CTNF 18/787,260 CTNF 100356 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 10 is 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 10 recites, The radar front-end as claimed in claim 1, wherein [First alternative coupler configuration to a rat-race coupler]. It is unclear as to what is meant by “first alternative coupler configuration to a rat-race coupler.” Claim 10 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are the particular coupler configurations that make up the “first alternative coupler configuration to a rat-race coupler.” Claim 10 is indefinite and incomplete to such an extent as to preclude comparison to prior art, and thus will not be addressed with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103 below. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-2, 7, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Algeo (U.S. Pat. No. 3434139) . Regarding claim 1, Algeo teaches, A radar front-end (abs., “A dual plane frequency-scanning, dual plane mono- pulse antenna”) comprising: an array of antennas (fig. 2, antennas 10a-10f) , each antenna being coupled to first input of a respective one of a plurality of directional couplers (fig. 2, each antenna is connected to a directional coupler 25’) , and comprising an end antenna coupled to a first input of a first directional coupler (fig. 2, antenna 10a is coupled to first directional coupler 25) ; the first directional coupler having an output configured to be coupled to a receiver unit (fig. 2, first directional coupler 25’ is connected to receive unit via ∆,∑. See also col. 5, lines 24-68, “Such monopulse signals may then be processed in accordance with well known monopulse receiver techniques to provide a normalized monopulse difference signal having a sense and amplitude of the direction of the detected target relative to the boresight direction 34 of the combined beam pattern (A-{-B) formed by the two beams A and B, as described more fully at page 57 of "Introduction to Monopulse" by Rhodes, published by McGraw- Hill (1959). Because the direction of the boresight axis (within the scanning plane) is indicated by the transmitted frequency, and the direction of the target relative to the boresight axis (as 'projected into the scanning plane) is indicated by the normalized monopulse difference receiver signal, the direction of the target lying within the beam- width of a directionally scanned beam pattern is precisely determined.”) ; a remainder of the directional couplers each having an output coupled to an input of a respective delay line (fig. 2, each of the remainder of the directional couplers 25 connects to a delay line section 21A. The examiner notes that cl. 1 indicates that feed line 21A is a delay line, “at least a pair of bifilar-wound helix delay lines , each connected in microwave circuit at regular intervals to a successive one of said linear arrays”) ; wherein an output of each delay line is coupled to a second input of a respective neighboring directional coupler (fig. 2, output of delay line sections of 21A connect to a neighboring directional coupler 25) . Regarding claim 2, Algeo teaches The radar front-end as claimed in claim 1, wherein the radar front-end is configured to couple a respective reflected radar pulse received at each of the array of antennas sequentially to the receiver unit (fig. 2, signal received at antenna 10b travels farther down delay line 25 and thus takes longer to travel to receiver unit connected to coupler 26 via pathways ∆ and ∑ than the signal received at antenna 10a) . Regarding claim 7, Algeo teaches, The radar front-end as claimed in claim 1, wherein the array of antennas is a linear array (fig. 2, fig, 5 both show linear arrays) . Regarding claim 11, Algeo teaches The radar front-end as claimed in claim 1, wherein the antennas of the array are equally spaced apart (col. 4, lines 2-5, “A fixed lineal spacing is employed between successive elements of the array of radiating elements 10”) , and the delay lines are configured to provide equal propagation delays (col. 5, lines 49-58, “…feedline 21A of FIG. 2 has been described as providing a uniform phase spacing between adjacent ones of successive elements of array 10”) . Regarding claim 12, Algeo teaches, The radar front-end as claimed in claim 7, further comprising a transmit antenna, wherein the transmit antenna is aligned to the linear array of antennas to form an extended array (col. 4, lines 31-39, “Hence, a selected transmitter frequency corresponds to a given (azimuth) direction for the antenna of FIG. 1; and azimuth scanning of the antenna can be achieved by simply progressively changing, or programming, the transmitter frequency.” The examiner notes that the array of Algeo is used for both reception and transmission, and further notes that the invention as claimed does not preclude the use of the same antennas for both reception and transmission) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Algeo in view of Wolff (Wolff, Christian. “Waves and Frequency Ranges” (01 March 2021). RadarTutorial. https://www.radartutorial.eu/07.waves/Waves%20and%20Frequency%20Ranges.en.html. Accessed via Wayback Machine), hereinafter “Frequency Ranges” . Regarding claim 3, Algeo teaches the radar front-end as claimed in claim 1. Algeo does not teach, wherein the antennas are configured to receive a radar signal having a carrier frequency in a range of 10 GHz to 100 GHz. “Frequency Ranges” teaches that 10 GHz-100 GHz is a standard range for many radar applications, as evidenced by fig. 2, reproduced below. The examiner notes that the use cases circled in green represent use cases within the 10-100 GHz range PNG media_image1.png 730 608 media_image1.png Greyscale Algeo and “Frequency Ranges” are both analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the radar front-end of Algeo for applications with a carrier frequency of 10-100 GHz. Algeo is silent as to the particular carrier frequencies appropriate for use with the taught radar front-end. However, Algeo suggests that the front-end can be modified to fit the appropriate radio frequency and indicates that it can be used at a microwave frequency, which commonly covers the 1-100 GHz band (see, e.g., Algeo, col. 4, lines 5-15). As evidenced by “Frequency Ranges,” many common radar applications, including automotive radar, battlefield radar, and airborne radar, work in the 10-100 GHz range. Therefore, the radar front-end of Algeo can be adapted by a person of ordinary skill in the art for use in the 10-100 GHz frequency band with predictable results . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Algeo in view of “Frequency Ranges,” and further in view of Wolff (Wolff, Christian. “Pulse Radar” (02 March 2021). RadarTutorial. https://www.radartutorial.eu/02.basics/Pulse%20Radar.en.html#:~:text=In%20contrast%20to%20the%20continuous,accuracy%20of%20the%20pulse%20radar. Accessed via Wayback Machine), hereinafter “Pulse Radar” . Regarding claim 5, Algeo in view of “Frequency Ranges” teaches the radar front-end as claimed in claim 3. Algeo further teaches that the radar front-end is for use in monopulse radar (abs.) . However, Algeo in view of “Frequency Ranges” does not teach, where the reflected radar pulse has a duration in a range between 10 μs and 1 ms “Pulse Radar” teaches, where the reflected radar pulse has a duration in a range between 10 μs and 1 ms (section entitled, “Pulse Radar”, “Pulse radar emits short and powerful pulses and in the silent period receives the echo signals. In contrast to the continuous wave radar, the transmitter is turned off before the measurement is finished. This method is characterized by radar pulse modulation with very short transmission pulses (typically transmit pulse durations of τ ≈ 0.1 … 1 µs). Between the transmit pulses are very large pulse pauses Τ >> τ, which are referred to as the receiving time (typically Τ ≈ 1 ms) as shown in Figure 2.” See also the section titled “Echo Signal”, “The pulse duration of the echo signal is not constant. The duration of the reflected pulse can be considerably stretched by interference from reflections at areas with slightly different distances (and following different run times).”) . “Pulse Radar” is analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the radar front-end of Algeo with reflected pulses of duration between 10 μs and 1 ms. As evidenced by “Pulse Radar,” the typical time between monopulse transmissions is 1 ms to account for pulse duration stretching. This interpulse time would enable a typical monopulse radar to receive reflected radar pulses with a duration between 10 μs and 1 ms. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to design an interpulse time for the radar of Algeo that is long enough to “listen” for echoes with a duration of 10 μs and 1 ms . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Algeo in view of Wikipedia (“Rat Race Coupler” (16 April 2023). Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat-race_coupler) . Regarding claim 8, Algeo teaches the radar front-end as claimed in claim 1. Algeo does not teach, …wherein the plurality of directional couplers is a plurality of rat-race couplers. Specifically, the taught directional couplers of Algeo are magic tee couplers (see col. 5, lines 3-6) Wikipedia teaches, …wherein the plurality of directional couplers is a plurality of rat-race couplers (para. 1, “A rat-race coupler, also known as a hybrid ring coupler, is a type of coupler used in RF and microwave systems. In its simplest form, it is a 3 dB coupler and is thus an alternative to a magic tee. Compared to the magic tee, it has the advantage of being easy to realize in planar technologies such as microstrip and stripline, although waveguide rat races are also practical. Unlike magic tees, a rat-race needs no matching structure to achieve correct operation.”) . Wikipedia is analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the magic tee couplers of Algeo with the rat-race coupler of Wikipedia because the rat-race coupler is easier to realize in microstrip and stripline technologies without the need for a matching structure. Regarding claim 9, Algeo teaches the radar front-end as claimed in claim 2. Algeo further teaches (note: what Algeo does not teach is struck through), …wherein the first input of each directional coupler is a respective rat-race first input, the second input of each directional coupler is a respective rat-race second input, and the output of each directional coupler is a respective rat-race sigma output (col. 5, lines 24-31, “The relative beam patterns being the same for both reception and transmission, echoes of the transmitted signals, received from a radar target by the arrangement of FIG. 2, may be additively and subtractively combined by means of folded magic tee 26, to provide a monopulse sum and difference pattern”) Wikipedia teaches, …wherein the first input of each directional coupler is a respective rat-race first input, the second input of each directional coupler is a respective rat-race second input, and the output of each directional coupler is a respective rat-race sigma output (fig. 2, inputs 1 and 2 and sigma output. See also para. 4, “Rat-race couplers are used to sum two in-phase combined signals with essentially no loss or to equally split an input signal with no resultant phase difference between its outputs.”) . Wikipedia is analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the magic tee couplers of Algeo with the rat-race coupler of Wikipedia because the rat-race coupler is easier to realize in microstrip and stripline technologies without the need for a matching structure. Otherwise, the magic tee coupler of Algeo performs the same operation as the claimed invention, thus making the effect of substituting of the rat-race coupler for the magic tee coupler predictable . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Algeo . Regarding claim 14, Algeo teaches he radar front-end as claimed in claim 1. Algeo does not explicitly teach, …further comprising the receiver unit. However, Algeo teaches that the radar front-end response is processed using “monopulse receiving techniques” (col. 3, lines 7-29,“Similarly, the antenna pattern response of one of the feedlines to radar echoes received from a detected target, will demonstrate an amplitude sensitive directivity which is angularly squinted relative to that of the other feedline, whereby monopulse receiving techniques may be employed.”) . A typical monopulse radar uses a receiver unit for processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further connect the radar front-end of Algeo with a standard radar receiver unit . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Algeo in view of Lakin (U.S. Pat. No. 4271707) . Regarding claim 15, Algeo teaches (note: what Algeo does not teach is struck through), A method comprising: transmitting a radar signal comprising a plurality of periodic pulses having a first duration from a transmit antenna ( abs. “A dual plane frequency-scanning, dual plane mono- pulse antenna”) ; receiving, at a first receive antenna, a reflection of a pulse transmitted from the transmit antenna as a first-antenna reflected pulse (col. 5, lines 24-31, “The relative beam patterns being the same for both reception and transmission, echoes of the transmitted signals, .received from a radar target by the arrangement of FIG. 2, may be additively and subtractively combined by means of folded magic tee 26, to provide a monopulse sum and difference pattern”) ; transmitting the first-antenna reflected pulse to the receiver unit by means of a signal line (fig. 2, delay line 21A transmits signal from antenna 10a to receiver unit via ∑,∆ lines) ; receiving, at a second receiver antenna, a reflection of the pulse transmitted from the transmit antenna as a second-antenna reflected pulse (fig. 2, antenna 10b) ; coupling the second antenna reflected pulse to a start of a delay line; coupling the second antenna reflected pulse at an end of the delay line to the signal line by means of a directional coupler (fig. 2, delay line 21a couples pulse from 10b to directional coupler 25 directly below antenna 10a) ; and transmitting the second-antenna reflected pulse to the receiver unit subsequent to , and nonoverlapping with, the first-antenna reflected pulse (fig. 2, signal received at antenna 10b travels farther down delay line 25 and thus takes longer to travel to receiver unit connected to coupler 26 via pathways ∆ and ∑ than the signal received at antenna 10a) . Lakin teaches, transmitting the second-antenna reflected pulse to the receiver unit subsequent to, and nonoverlapping with, the first-antenna reflected pulse (col 4, lines 34-38, “Thus, the encoding and decoding system of the present system was devised as an improved means of delaying and correlating the N signals. Return signals from the pulser/receivers 7 enter encoders 17 which are further shown in FIG. 4.” The examiner notes that the output line 33 of is understood as including the delayed signals, since receive signals leaving the encoder 17 go through the down-chirp unit 32 to a further digital receiver, since the down-chirp line 32, “handles and brings together all the analog return signals.”) . Lakin is analogous to the claimed invention because it is in a related field of endeavor and is reasonably pertinent to the problem solved by the invention, namely, signal disambiguation. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Algeo with the encoder of Lakin because the encoder of Lakin enables pulse disambiguation, thus improving the accuracy of the final readings. Regarding claim 16, Algeo in view of Lakin teaches the method according to claim 15. Claim 16 is otherwise rejected for the same reasons and using the same citations as claim 2. Regarding claim 17, Algeo in view of Lakin teaches the method according to claim 16. Claim 17 is otherwise rejected for the same reasons and using the same citations as claim 7 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Algeo in view of Lakin and further in view of “Pulse Radar” . Regarding claim 19, Algeo in view of Lakin teaches the method according to claim 16. With the exception of the citations depending on their differing dependency, claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons and using the same citations as claim 5 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Algeo in view of Lakin and further in view of Szczepaniaka et al. (Szczepaniaka, Z. et al. “Microwave delay lines for analogue signal correlation” (2019). Radioelectronic Systems Conference. SPIE Vol. 11442. PDF), hereinafter Szczepaniaka . Regarding claim 20, Algeo in view of Lakin teaches the method according to claim 15. Algeo in view of Lakin does not teach, …wherein the delay line introduces a delay between 10 μs and 1 ms. Szczepaniaka teaches, …wherein the delay line introduces a delay between 10 μs and 1 ms (p. 3, para. 3, “Another, similar technology is bulk acoustic wave (BAW) that uses mechanical waves excited to propagate through whole volume of prepared material. This allows realizing greater delays compared to SAW devices, ranging from few hundreds of nanoseconds to several thousand microseconds”). Szczepaniaka is analogous to the claimed invention because it is in a related field of endeavor, specifically, delay lines, and is reasonably pertinent to the problem solved by the invention because the invention uses delay lines to achieve disambiguation. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Algeo with the bulk acoustic wave delay line of Szczepaniaka because the bulk acoustic wave delay line is capable of introducing a wide range of delays. See Szczepaniaka, p. 3, para. 3 . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 4, 6, 13, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 4, Algeo teaches the radar front-end as claimed in claim 2. However, Algeo does not teach, …wherein each of the array of antennas receives a reflected radar pulse wherein the reflected radar pulses overlap in time, and wherein the delay lines delay the reflected radar pulses such that at the output of the first directional coupler they do not overlap in time. Lakin (U.S. Pat. No. 4271707) teaches an ultrasonic phased array in which signals overlap in time. However, Lakin teaches against using delay lines to delay the reflected ultrasound pulses to enable differentiation of said overlapped signals due to the expense (col. 4,lines 28-38, “Since these signals overlap somewhat in time they cannot be put into one single delay line, and N programmable delay lines for an N-transducer array is very costly.”) . Therefore, using delay lines of Algeo to effect the signal disambiguation of the claimed invention would not be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the combination of limitations comprising claim 4 is novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record. Claim 6 is allowable because it depends upon, and thus includes all the limitations of, claim 4. Regarding claim 13, Algeo teaches (note: what Algeo does not teach is struck through), The radar front-end as claimed in claim 12 wherein the transmit antenna is configured to transmit a radar chirp (“Hence, a selected transmitter frequency corresponds to a given (azimuth) direction for the antenna of FIG. 1; and azimuth scanning of the antenna can be achieved by simply progressively changing, or programming, the transmitter frequency.”) , each antenna of the array of antennas is arranged to receive a respective reflection of the radar chirp from a target (“The relative beam patterns being the same for both reception and transmission, echoes of the transmitted signals, .received from a radar target by the arrangement of FIG. 2, may be additively and subtractively combined by means of folded magic tee 26, to provide a monopulse sum and difference pattern”) , and the delays lines are configured to couple the reflections to the receiver unit such that they are non-overlapping in time . Lakin (U.S. Pat. No. 4271707) teaches an ultrasonic phased array in which signals overlap in time. However, Lakin teaches against using delay lines to delay the reflected ultrasound pulses to enable differentiation of said overlapped signals due to the expense (col. 4,lines 28-38, “Since these signals overlap somewhat in time they cannot be put into one single delay line, and N programmable delay lines for an N-transducer array is very costly.”) . Therefore, using delay lines of Algeo to effect the signal disambiguation of the claimed invention would not be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the combination of limitations comprising claim 13 is novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record. Claim 18 is allowable for the same reasons and using the same citations as claim 4, above . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Yasuji (JP 58103206) teaches a radar front-end using a series of delay lines and couplers. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anna K Gosling whose telephone number is (571)272-0401. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:30-4:30 Eastern, Friday, 10:00-2:00 Eastern. 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. /Anna K. Gosling/Examiner, Art Unit 3648 /VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/787,260 Page 2 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/787,260 Page 3 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/787,260 Page 4 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/787,260 Page 5 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/787,260 Page 6 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/787,260 Page 7 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/787,260 Page 8 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/787,260 Page 9 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/787,260 Page 10 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/787,260 Page 11 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/787,260 Page 12 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/787,260 Page 13 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/787,260 Page 14 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/787,260 Page 15 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/787,260 Page 16 Art Unit: 3648
