DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 USC 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.
Drawing Objections
The drawings are objected as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84 because:
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Note that if the color drawings are replaced by black-and-white drawings, ¶39 of the specification would been to be amended.
Specification Objections
The disclosure is objected to under 37 CFR 1.71(a) because of the following informalities:
In ¶6, line 6, "exiting" should be replaced by --existing--.
In ¶6, line 10, "altogether" should be replaced by --all together--.
In ¶40, line 3, "4101" should be replaced by --410--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 11 is/are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 because of the following informalities:
In line 6, "bandpass processor" should be replaced by --baseband processor--. See Fig. 10 and ¶62.
In line 8, "bandpass processor" should be replaced by --baseband processor--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazaheri (mmTag: A Millimeter Wave Backscatter Network) in view of Mazaheri (A Millimeter Wave Network for Billions of Things).
Mazaheri (mmTag) discloses a millimeter wave (mmWave) backscatter network access point (AP) (mmWave AP, Fig. 2; section 3) comprising:
a waveform generator configured to generate a transmit signal;
a transmit antenna (section 3, ¶1; section 4, ¶1-2);
a first receive antenna (section 3, ¶1; section 4, ¶1-2); and
a second receive antenna (section 3, ¶1; section 4, ¶1-2).
Mazaheri (mmTag) fails to disclose the first receive antenna connected to a first low noise amplifier (LNA), which is connected to a first mixer, which is connected to a first band pass filter (BPF), which is connected to a bandpass processor; and the second receive antenna connected to a second LNA, which is connected to a second mixer, which is connected to a second BPF, which is connected to the bandpass processor.
a second receive antenna connected to a second LNA, which is connected to a second mixer, which is connected to a second BPF, which is connected to the bandpass processor.
Mazaheri (Billions) teaches an AP with a receive antenna for a mmWave node connected to a LNA (LNA, Fig. 3b), which is connected to a mixer (Mixer, Fig. 3b), which is connected to a BPF (Filter, Fig. 3b), which is connected to a baseband processor (Baseband Processor, Fig. 3b) [where the claim does not require direction connection].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to implement the details of the AP in Mazaheri (mmTag).
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the AP in Mazaheri (mmTag) is implemented.
In the combination, the first receive antenna is connected to a first low noise amplifier (LNA), which is connected to a first mixer, which is connected to a first band pass filter (BPF), which is connected to a bandpass processor; and the second receive antenna is connected to a second LNA, which is connected to a second mixer, which is connected to a second BPF, which is connected to the bandpass processor.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazaheri (mmTag: A Millimeter Wave Backscatter Network) in view of Neophytou (Simultaneous User Localization and Identification Using Leaky-Wave Antennas and Backscattering Communications).
Mazaheri (mmTag) discloses:
a node (Node, Fig. 2) and an access point (mmWave AP, Fig. 2) in a mmWave backscatter network (Fig. 2; section 3);
transmitting a signal from an access point (AP) to a node Fig. 2);
receiving a signal reflected back from the node to the AP (Fig. 2; section 3);
extracting a reflected signal from the received signal (Fig. 2; section 3)[; and
where communication data rate is a function of distance (Fig. 13)].
Mazaheri (mmTag) fails to disclose the signal includes a chirp signal; and estimating time-of-flight and distance from the node to the AP using the extracted signal.
Neophytou teaches transmitting a signal includes a chirp signal (p. 37099, section III, ¶1; chirp illustrated to far left, Fig. 7); and
estimating time-of-flight and distance from the node using an extracted reflected signal (p. 37099, section III, ¶1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to determine the communication data rate that the AP can use when communicating with the node.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the appropriate data rate is used by the AP in communicating with the node.
The following reference(s) is/are also found relevant:
Soltanaghaei (Millimetro: mmWave Retro-Reflective Tags for Accurate, Long Range Localization), which discloses a mmWave backscatter network using chirps for distance finding (Fig. 4; section 3, ¶1; section 3, final ¶).
Adib (3D Tracking via Body Radio Reflections), teaches transmitting a signal includes a chirp signal Fig. 2); and estimating time-of-flight and distance from the node using an extracted reflected signal (section 3.1; equations (1) and (4)).
Younis (US 2016/0054440 A1), which teaches that a frequency scanned retro-directive reflector and an unscanned retro-reflective radar reflectors are known alternatives (¶31; ¶33), where a frequency scanned retro-directive reflector can be a frequency scanned antenna (¶89), where the reflector may have multiple antennas (Fig. 9; ¶181).
Applicant is encouraged to consider these documents in formulating their response (if one is required) to this Office Action, in order to expedite prosecution of this application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-10 and 13-14 is/are allowed.
Reasons for Allowance/Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance/allowable subject matter:
The references cited, alone or in combination, do not teach or make obvious the following limitation(s):
quoted from claim 1, in combination with the claim as a whole:
"measure strength and determine frequency of a received signal that is received by a first port of the FSA".
quoted from claim 13, in combination with the claim as a whole:
"determining orientation of the node with respect to the AP based upon the identified frequencies".
quoted from claim 14, in combination with the claim as a whole:
"measuring a delay between times receiving the highest power within the received signal; and estimating orientation based on the delay".
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance".
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fred H. Mull whose telephone number is 571-272-6975. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from approximately 9-5:30 Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 https://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Resha 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.
Fred H. Mull
Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/F. H. M./
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights