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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 1, 4, the acronyms “DF”, “EM”, “RF”, “AoA”, and “SNR” are used without first laying out what the acronyms stand for. The Examiner suggests to amend the claims to include what “DF”, “EM”, “RF”, “AoA”, and “SNR” stand for in the first instance of “DF”, “EM”, “RF”, “AoA”, and “SNR”.
Regarding claims 2-9, in line 1 of each claim – “A” needs to be changed to “The”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,153,149. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because even though there are variations in the wording of the claim, the differences in the claims would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Application 18/920,414
Claim 1. A DF system comprising:
an antenna system that senses EM waves;
a receiving system; and
an estimator system,
wherein the antenna system receives emissions from at least one RF emitter and outputs signals from a set of ports,
wherein the receiving system accepts the signals from the set of ports in the antenna system, and outputs a group of signals of interest, each signal of interest having a set of outputs corresponding to the antenna system's set of ports, to the estimator system,
wherein the estimator system accepts the set of signals output by the receiving system and generates an estimated AoA of the emissions.
Claim 8. A DF system as claimed in claim 1 wherein at least one of the receiving system and the estimator system is configured to pass signals of interest and reject other signals.
U.S. Patent No. 12,153,149
Claim 1. A DF system having an output, the DF system comprising:
an antenna system comprising at least two ports that sense emissions from an RF emitter;
a receiving system; and
an estimator system,
wherein the antenna system is configured to output a signal from each of its at least two ports and sense a combination of one or more E-field signals and one or more H-field signals from the RF emitter, in a common volume of space, the antenna system comprising M conductive pieces with N ports, each port having two terminals attached to different ones of the two or more conductive pieces, wherein each conductive piece attaches to a terminal from two or more ports, [and] wherein the volume of space enclosed by a current loop through the N ports and two conductive pieces, is in common with the volume of space holding an electric charge between the M conductive pieces, and wherein the estimator system comprises at least two parallel processors in parallel, and wherein each processor is tasked to run vectorized operations.
Claim 2. The DF system as claimed in claim 1 wherein the receiving system accepts signals from the N ports and outputs a group of signals of interest, each signal of interest having of a set of outputs corresponding to the antenna system's N ports, to the estimator system, at least one of the receiving system and the estimator system being configured to pass signals of interest and reject other signals.
Claim 5. The DF system as claimed in claim 2 wherein the estimator system is adapted to accept the group of signals of interest output by the receiving system and to have access to an array manifold for the signals it accepts, and is further adapted to generate an estimated angle-of-arrival (AoA) by finding, for each signal of interest in the group, at least one of the angle in the array manifold that has port voltages most closely matching, according to a matching metric, those from a signal of interest and an estimated range based on how the magnitude of the signal of interest changes, or how the estimated AoA changes, when the DF system and RF emitter move relative to each other over time.
Claim 2. The DF system as claimed in claim 1 wherein the receiving system accepts signals from the N ports and outputs a group of signals of interest, each signal of interest having of a set of outputs corresponding to the antenna system's N ports, to the estimator system, at least one of the receiving system and the estimator system being configured to pass signals of interest and reject other signals.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McCorkle (IDS reference – 2016/0146923).
PNG
media_image1.png
196
292
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
199
444
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
508
688
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, McCorkle discloses a DF system (Fig 1A and 1B above; [0051]; [0054]; [0233]) comprising:
an antenna system (i.e. antenna-system 101) that senses EM waves ([0047]; [0054]);
a receiving system (i.e. reads on isolation elements 103A of Fig 1A and 1B above; receivers 1310 of Fig 13 above) ([0151]); and
an estimator system (i.e. estimator element 103 or 103B of Fig 1A and 1B above; estimator module 103A of Fig 13 above) ([0056]; [0059]-[0060]; [0151]),
wherein the antenna system receives emissions from at least one RF emitter and outputs signals from a set of ports (i.e. signals-of-interest (SOI)), wherein the receiving system accepts the signals from the set of ports in the antenna system, and outputs a group of signals of interest, each signal of interest having a set of outputs corresponding to the antenna system's set of ports, to the estimator system (Abstract; [0048]; [0051]-[0059]; [0153]-[0160]; [0214]), wherein the estimator system accepts the set of signals output by the receiving system and generates an estimated AoA of the emissions ([0156]-[0158]; [0161]).
While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
The statements of intended use or field of use (i.e. that senses, receives, accepts, outputs, generates) are essentially method limitations or statements of intended or desired use. Thus, these claims as well as other statements of intended use do not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference. See In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641; In re Yanush, 177 USPQ 705; In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530; In re Casey, 512 USPQ 235; In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458; Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2nd 1647.
See MPEP § 2114 which states:
A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2nd 1647
Claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than functions. In re Danly, 120 USPQ 528, 531.
Apparatus claims cover what a device is not what a device does. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528.
As set forth in MPEP § 2115, a recitation in a claim to the material or article worked upon does not serve to limit an apparatus claim.
Applicant is suggested to amend the claims with language such as “configured for”, “configured to”, “arranged to” for positively reciting the claimed invention and for distinguishing the claimed invention from the prior art in term of structure. However, such amendment to claims, if overcoming the prior arts, would require further consideration and/or search from the Examiner in order to determine the patentability of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 2-6, McCorkle discloses the estimator system capable of performing the functions as claimed ([0056]; [0059]-[0060]; [0151]; [0156]-[0158]; [0161]).
The statements of intended use or field of use (i.e. claim 2 – receives, that covers) and the “adapted to” clauses (i.e. claims 3-6) are essentially method limitations or statements of intended or desired use. Thus, these claims as well as other statements of intended use do not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference. See In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641; In re Yanush, 177 USPQ 705; In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530; In re Casey, 512 USPQ 235; In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458; Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2nd 1647.
See MPEP § 2114 which states:
A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2nd 1647
Claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than functions. In re Danly, 120 USPQ 528, 531.
Apparatus claims cover what a device is not what a device does. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528.
As set forth in MPEP § 2115, a recitation in a claim to the material or article worked upon does not serve to limit an apparatus claim.
Applicant is suggested to amend the claims with language such as “configured for”, “configured to”, “arranged to” for positively reciting the claimed invention and for distinguishing the claimed invention from the prior art in term of structure. However, such amendment to claims, if overcoming the prior arts, would require further consideration and/or search from the Examiner in order to determine the patentability of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, McCorkle discloses at least one of the receiving system and the estimator system is configured to pass signals of interest and reject other signals (Abstract; [0051]-[0059]; [0153]-[0160]).
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 9 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.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 12,062,838 discloses a multiport antenna in which the antenna conductive elements are arranged to form an at least partially enclosed volume which can accommodate an enclosure containing one or more electronic components, or optical components, or optoelectronic components, or a combination of these. The enclosure may also be provided with a conductive transparent window which permits optical components to receive and/or send optical information.
US 2025/0044396 discloses a multi-port antenna and associated systems having extremely wide bandwidth and capable of maintaining directivity as frequency decreases and is made arbitrarily low, allowing DF systems to operate to arbitrarily low frequency regardless of size. Construction may be rugged, lightweight, and low cost, allowing reliable service in harsh environments. The systems allow utilization of both the E and H fields occupying a common area of space. The disclosed DF system takes advantage of knowledge of the as-installed array manifold, uses pattern matching to determine the angle of arrival (AoA) of incoming waves, and enhances sensitivity by using integration on cross-correlation products between the multiple ports to achieve SNR improvement.
US 10,288,715 discloses a direction finding system and technique includes receiving signals at an array antenna and capturing data with a plurality of groups of subarrays. Each group of subarrays may capture data during a selected one of a plurality of different dwell times. The method further includes generating a plurality of dwell spatial sample covariance matrices (SCMs) using data corresponding to one or more of the plurality of groups of subarrays and combining the plurality of dwell spatial SCMs in complex form to generate an aggregate covariance matrix (ACM). The ACM may then be used in subsequent processing with MINDIST technique to estimate a direction of a received signal based on the combined data.
US 2016/0190693 discloses a hybrid-type near field communication (NFC) antenna utilized in an electronic device. The hybrid-type NFC antenna includes two differential connection ports and a loop antenna device. The two differential connection ports are respectively coupled to two differential outputs of a radio frequency circuit of the electronic device. The loop antenna device is connected between the two differential connection ports, wherein the loop antenna device includes at least one first metal component, and an inductance of the loop antenna device is greater than a first inductance; and wherein the at least one first metal component is a metal element or an antenna device of the electronic device.
US 9,482,735 discloses a microwave radio direction finding system includes two six-port (SP) circuits and 2×2 printed patch antennas, each of the SP circuits having a pair of the patch antennas connected to their inputs, one pair being separated horizontally in a Cartesian plane, the other pair being separated vertically. The output ports are connected to differential amplifiers that produce in-phase and quadrature signals, which are digitized and input to a digital signal processor, which computes the difference in phase for the signals received at each pair of antennas. The processor uses the differences in phase angles to compute both the azimuth and elevation of the received signals, and may do so simultaneously for signals in multiple bands in the microwave region.
US 5,402,132 discloses a direction finding system utilizing a single monopole/crossed slot antenna in combination with associated electronic circuitry. Each of the four ports of the antenna are connected to amplitude varying elements whose outputs are combined by a power combiner. A microcontroller stores the signal. The microcontroller also generates the signals which control the amplitude variation supplied by each of the amplitude varying elements. Two configurations of the amplitude varying elements are provided by predetermined settings within the microcontroller. The two settings are selected to configure the antenna on two distinct reception patterns, each with a predetermined angular offset from a reference direction. In operation the antenna will be configured for a first reception pattern. The signals received will be detected, quantified, and stored by the microcontroller which subsequently reconfigures the antenna for a second reception pattern. A second signal is received by the antenna in the second configuration and again is detected, quantified, and stored by the microcontroller. The microcontroller determines the difference between the two signals and, based upon a predetermined calibration curve relating differences in the stored signals to the angle of arrival of the signals from the reference direction, determines the angle from which the signal arrived.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUONG P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 10:00-10:00 EST.
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, JACK KEITH can be reached at (571) 272-6878. 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.
/CHUONG P NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights