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
Applicant is advised that should claim 7 be found allowable, claim 8 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claims 6, 14, 17, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 6, the spelling “localization” is used while “localisation" is used everywhere else in the claims. Spelling of claim terminology should be consistent throughout the claims.
In claim 14, the recitation “wherein raw data obtained from all the channels are in a frequency range between 60GHz to 81 GHz” has two different spacings between the numbers and the units. One spacing convention should be used throughout the claims to maximize consistency and grammatical comprehension. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 recites “wherein the system comprises a modular namely a handheld, a drone mounted, a crawler mounted, a robotic arm mounted or pipe mounted” which is objected to for non-standard punctuation and word choice/order.
Claim 19 recites “wherein the software subsystem configured for powerful data visualization, mapping and report generation with Al models running for predictive analysis” which is objected to for non-standard punctuation and word choice/order.
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.
Claim 6-7, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the signal processing subsystem configured to acquire the coordinate information from the localization subsystem residing in modality of deployment of the scanner” which is indefinite for two reasons. First, the meaning of the claim is unclear due to the non-standard grammar and verbiage. Second, “the coordinate information”, “the localization subsystem”, and “the scanner” all lack proper antecedent basis.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the signal processing subsystem employs a multiple input multiple output synthetic aperture radar (MIMO SAR) technique to exploit the availability of 24 channels in the scanner system” which is indefinite for two reasons. First, it is unclear if the recitation is a structural limitation, a functional limitation, or a method step of actually employing a MIMO SAR technique, due to the way that the recitation is written in active voice. Claims 8-13 are likewise rejected. Second, “24 channels” and “the scanner system” both lack proper antecedent basis.
Claim 14 recites “wherein raw data obtained from all the channels are in a frequency range between 60GHz to 81 GHz for the signal processing subsystem” which is indefinite for two reasons. First, the recitation describes the invention in terms of a particular user. Therefore, whether a device falls within the scope of the claim cannot be ascertained until a particular user engages the device. Consequently, the claim is indefinite. Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (BdPatApp & Inter 1989). Specifically, it is unknowable at what frequency the raw data will be obtained until it is actually obtained, particularly when there is no controlling for the frequency at which the radar signals transmitted and the velocity/position of the target. Second, there is no raw data that is necessarily obtained in the first place, since there is no actual transmission of radar signals (in an apparatus claim) and no target of said radar signals in the claims.
Claim 16 recites “the automated platform for inspection” which is indefinite for lack of proper antecedent basis.
Claim 16 recites “the system further comprises a localisation subsystem resided either in the system or in the automated platform for inspection” which is indefinite for two reasons. First, it is unclear what it means for the localisation subsystem to reside in the system. Does this mean that the localisation subsystem is a separate and discrete element of the image scanning system? Or is the localisation subsystem part of one of the previously claimed elements? Second, the recitation appears to contain a limitation of the automated platform which is either outside the scope of the invention, or else not clearly recited as an element of the invention. An element outside the scope of the invention cannot properly be limited by the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 –
(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.
(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.
Claims 1-2, 6, 9-10, 13-14, 16-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Trichopoulos et al. (US 2020/0163040 A1), hereinafter Trichopoulos.
Regarding claim 1, Trichopoulos discloses an image scanning system (abstract, regarding mapping and localization using image processing of wireless signals) comprising;
a RF subsystem (antenna array 12; fig. 1A) configured with multiple transceiver channels for transmitting and receiving electromagnetic waves in mmWave spectrum (para. [0037], regarding the antenna array 12 transmits and receives RF signals in the mmWave band, which may be defined as frequencies between 30 gigahertz (GHz) and 10 terahertz (THz));
an interface subsystem (network interface device 910; fig. 9);
a signal processing subsystem (processing device 902; fig. 9; see also paras. [0066-0067]) for producing high resolution holographic images based on backscattered wideband data (para. [0055], regarding holographic image reconstruction (e.g., a range migration algorithm (RMA) or other appropriate technique) is used for image reconstruction; see also para. [0039]); and
a software subsystem for 3D/2D visualisation and analysis (para. [0052], regarding the 3D image (e.g., map) of the environment 10 is combined with the estimated AoA and ToA to find the location of the antenna array 12 with respect to the environment 10).
Regarding claim 2, Trichopoulos discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the RF subsystem comprises a high-performance mmWave front-end with an integrated processor and a hardware accelerator (para. [0054], regarding the imaging system 14 is implemented as a monostatic SAR using two Vector Network Analyzer (VNA) extenders (TxRx and Rx) that are coupled to diagonal horn antennas; the extenders are mounted on a high precision motorized translation stage to scan a 13 centimeter (cm) long aperture; the imaging system 14 is computer controlled and records a scattering parameter S21 at 5,000 frequency points in the 220-330 GHz range to ensure unambiguous range imaging).
Regarding claim 6, Trichopoulos discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the signal processing subsystem (902) configured to acquire the coordinate information from the localization subsystem residing in modality of deployment of the scanner (as shown in figs. 8-9).
Regarding claim 9, Trichopoulos discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the signal processing subsystem utilizes a single input single output (SISO) technique that utilizes one transmit antenna element and one receive antenna element (Examiner notes that the mere intent to use a particular technique, including SISO, with the signal processing subsystem does not structurally distinguish the invention from the prior art, see MPEP §2114(II)).
Regarding claim 10, Trichopoulos discloses the invention in claim 9, and further discloses wherein each antenna element operates in a subset of the frequency range of 3GHz to 300GHz (para. [0037], regarding the antenna array 12 transmits and receives RF signals in the mmWave band, which may be defined as frequencies between 30 gigahertz (GHz) and 10 terahertz (THz)).
Regarding claim 13, Trichopoulos discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the signal processing subsystem employs a Chirp-Z-Transform (CZT) based mechanism to focus for 3D imaging (Examiner notes that the mere intent to use a particular mechanism, including a CZT based mechanism, to focus for 3D imaging does not structurally distinguish the invention from the prior art, see MPEP §2114(II)).
Regarding claim 14, Trichopoulos discloses the invention in claim 13, and further discloses wherein raw data obtained from all the channels are in a frequency range between 60GHz to 81 GHz for the signal processing subsystem (see again para. [0037]).
Regarding claim 16, Trichopoulos discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the system further comprises a localisation subsystem resided either in the system or in the automated platform for inspection (para. [0048], regarding leveraging knowledge of the geometry of the environment 10, the estimated AoA and ToA are projected on the acquired 3D image (e.g., map) to localize the wireless device 16).
Regarding claim 17, Trichopoulos discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the system comprises a modular namely a handheld, a drone mounted, a crawler mounted, a robotic arm mounted or pipe mounted (para. [0003], regarding simultaneous localisation and mapping (SLAM) is the ability of a system (such as a base station, a robot, or a mobile device) to identify its environment, create a three-dimensional map, and acquire a current position (e.g., the position of the robot or mobile device in the environment)).
Regarding claim 18, Trichopoulos discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the system further comprises an interface subsystem configured for interfacing various subsystems over various wired and wireless interfaces (para. [0069], regarding “The computer system 900 may further include a network interface device 910. The computer system 900 also may or may not include an input 912, configured to receive input and selections to be communicated to the computer system 900 when executing instructions. The input 912 may include, but not be limited to, a touch sensor (e.g., a touch display), an alphanumeric input device (e.g., a keyboard), and/or a cursor control device (e.g., a mouse)”).
Regarding claim 19, Trichopoulos discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the software subsystem configured for powerful data visualization, mapping and report generation with Al models running for predictive analysis (see again para. [0052]).
Regarding claim 20, Trichopoulos discloses a method for obtaining an image of an area under testing (abstract) using the system of claim 1 (per the rejection of claim 1 detailed hereinabove), the method comprising the steps of:
combining data from RF subsystem and a localisation subsystem by the signal processing subsystem to perform 3D image reconstruction algorithms and data interpretation schemes (see paras. [0039-0040]);
routing the data interpretation and reconstructed 3D image to a software subsystem Al-predictive analysis to visualise the image of area under testing (para. [0039], regarding other image reconstruction methods can be applied, including multistatic holography (or range migration method), compressive holography, machine learning, and beam scanning).
Regarding claim 22, Trichopoulos discloses a computer readable storage medium having stored thereon, computer readable instructions, when processed by a processor, cause a system to execute a method for obtaining an image of an area under testing using the system of claim 1, the method comprising the steps of:
combining data from RF subsystem and a localisation subsystem by the signal processing subsystem to perform 3D image reconstruction algorithms and data interpretation schemes;
routing the data interpretation and reconstructed 3D image to a software subsystem Al-predictive analysis to visualise the image of area under testing (claim 22 is substantially similar to claim 20 and is rejected on the basis of substantially similar reasoning).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
a) Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b) Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c) Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d) Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trichopoulos et al. (US 2020/0163040 A1), hereinafter Trichopoulos, in view of Servadei et al. (US 2022/0082654 A1), hereinafter Servadei.
Regarding claim 3, Trichopoulos discloses the invention in claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the transceiver channel is an integrated single-chip frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) radar sensor.
However, Servadei is in the field of radar interference mitigation (abstract) and teaches wherein the transceiver channel is an integrated single-chip frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) radar sensor (para. [0030], regarding millimeter-wave radar sensor 102 operates as a frequency-modulated continuous-wave (FMCW) radar sensor and transmits a plurality of TX radar signals 106; para. [0037], regarding millimeter-wave radar sensor 102 and a portion or all of processing system 104 may be implemented in the same monolithic semiconductor substrate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Trichopoulos such that the transceiver channel is an integrated single-chip frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) radar sensor as taught by Servadei, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure ease of manufacture and operation of the image scanning system.
Regarding claim 4, Trichopoulos as modified discloses the invention in claim 3, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the integrated single-chip provides 12 transceiver channels.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the invention such that the integrated single-chip provides 12 transceiver channels, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The purpose would be to ensure a sufficient number of channels for generating a clear image.
Claims 5, 7-8, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trichopoulos et al. (US 2020/0163040 A1), hereinafter Trichopoulos.
Regarding claim 5, Trichopoulos discloses the invention in claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the RF system comprises with four transceiver ICs (Integrated Circuits) with 48 channels in a particular configuration in space such that they are integrated to work together.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the invention such that the RF system comprises with four transceiver ICs (Integrated Circuits) with 48 channels in a particular configuration in space such that they are integrated to work together, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The purpose would be to ensure a sufficient number of ICs for generating a clear image.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Trichopoulos discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the signal processing subsystem employs a/the multiple input multiple output synthetic aperture radar (MIMO SAR) technique to exploit the availability of the channels in the scanner system (Examiner notes that the mere intent to use any particular technique with the signal processing subsystem, including MIMO SAR, does not structurally distinguish the invention from the prior art, see MPEP §2114(II)).
Trichopoulos does not appear to specifically disclose the scanner system comprising 24 channels.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the invention such that the scanner system comprises 24 channels, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The purpose would be to ensure a sufficient number of ICs for generating a clear image.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Trichopoulos discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the signal processing subsystem employs a Digital beamforming (DBF) + SAR technique with the channels in the scanner system (Examiner notes that the mere intent to employ any particular technique with the signal processing subsystem, including DBF + SAR, does not structurally distinguish the invention from the prior art, see MPEP §2114(II)).
Trichopoulos does not appear to specifically disclose the scanner system comprising 24 channels, or 48 channels.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the invention such that the scanner system comprises 24 channels, or 48 channels, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The purpose would be to ensure a sufficient number of ICs for generating a clear image.
Conclusion
The cited references made of record in the contemporaneously filed PTO-892 form and not relied upon in the instant office action are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and may have one or more of the elements in Applicant’s disclosure and at least claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADY W FRAZIER whose telephone number is (469)295-9263. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm CT.
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.
/BRADY W FRAZIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights