disclosed by Icove with the passive systems disclosed by O’Donnell with the gain block system disclosed by Pezo with the power divider system disclosed by Chi. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to efficiently provide wireless reception and processing and compensation (See at least [0002], [0040]-[0041]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Icove, in view of O’Donnell, in further view of Pezo, in further view of Chi, in further view of Suematsu (US 20060063483 A1), hereinafter Suematsu.
Regarding claim 9, The combination of Icove, O’Donnell, Pezo, and Chi, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 8. The combination of Icove, O’Donnell, Pezo, and Chi does not explicitly disclose the power divider separates a signal received by the microwave receiver into a LO signal and a RF signal. However, Suematsu, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the power divider separates a signal received by the microwave receiver into a LO signal and a RF signal (See at least Fig. 3A, [0172] “FIG. 1 shows a schematic configuration of a microwave-band radio communication system of a first embodiment according to the present invention” [0257] “power divider 161”, [0223] “the second IF multiple signal 74 is divided via the signal division circuit 161 into two signals going to the transmission line 162 constituting the first path P1 and to the transmission line 163 constituting the second path P2, and in the first path P1, the signal is directly inputted into the frequency mixer section 12a. In the second path P2, the bandpass filter 171 allows, among the second IF multiple signal 74, only a reference signal 74c having the frequency component of (fLO1+fLO2-fLO3) to band-pass. The reference signal 74c is amplified in the amplifier 180, and inputted into the frequency mixer section 12a as a local oscillation signal”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the microwave passive sensing system disclosed by Icove with the passive systems disclosed by O’Donnell with the gain block system disclosed by Pezo with the power divider system disclosed by Chi with the power divider system disclosed by Suematsu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously increase mixing efficiency (See at least [0066] “intermediate frequency multiple signal leaked to the output side of the mixer is reflected and fed back to the mixer side again, by which frequency mixing efficiency of the mixer can be enhanced”).
Claims 10 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Icove, in view of O’Donnell, in further view of Li (US 20130165770 A1), hereinafter Li.
Regarding claim 10, The combination of Icove and O’Donnell, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Icove and O’Donnell does not explicitly disclose an analog to digital converter coupled to the baseband amplifier; and a processor or computer coupled to the analog to digital converter. However, Li, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
an analog to digital converter coupled to the baseband amplifier (See at least Fig. 6, Items 414, 416, 120, [0061] “The amplified baseband signals are sampled by NI USB6009 data acquisition module (DAQ) 416 and then fed into LabVIEW, running on an external computer 120” DAQ is disclosed as an ADC); and
a processor or computer coupled to the analog to digital converter (See at least Fig. 6, Items 414, 416, 120, [0061] “The amplified baseband signals are sampled by NI USB6009 data acquisition module (DAQ) 416 and then fed into LabVIEW, running on an external computer 120” DAQ is disclosed as an ADC).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the microwave passive sensing system disclosed by Icove with the passive systems disclosed by O’Donnell with the conversion system disclosed by Li. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously quickly process signals (See at least [0061] “The amplified baseband signals are sampled by NI USB6009 data acquisition module (DAQ) 416 and then fed into LabVIEW, running on an external computer 120, for real time signal processing.”).
Regarding claim 31, Icove as shown below, discloses a system comprising the following limitations:
a microwave passive sensor comprising a microwave receiver (See at least Fig. 22, [0123] “a passive microwave receiver”), a low noise amplifier coupled to the microwave receiver (See at least Fig. 22, Item 2220, [0123] “The input is provided to a +22 dB low noise amplifier LNA2 2220”), a mixer coupled to the low noise amplifier (See at least Fig. 22, Item 2225, [0123] “The filtered signal is mixed at mixer 2225 to bring the input signal down to intermediate frequency”), and a baseband amplifier coupled to the mixer (See at least Fig. 22, Item 2230, [0123] “A 22 dB gain intermediate frequency amplifier 2230 amplifies the output of mixer 2225”);
a microwave source (See at least [0082] “the emitted energy of a human being or an automobile in the microwave regions of the electromagnetic spectrum can be detected using passive microwave detection by one or more antennae.”); and
Icove discloses a passive microwave sensor operating at microwave frequencies, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use additional passive technologies while operating in the microwave band. Icove does not explicitly disclose wherein the microwave
wherein the microwave passive sensor does not include an oscillator or signal source (See at least [0044] “SAWR based sensors can thus be implemented that operate ‘passively’ in isolation without any active part, i.e. without any power supply or oscillators”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the microwave passive sensing system disclosed by Icove with the passive systems disclosed by O’Donnell. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously allow for robust and reliable measurement performance (See at least [0045] “Robust and reliable measurement performance is an important criterion for any wireless monitoring system. In a ‘passive’ wireless sensor measurement system the RF measurement chain must be designed to meet the challenges of the propagation environment.”).
The combination of Icove and O’Donnell does not explicitly disclose a processor or computer coupled to the microwave passive sensor. However, Li, discloses:
a processor or computer coupled to the microwave passive sensor (See at least Fig. 6, Items 414, 416, 120, [0061] “The amplified baseband signals are sampled by NI USB6009 data acquisition module (DAQ) 416 and then fed into LabVIEW, running on an external computer 120” DAQ is disclosed as an ADC).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the microwave passive sensing system disclosed by Icove with the passive systems disclosed by O’Donnell with the conversion system disclosed by Li. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously quickly process signals (See at least [0061] “The amplified baseband signals are sampled by NI USB6009 data acquisition module (DAQ) 416 and then fed into LabVIEW, running on an external computer 120, for real time signal processing.”).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Icove, in view of O’Donnell, in further view of Nanzer (US 20200311420 A1), hereinafter Nanzer.
Regarding claim 12, The combination of Icove and O’Donnell, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 11. The combination of Icove and O’Donnell does not explicitly disclose the microwave source comprises a Wi-Fi access point or a Bluetooth signal source. However, Nanzer, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the microwave source comprises a Wi-Fi access point or a Bluetooth signal source (See at least [0025] “Environment signals emitted by a set of WiFi routers 104-1, 104-2, 104-3 or access points reflects off a scene of interest 108 and is captured”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the microwave passive sensing system disclosed by Icove with the passive systems disclosed by O’Donnell with the microwave source system disclosed by Nanzer. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously generate good resolution images (See at least [0004] “Wavelengths at these bands are sufficiently so that images can be generated with good resolution, and the signals can easily propagate through smoke, fog, clothing, and even many building materials, which are opaque at optical and infrared wavelengths”).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Icove, in view of O’Donnell, in view of Tan (US 20160259041 A1), hereinafter Tan.
Regarding claim 13, The combination of Icove and O’Donnell, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Icove and O’Donnell does not explicitly disclose the microwave passive sensor provides Doppler information of a moving target based on reflected signals from the moving target and direct-path signals from a microwave source. However, Tan, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the microwave passive sensor (See at least [0017] “Various embodiments of the invention utilise existing signals, such as W-Fi signals (IEEE 802.11) to detect and track moving targets via real-time passive sensing.”) provides Doppler information of a moving target based on reflected signals from the moving target and direct-path signals from a microwave source (See at least Fig. 1, [0013] “performing a cross-correlation on the extracted portions of the reference signal and the surveillance signal to determine a range-Doppler surface; and providing a real-time display of said range-Doppler surface and/or of information derived therefrom.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the microwave passive sensing system disclosed by Icove with the passive systems disclosed by O’Donnell with the doppler system disclosed by Tan. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system efficiency (See at least [0050] “The approach described herein also exploits the known structure of a WiFi 802.11 transmission signal (or other wireless digital communication protocol as appropriate) in order to improve the efficiency, and hence reduce the processing time, of the signal processing for the passive sensing.”).
Regarding claim 14, The combination of Icove, O’Donnell, and Tan, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 13. The combination of Icove and O’Donnell does not explicitly disclose the moving target comprises a human, an animal, an object, a fluid, a human activity, a human gesture, a human vital sign or an animal vital sign. However, Tan, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the moving target comprises a human, an animal, an object, a fluid, a human activity, a human gesture, a human vital sign or an animal vital sign (See at least Fig. 1, [0045] “determine more physical information, such as the position and movement of a target object in a particular location”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the microwave passive sensing system disclosed by Icove with the passive systems disclosed by O’Donnell with the doppler system disclosed by Tan. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system efficiency (See at least [0050] “The approach described herein also exploits the known structure of a WiFi 802.11 transmission signal (or other wireless digital communication protocol as appropriate) in order to improve the efficiency, and hence reduce the processing time, of the signal processing for the passive sensing.”).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Icove, in view of O’Donnell, in further view of Casucci (IT 102018000007522 B1), hereinafter Casucci.
Regarding claim 15, The combination of Icove and O’Donnell, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Icove and O’Donnell does not explicitly disclose the microwave passive sensor is tunable to different frequencies or scans a range of frequencies. However, Casucci, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the microwave passive sensor is tunable to different frequencies or scans a range of frequencies (See at least “said front end (110) being able to tune to any frequency in the band of interest”, “The unit will also be able, advantageously, to carry out frequency sweeps to cover - with adequate frequency resolution - the entire electromagnetic band of interest”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the microwave passive sensing system disclosed by Icove with the passive systems disclosed by O’Donnell with the tuning system disclosed by Casucci. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously enable versatility and reconfigurability (See at least “The processing unit constitutes the heart of the detection system and is designed according to the SDR (Software Designed Radio) model in order to guarantee maximum versatility and reconfigurability of the application.”).
Claims 16, 25, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Icove, in view of Oshima (US 20150355322 A1), hereinafter Oshima, in further view of Li.
Regarding claim 16, Icove as shown below, discloses passively detecting a movement of a target (See at least [0082] “the emitted energy of a human being or an automobile in the microwave regions of the electromagnetic spectrum can be detected using passive microwave detection by one or more antennae.” [0084] “passive microwave detection method in accordance with aspects described herein can rely upon the fact that thermal radiation from automobiles persons, or other moving or stationary bodies can generate a detectable signal in the microwave portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.”) comprising the following limitations:
providing a passive sensor comprising a microwave receiver (See at least Fig. 22, [0123] “a passive microwave receiver”), a low noise amplifier (See at least Fig. 22, Item 2220, [0123] “The input is provided to a +22 dB low noise amplifier LNA2 2220”), a mixer, and a baseband amplifier (See at least Fig. 22, Item 2230, [0123] “A 22 dB gain intermediate frequency amplifier 2230 amplifies the output of mixer 2225”),
receiving signals using the microwave receiver (See at least Fig. 22, [0123] “a passive microwave receiver”);
amplifying the received signals using the low noise amplifier coupled to the microwave receiver (See at least Fig. 22, Item 2220, [0123] “The input is provided to a +22 dB low noise amplifier LNA2 2220”);
Icove does not explicitly disclose wherein the passive sensor does not include an oscillator or signal source. However, O’Donnell, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses:
wherein the passive sensor does not include an oscillator or signal source (See at least [0044] “SAWR based sensors can thus be implemented that operate ‘passively’ in isolation without any active part, i.e. without any power supply or oscillators”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the microwave passive sensing system disclosed by Icove with the passive systems disclosed by O’Donnell. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously allow for robust and reliable measurement performance (See at least [0045] “Robust and reliable measurement performance is an important criterion for any wireless monitoring system. In a ‘passive’ wireless sensor measurement system the RF measurement chain must be designed to meet the challenges of the propagation environment.”).
Icove discloses a passive microwave sensor operating at microwave frequencies, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use additional passive technologies while operating in the microwave band. The combination of Icove and O’Donnell does not explicitly disclose separating the amplified received signals into a reflected signal from the target and a direct signal from an external microwave source. However, Oshima, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses:
separating the amplified received signals into a reflected signal from the target and a direct signal from an external microwave source (See at least Fig. 1, [0057] “each of the receivers 105 and 106 performs amplification of the received signal using an LNA (Low Noise Amplifier)”, [0038] “As the band dividers 103 and 104, parts which are called splitters, separators, antenna shared devices, etc. are generally used, and the band dividers divide the received signals on a predetermined frequency band by frequency band basis” See also [0040]-[0041] Oshima discloses using band divider to separate direct and reflected signals from a transmission source and performing amplification);
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the microwave passive sensing system disclosed by Icove with the passive systems disclosed by O’Donnell with the signal separation system disclosed by Oshima. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously provide improvement in detection and tracking performance (See at least [0004] “The existing radio source that serves as a radiation source in the passive radar has a plurality of frequency bands in many cases, and an improvement in the detection tracking performance can be provided by performing a coherent synthesis on the frequency bands.”).
The combination of Icove, O’Donnell, and Oshima does not explicitly disclose producing I/Q baseband signals from the reflected signal and the direct signal using a mixer; amplifying the I/Q baseband signals using a baseband amplifier; and detecting the movement of the target using the amplified I/Q baseband signals. However, Li, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses:
producing I/Q baseband signals from the reflected signal and the direct signal using the mixer (See at least Fig. 15, Items V.sub.I and V.sub.Q, 412, [0055] “a second amplifier 410 connected to the one or more receiver antennas 408, a signal mixer 412”, [0082] “The DC offset mainly comes from: 1) direct coupling from transmitter to receiver and the reflections from stationary objects around the patient”);
amplifying the I/Q baseband signals using the baseband amplifier (See at least Fig. 15, [0083] “The designed DC coupled radar sensor 122 eliminates the use of coupling capacitors by employing DC tuning architectures that not only allow the baseband amplifiers 414”); and
detecting the movement of the target using the amplified I/Q baseband signals (See at least Fig. 15, [0076] “The fine-tuning feature also allows the radar sensor to work with the largest dynamic range and be able to detect movement with stationary moment”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the microwave passive sensing system disclosed by Icove with the passive systems disclosed by O’Donnell with the signal separation system disclosed by Oshima with the detection system disclosed by Li. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously quickly process signals (See at least [0061] “The amplified baseband signals are sampled by NI USB6009 data acquisition module (DAQ) 416 and then fed into LabVIEW, running on an external computer 120, for real time signal processing.”).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Icove, O’Donnell, Oshima, and Li, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 16. The combination of Icove, O’Donnell Oshima does not explicitly disclose providing an analog to digital converter coupled to the baseband amplifier; and providing a processor or computer coupled to the analog to digital converter. However, Li, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
providing an analog to digital converter coupled to the baseband amplifier (See at least Fig. 6, Items 414, 416, 120, [0061] “The amplified baseband signals are sampled by NI USB6009 data acquisition module (DAQ) 416 and then fed into LabVIEW, running on an external computer 120” DAQ is disclosed as an ADC); and
providing a processor or computer coupled to the analog to digital converter (See at least Fig. 6, Items 414, 416, 120, [0061] “The amplified baseband signals are sampled by NI USB6009 data acquisition module (DAQ) 416 and then fed into LabVIEW, running on an external computer 120” DAQ is disclosed as an ADC).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the microwave passive sensing system disclosed by Icove with the passive systems disclosed by O’Donnell with the signal separation system disclosed by Oshima with the detection system disclosed by Li. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously quickly process signals (See at least [0061] “The amplified baseband signals are sampled by NI USB6009 data acquisition module (DAQ) 416 and then fed into LabVIEW, running on an external computer 120, for real time signal processing.”).
Regarding claim 28, The combination of Icove, O’Donnell, Oshima, and Li as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 16. Icove further discloses
(See at least [0082] “the emitted energy of a human being or an automobile in the microwave regions of the electromagnetic spectrum can be detected using passive microwave detection by one or more antennae.”)
The combination of Icove and O’Donnell does not explicitly disclose providing Doppler information of a moving target based on reflected signals from the moving target and direct-path signals from
providing Doppler information of a moving target based on reflected signals from the moving target and direct-path signals from (See at least [0156] “a passive radar device that can prevent an integration loss which is caused by a difference in the Doppler frequency between a plurality of frequency bands, and implements detection and tracking of a target” See also [0038], [0040]-[0041])
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the microwave passive sensing system disclosed by Icove with the passive systems disclosed by O’Donnell with the signal separation system disclosed by Oshima with the detection system disclosed by Li with the signal separation system disclosed by Oshima. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously provide improvement in detection and tracking performance (See at least [0004] “The existing radio source that serves as a radiation source in the passive radar has a plurality of frequency bands in many cases, and an improvement in the detection tracking performance can be provided by performing a coherent synthesis on the frequency bands.”).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Icove, in view of O’Donnell, in further view of Oshima, in further view of Li, in further view of Testi.
Regarding claim 17, The combination of Icove, O’Donnell, Oshima, and Li as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 16. The combination of Icove, O’Donnell, Oshima, and Li does not explicitly disclose the low noise amplifier comprises two cascaded low noise amplifiers. However, Testi, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the low noise amplifier comprises two cascaded low noise amplifiers (See at least Fig. 4A, Items 404, 406, [0106] “two LNA stages are shown cascaded together”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the microwave passive sensing system disclosed by Icove with the passive systems disclosed by O’Donnell with the signal separation system disclosed by Oshima with the detection system disclosed by Li with the LNA system disclosed by Testi. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce power, time, and space concerns while achieving a desired frequency response (See at least [0002] “Calibrating BPFs (or LNAs with BPF capability) to achieve a desired frequency response can consume power, time, and chip real estate. Reducing time in calibrating on-chip BPFs may be advantageous”).
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Icove, in view of O’Donnell, in further view of Oshima, in further view of Li, in further view of Brown, Jr..
Regarding claim 18, The combination of Icove, O’Donnell, Oshima, and Li as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 16. The combination of Icove, O’Donnell, and Oshima does not explicitly disclose the baseband amplifier is RF coupled to the mixer with a second capacitor. However, Li further discloses
the baseband amplifier is RF coupled to the mixer with a second capacitor (See at least Fig. 15, [0082] “capacitors 1506 have been commonly placed between the RF output and baseband amplifiers for AC coupling to remove the DC offset”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the microwave passive sensing system disclosed by Icove with the passive systems disclosed by O’Donnell with the signal separation system disclosed by Oshima with the detection system disclosed by Li. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously quickly process signals (See at least [0061] “The amplified baseband signals are sampled by NI USB6009 data acquisition module (DAQ) 416 and then fed into LabVIEW, running on an external computer 120, for real time signal processing.”).
The combination of Icove, O’Donnell, Oshima, and Li does not explicitly disclose the mixer is radio frequency (RF) coupled to the low noise amplifier with a first capacitor; and. However, Brown, Jr., in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the mixer is radio frequency (RF) coupled to the low noise amplifier with a first capacitor; and (See at least Fig. 3, Item 334, [0037] “coupling capacitors 334 may be electrically coupled between outputs of the LNA 332 and the inputs of the passive mixers 202A, 202B”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the microwave passive sensing system disclosed by Icove with the passive systems disclosed by O’Donnell with the signal separation system disclosed by Oshima with the detection system disclosed by Li with the capacitor system disclosed by Brown, Jr. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce distortion (See at least [0014] “canceling distortion (such as intermodulation distortion cancellation) may refer to eliminating the distortion or reducing the distortion”).
Regarding claim 20, The combination of Icove, O’Donnell, Oshima, and Li as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 16. The combination of Icove, O’Donnell, Oshima, and Li does not explicitly disclose the mixer comprises a passive quadrature mixer. However, Brown, Jr., in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the mixer comprises a passive quadrature mixer (See at least Fig. 3, Items 202A-202B, [0036] “in-phase passive mixer 202A and the quadrature passive mixer 202B”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the microwave passive sensing system disclosed by Icove with the passive systems disclosed by O’Donnell with the signal separation system disclosed by Oshima with the detection system disclosed by Li with the mixer system disclosed by Brown, Jr. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce distortion (See at least [0014] “the mixer may eliminate or reduce an interdependence between in-phase (I) and quadrature (Q) channels of the mixer, which may further enable a simplified calibration process of the receiver and, even more beneficial, an online calibration process. As used herein, canceling distortion (such as intermodulation distortion cancellation) may refer to eliminating the distortion or reducing the distortion”).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Icove, in view of O’Donnell, in further view of Oshima, in further view of Li, in further view of Liu.
Regarding claim 19, The combination of Icove, O’Donnell, Oshima, and Li as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 16. The combination of Icove, O’Donnell, Oshima, and Li does not explicitly disclose the mixer comprises a diode coupled to ground. However, Liu, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the mixer comprises a diode coupled to ground (See at least Figs. 1-2, “This embodiment provides a single-diode mixer circuit applied to Doppler microwave sensing module, comprising a first microstrip line M1, diode D1 and resistor R1, the resistor R1 of the output end is grounded”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the microwave passive sensing system disclosed by Icove with the passive systems disclosed by O’Donnell with the signal separation system disclosed by Oshima with the detection system disclosed by Li with the mixing diode grounding system disclosed by Liu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve adaptability and signal to noise ratio (See at least “the utility model (non-balance mixing circuit) can obtain better signal to noise ratio of the balanced mixing circuit by means of their own features. At the same time, the utility model further improves the how the single-diode mixer circuit applied to microwave induction module for the adaptability of the design”).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Icove, in view of O’Donnell, in further view of Oshima, in further view of Li, in further view of Luff.
Regarding claim 21, The combination of Icove, O’Donnell, Oshima, and Li as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 16. The combination of Icove, O’Donnell, Oshima, and Li does not explicitly disclose the mixer comprises: a first resistor coupled between a voltage source and a mixer output; an inductor coupled between the mixer output and a mixer input; and a diode coupled between the mixer input and a ground. However, Luff, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the mixer comprises: a first resistor coupled between a voltage source and a mixer output (See at least Fig. 4, Items R2, quadrature mixer 70, Page 7 Lines 15-16 “The second terminal of the load resistor R2 is coupled to a voltage source V.sub.cc”);
an inductor coupled between the mixer output and a mixer input (See at least Fig. 4, Item L3, Page 8 Line 17 “the inductor L3 is coupled to the RF signal input”); and
a diode coupled between the mixer input and a ground (See at least Fig. 6, Item Q1, Page 10 Lines 34-35 “The cathode of the first diode-connected transistor Ql is coupled to ground”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the microwave passive sensing system disclosed by Icove with the passive systems disclosed by O’Donnell with the signal separation system disclosed by Oshima with the detection system disclosed by Li with the mixer system disclosed by Luff. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve mixer performance (See at least Page 4 Lines 1-2 “The combination of all embodiments described results in a mixer performance significantly higher than the well known”).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Icove, in view of O’Donnell, in further view of Oshima, in further view of Li, in further view of Ze.
Regarding claim 22, The combination of Icove, O’Donnell, Oshima, and Li as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 16. Icove further discloses
a mixer output (See at least Fig. 22, Item 2225, [0123] “The filtered signal is mixed at mixer 2225 to bring the input signal down to intermediate frequency”);
The combination of Icove, O’Donnell, Oshima, and Li does not explicitly disclose the baseband amplifier comprises: a second resistor coupled between a voltage source and a negative input of an amplifier; a third resistor and a fourth capacitor connected in parallel between the negative input of the amplifier and a ground; a fourth resistor coupled between a mixer output and a positive input of the amplifier; and a fifth resistor and a third capacitor connected in parallel between the positive input of the amplifier and an output of the amplifier. However, Ze, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the baseband amplifier comprises: a second resistor coupled between a voltage source and a negative input of an amplifier (See at least Fig. 3, Item R4, [0018] “the resistor R4 has one end connected to the negative baseband voltage signal BB_INN”);
a third resistor and a fourth capacitor connected in parallel between the negative input of the amplifier and a ground (See at least Fig. 3, Items C4, R6, C3, [0018] “capacitor C3 which has its other end connected to ground”);
a fourth resistor coupled between a (See at least Fig. 3, Item R1); and
a fifth resistor and a third capacitor connected in parallel between the positive input of the amplifier and an output of the amplifier (See at least Fig. 3, Items C2, R3, [0018] “the capacitor C2 which has its other end connected to a first output end of the operational amplifier circuit 303 (LPF_OUTN)”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the microwave passive sensing system disclosed by Icove with the passive systems disclosed by O’Donnell with the signal separation system disclosed by Oshima with the detection system disclosed by Li with the amplification system disclosed by Ze. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously ensure high linearity while reducing chip area, thereby increasing efficiency (See at least [0011] “thus ensuring the high linearity of the up-conversion mixer while reducing the chip area and the current”).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Icove, in view of O’Donnell, in further view of Oshima, in further view of Li, in further view of Pezo, in further view of Chi.
Regarding claim 23, The combination of Icove, O’Donnell, Oshima, and Li as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 16. The combination of Icove, O’Donnell, Oshima, and Li does not explicitly disclose the amplified received signals are further amplified by a gain block amplifier coupled to the low noise amplifier; and t
the amplified received signals are further amplified by a gain block amplifier coupled to the low noise amplifier (See at least Fig. 1, Items 114, 108, [0093] “the amplifier 114 is implemented as a gain block”, [0086] “a low-noise amplifier (LNA) 108”); and
t(See at least Fig. 1, Item 114, [0093] “the amplifier 114 is implemented as a gain block”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the microwave passive sensing system disclosed by Icove with the passive systems disclosed by O’Donnell with the signal separation system disclosed by Oshima with the detection system disclosed by Li with the gain block system disclosed by Pezo One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously achieve an increased compression point (See at least [0100] “In preferred embodiments, the amplifier 208 is implemented as a high-linearity gain block, which unlike the LNA 108, is able to provide signal amplification with an increased compression point”).
The combination of Icove, O’Donnell, Oshima, Li and Pezo does not explicitly disclose the amplified received signals are separated by a power divider coupled between the
the amplified received signals are separated by a power divider coupled between the (See at least Fig. 4, Items 414, 406, 322, [0036] “The RF frontend IC device 400 further includes a down-converter 402 coupled to each of the transceivers 301 via power combiner/divider 406”, [0041] “Each of receivers 304 may further include a variable gain amplifier (e.g., variable gain amplifiers 414A-414B, collectively referred to as variable gain amplifier(s) 414”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the microwave passive sensing system disclosed by Icove with the passive systems disclosed by O’Donnell with the signal separation system disclosed by Oshima with the detection system disclosed by Li with the gain block system disclosed by Pezo with the power divider system disclosed by Chi. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to efficiently provide wireless reception and processing and compensation (See at least [0002], [0040]-[0041]).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Icove, in view of O’Donnell, in further view of Oshima, in further view of Li, in further view of Casucci.
Regarding claim 30, The combination of Icove, O’Donnell, Oshima, and Li as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 16. The combination of Icove, O’Donnell, Oshima, and Li does not explicitly disclose tuning the microwave passive sensor to different frequencies or scanning a range of frequencies. However, Casucci, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
tuning the microwave passive sensor to different frequencies or scanning a range of frequencies (See at least “said front end (110) being able to tune to any frequency in the band of interest”, “The unit will also be able, advantageously, to carry out frequency sweeps to cover - with adequate frequency resolution - the entire electromagnetic band of interest”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the microwave passive sensing system disclosed by Icove with the passive systems disclosed by O’Donnell with the signal separation system disclosed by Oshima with the detection system disclosed by Li with the tuning system disclosed by Casucci. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously enable versatility and reconfigurability (See at least “The processing unit constitutes the heart of the detection system and is designed according to the SDR (Software Designed Radio) model in order to guarantee maximum versatility and reconfigurability of the 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH W GOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-4186. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:30 am - 5:00 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, Resha H Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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.
/KENNETH W GOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights