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
Claims 5, 7, 9, and 13 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 (line 3): “- an azimuth of the object” should be amended to “an azimuth of the object”;
Claim 5 (line 4): “- an elevation of the object” should be amended to “an elevation of the object”;
Claim 5 (line 5): “- a range of the object” should be amended to “a range of the object”;
Claim 5 (line 6): “- a velocity of the object” should be amended to “a velocity of the object”;
Claim 7: “a steering of radio signals” should be amended to “steering of radio signals”;
Claim 9 (line 2): “the first set of antenna elements, configured to” should be amended to “the first set of antenna elements is configured to”;
Claim 9 (lines 8-11): “and wherein a first distance between any two antenna elements of the first set and a second distance between any two antenna elements of the second set are both bounded below by one half of” should be deleted as repetitive (this limitation has already been recited in claim 8);
Claim 9 (lines 12-13): “wherein the first set of antenna elements is disjoint from the second set of antenna elements” should be deleted as repetitive (see lines 7-8);
Claim 13 (line 3): “- a radar surveillance system” should be amended to “a radar surveillance system”;
Claim 13 (line 4): “- a radar communication system” should be amended to “a radar communication system”;
Claim 13 (line 5): “- a radar traffic control system” should be amended to “a radar traffic control system”;
Claim 13 (line 6): “- a radar navigation control system” should be amended to “a radar navigation control system”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claim 2, 9, and 11 are 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 2 (lines 1-3) recites: “antenna elements of the first set are arranged in a first array, and antenna elements of the second set are arranged in a second array”. It is not clear whether some or all of the antenna elements of the first set are arranged in a first array, and some or all of the antenna elements of the second set are arranged in a second array. In one instance, the Specification ([0011]) discloses: “antenna elements of the first set are arranged in a first array, and antenna elements of the second set are arranged in a second array”. This can be interpreted as some of the antenna elements in the respective sets are arranged in a first or a second array, respectively. However, in another instance in reference to Fig. 1, the Specification ([0058]) discloses: “The first set of antenna elements 110 is configured as a first array, and the second set of antenna elements 120 is configured a second array.” This implies that all of the antenna elements in the respective sets are arranged in a first or a second array, respectively. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as: the antenna elements of the first set are arranged in a first array, and the antenna elements of the second set are arranged in a second array.
Claim 9, recites “a first carrier frequency” (line 3) and “a second carrier frequency” (line 5). It is not clear whether these frequencies are different or not from the respective frequencies already recited in claim 8. Further, as a whole, the claim includes multiple limitations already recited in claim 8, and, thus, making it difficult to determine the scope of the claim. For examination purposes, claim 9 is interpreted as follows:
The radar system according to claim 8, wherein:
the first set of antenna elements is configured to transmit or receive radio signals at the first carrier frequency;
the second set of antenna elements is configured to transmit or receive radio signals at the second carrier frequency; and
wherein the first set of antenna elements is disjoint from the second set of antenna elements.
Claim 11 (lines 4-5) recites: “the radio signal transmitted by the first set of antenna elements”. The scope of the claim is indefinite because a radio signal transmitted by the first set of antenna elements has not been previously defined.
Claim 11 (lines 7-8) recites: “the second radio signal transmitted by the second set of antenna elements”. The scope of the claim is indefinite because a first radio signal has not been previously defined. Furthermore, “the second radio signal” lacks antecedent basis.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vollbracht et al. (US 12000953 B2, hereinafter Vollbracht) in view of Jonsson et al. (US 6295028 B1, hereinafter Jonsson).
Regarding claim 1, Vollbracht (Figs. 1, 2, and 10) discloses a radar antenna (200 – Fig. 1) comprising:
a first set of antenna elements (213 – Fig. 10), configured to transmit or receive radio signals (11 – Fig. 10) at a first carrier frequency (31 – Fig. 2); and
a second set of antenna elements (223 – Fig. 10), configured to transmit or receive radio signals (12 – Fig. 10) at a second carrier frequency (34 – Fig. 2) which is higher than the first carrier frequency,
wherein the first set of antenna elements is disjoint from the second set of antenna elements.
Vollbracht does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein a first distance between any two antenna elements of the first set and a second distance between any two antenna elements of the second set are both bounded below by one half of a wavelength corresponding to the first carrier frequency.
Jonsson (Fig. 1; col. 3, lines 27-45 and col. 4, lines 5-12) teaches an antenna comprising a first set of antenna elements (5a, 5b, etc.), configured to transmit or receive radio signals at a first carrier frequency (a lower band 880-960 MHz ) and a second set of antenna elements (6a, 6b, etc.), configured to transmit or receive radio signals at a second carrier frequency (an upper band 1710-1880 MHz) which is higher than the first carrier frequency, wherein a first distance between any two antenna elements of the first set and a second distance between any two antenna elements of the second set (regarding the first distance and the second distance, see annotated Fig. 1 in Jonsson below) are both bounded below by one wavelength corresponding to the second carrier frequency (see col. 4, lines 5-12). This implies that the first and the second distance would be bounded below by one half of a wavelength corresponding to the first carrier frequency since the lower band carrier frequency is approximately one
PNG
media_image1.png
594
925
media_image1.png
Greyscale
half of the upper band carrier frequency.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vollbracht so that a first distance between any two antenna elements of the first set and a second distance between any two antenna elements of the second set are both bounded below by one half of a wavelength corresponding to the first carrier frequency as taught by Jonsson. This modification would provide an antenna which is easy to implement in serial production and which is well suited for practical use for operating in at least two frequency bands (see Jonsson, col. 2, lines 7-10). Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, the modified Vollbracht teaches the radar antenna of claim 1 as addressed above.
Vollbracht (Fig. 10) further teaches antenna elements of the first set are arranged in a first array (211), and antenna elements of the second set are arranged in a second array (221).
Vollbracht does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein a nearest-neighbor distance of the first array is equal to a nearest-neighbor distance of the second array.
Jonsson (Fig. 1; col. 4, lines 5-12) teaches antenna elements of the first set are arranged in a first array (the array formed by the antenna elements 5a, 5b, etc.), and antenna elements of the second set are arranged in a second array (the array formed by the antenna elements 6a, 6b, etc.), and wherein a nearest-neighbor distance (d1 in the annotated Fig. 1 in Jonsson above) of the first array is equal to a nearest-neighbor distance (d2 in the annotated Fig. 1 in Jonsson above) of the second array (see col. 4, lines 5-12).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vollbracht so that a nearest-neighbor distance of the first array is equal to a nearest-neighbor distance of the second array as taught by Jonsson. This modification would provide an antenna which is easy to implement in serial production and which is well suited for practical use for operating in at least two frequency bands (see Jonsson, col. 2, lines 7-10).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Vollbracht teaches the radar antenna of claim 1 as addressed above.
The modified Vollbracht does not explicitly teach the radar antenna is an electronically scanned array antenna.
However, Vollbracht (Fig. 17; col. 30, lines 37-44) teaches a first set of antenna elements (213) and a second set of antenna elements (223) forming phased array antennas. It is well-known in the art that a phased array antenna is an electronically scanned array antenna.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vollbracht so that the radar antenna is an electronically scanned array antenna. This modification would provide an antenna capable of detecting objects positioned at different directions relative to the radar system or detecting moving objects.
Regarding claim 4, the modified Vollbracht (col. 31, lines 41-56), by the virtue of the modification according to the teachings of Jonsson, teaches a method for radar detection of an object, the method comprising:
detecting the object (the target object 5) based on transmitting, by a first set of antenna elements (211), a first radio signal (11) with a first carrier frequency;
redetecting the object (the target object 5), based on having detected the object and based on transmitting, by a second set of antenna elements (221), a second radio signal (12) with a second carrier frequency which is higher than the first carrier frequency, wherein a first distance between any two antenna elements of the first set and a second distance between any two antenna elements of the second set are both bounded below by one half of a wavelength corresponding to the first carrier frequency (regarding the first distance and the second distance being bounded below by one half of a wavelength corresponding to the first carrier frequency, the limitation is being taught by the modified Vollbracht by the virtue of the modification per the teaching of Jonsson).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Vollbracht teaches the method of claim 4 as addressed above.
Vollbracht (col. 31, lines 41-56) further teaches detecting the object includes determining a range of the object (the distance to the target object 5).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Vollbracht teaches the method of claim 4 as addressed above.
The modified Vollbracht does not explicitly teach redetecting the object comprises filtering, based on having detected the object, a position of the object within data obtained by transmitting the second radio signal.
However, Vollbracht (col. 31, lines 41-67 and col. 32, lines 1-6) teaches filtering (regarding filtering, it is known in the art that mixing signals, finding the phase shift between signals, and performing Fourier transform is filtering) of two received signals (21, 22) resulting from two transmit signals (11, 12) to obtain the position of the object.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vollbracht so that redetecting the object comprises filtering, based on having detected the object, a position of the object within data obtained by transmitting the second radio signal. This modification would improve the resolution in determining the distance/range of the target object (see Vollbracht col. 31, lines 66-67 and col. 32, lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Vollbracht teaches the method of claim 4 as addressed above.
The modified Vollbracht does not explicitly teach the redetecting comprises a steering of radio signals at the second carrier frequency.
However, Vollbracht (Fig. 17; col. 30, lines 37-44) teaches a first set of antenna elements (213) and a second set of antenna elements (223) forming phased antenna arrays. It is well-known in the art that phased arrays are used for steering of radio signals. Further, Vollbracht (Fig. 15) teaches detecting objects (3, 4, 5) positioned at different directions relative to the radar system (1).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vollbracht so that the redetecting comprises a steering of radio signals at the second carrier frequency. This modification would allow detecting objects positioned at different directions relative to the radar system or detecting moving objects.
Claims 8-9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vollbracht (cited above) in view of Jonsson (cited above).
Regarding claim 8, Vollbracht (Figs. 1, 2, and 10) discloses a radar system (1 – Fig. 1), comprising:
a radar antenna (200 – Fig. 1) with a first set of antenna elements (213 – Fig. 10) and a second set of antenna elements (223 – Fig. 10); and
a signal handling component (120 – Fig. 1), wherein the signal handling component is configured:
to handle, via the first set of antenna elements, radio signals (11 – Fig. 1) at a first carrier frequency (31 – Fig. 2), and
to handle, via the second set of antenna elements, radio signals (12 – Fig. 1) at a second carrier frequency (34 – Fig. 2) which is higher than the first carrier frequency.
Vollbracht does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein a first distance between any two antenna elements of the first set and a second distance between any two antenna elements of the second set are both bounded below by one half of a wavelength corresponding to a first carrier frequency.
Jonsson (Fig. 1; col. 3, lines 27-45 and col. 4, lines 5-12) teaches an antenna comprising a first set of antenna elements (5a, 5b, etc.), configured to transmit or receive radio signals at a first carrier frequency (a lower band 880-960 MHz ) and a second set of antenna elements (6a, 6b, etc.), configured to transmit or receive radio signals at a second carrier frequency (an upper band 1710-1880 MHz) which is higher than the first carrier frequency, wherein a first distance between any two antenna elements of the first set and a second distance between any two antenna elements of the second set (regarding the first distance and the second distance, see annotated Fig. 1 in Jonsson above) are both bounded below by one wavelength corresponding to the second carrier frequency (see col. 4, lines 5-12). This implies that the first and the second distance would be bounded below by one half of a wavelength corresponding to the first carrier frequency since the lower band carrier frequency is approximately one half of the upper band carrier frequency.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vollbracht so that a first distance between any two antenna elements of the first set and a second distance between any two antenna elements of the second set are both bounded below by one half of a wavelength corresponding to a first carrier frequency as taught by Jonsson. This modification would provide an antenna which is easy to implement in serial production and which is well suited for practical use for operating in at least two frequency bands (see Jonsson, col. 2, lines 7-10). Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, the modified Vollbracht teaches the radar system of claim 8 as addressed above.
Per the examiner’s interpretation of claim 9, Vollbracht (Figs. 1, 2, and 10) further teaches:
the first set of antenna elements (213 – Fig. 10) is configured to transmit or receive (inherent) radio signals (11 – Fig. 1) at the first carrier frequency (31 – Fig. 2);
the second set of antenna elements (213 – Fig. 10) is configured to transmit or receive (inherent) radio signals (12 – Fig. 1) at the second carrier frequency (34 – Fig. 2); and
wherein the first set of antenna elements is disjoint from the second set of antenna elements (see Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Vollbracht teaches the radar system of claim 8 as addressed above.
Vollbracht (col. 31, lines 24-56) further teaches the radar system is configured to: detect an object (target object 5) based on the radio signal transmitted by the first set of antenna elements (elements in array 211); redetect the object based on having detected the object and based on the second radio signal transmitted by the second set of antenna elements (elements in array 221).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Vollbracht teaches the radar system of claim 8 as addressed above.
Vollbracht (Fig. 15, col. 29, lines 24-42) further teaches the radar system is configured to employ radio signals at the first carrier frequency for surveillance (col. 29, lines 24-42 disclose that a target object 3 is detected using first antennas 211; these antennas employ signals at the first carrier frequency).
The modified Vollbracht does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein the radar system is configured to employ radio signals at the second carrier frequency for fire control of a weapons system.
However, it is well-known in the art that radio signals at high frequencies are not suitable for long-range applications because of the strong scattering of the signals due to the short wavelength of electromagnetic waves at high frequencies, which limits the signals propagation distance. Therefore, a person skilled in the art would know to employ radio signals at the second carrier frequency (the higher of the two carrier frequencies) for fire control of a weapons system, which requires short-range communications.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vollbracht so that the radar system is configured to employ radio signals at the second carrier frequency for fire control of a weapons system. This modification would provide a radar system having antennas that are used optimally for the appropriate applications, such as object detection and weapons system control.
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, the modified Vollbracht teaches the radar system of claim 8 as addressed above.
Vollbracht (Fig. 15, col. 29, lines 24-42) further teaches the radar system is a part of a radar surveillance system (col. 29, lines 24-42 disclose detecting target objects, which is known in the art as surveillance).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Vollbracht as applied to claim 8 in view of Farzaneh et al. (US 20190312337 A1, hereinafter Farzaneh).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Vollbracht teaches the radar system of claim 8 as addressed above.
The modified Vollbracht does not teach the limitation wherein the radar antenna comprises at least one further set of antenna elements such that a respective further distance between any two antenna elements of the at least one further set is bounded below by one half of the wavelength corresponding to the first carrier frequency, and wherein the signal handling component is configured to handle, via the at least one further set of antenna elements, radio signals at a corresponding further carrier frequency which is higher than the first carrier frequency.
Farzaneh (Fig. 1; [0035, 0040]) teaches an antenna comprising a fist set of antenna elements (155), a second set of antenna elements (160), and a third set of antenna elements (165), operating at different carrier frequencies (see [0035], last two sentences). As is well-known in the art, antenna element size is comparable to the wavelength of electromagnetic wave radiation the antenna element is designed to transmit or receive. As seen in Fig. 1, antenna elements (165) have smaller dimensions than antenna elements (155) and, thus, by the virtue of the inverse proportionality between wavelength and frequency of operation, would be used for transmitting or receiving radio signals at a corresponding further carrier frequency which is higher than the first carrier frequency (the carrier frequency of the signals transmitted or received by antenna elements (155)).
Further, Vollbracht (col. 11, lines 12-22) teaches that the signal handling component is configured to handle radio signals at a corresponding further carrier frequency, different from the first carrier frequency and the second carrier frequency.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vollbracht by adding at least one further set of antenna elements and by configuring the signal handling component to handle, via the at least one further set of antenna elements, radio signals at a corresponding further carrier frequency which is higher than the first carrier frequency. This modification would provide a radar system having antennas that operate in at least three frequency bands so that the radar system can be used for different applications and the available bandwidth of the radar system would be increased (see Farzaneh, [0035]).
The modified Vollbracht does not teach the limitation wherein a respective further distance between any two antenna elements of the at least one further set is bounded below by one half of the wavelength corresponding to the first carrier frequency.
Jonsson (Fig. 1; col. 3, lines 27-45 and col. 4, lines 5-12) teaches an antenna comprising a first set of antenna elements (5a, 5b, etc.), configured to transmit or receive radio signals at a first carrier frequency (a lower band 880-960 MHz ) and a second set of antenna elements (6a, 6b, etc.), configured to transmit or receive radio signals at a second carrier frequency (an upper band 1710-1880 MHz) which is higher than the first carrier frequency, wherein a first distance between any two antenna elements of the first set and a second distance between any two antenna elements of the second set (regarding the first distance and the second distance, see annotated Fig. 1 in Jonsson above) are both bounded below by one wavelength corresponding to the second carrier frequency (see col. 4, lines 5-12). This implies that the first and the second distance would be bounded below by one half of a wavelength corresponding to the first carrier frequency since the lower band carrier frequency is approximately one half of the upper band carrier frequency.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vollbracht so that a respective further distance between any two antenna elements of the at least one further set is bounded below by one half of the wavelength corresponding to the first carrier frequency as taught by Jonsson. This modification would provide an antenna which is easy to implement in serial production and which is well suited for practical use for operating in multiple frequency bands (see Jonsson, col. 2, lines 7-10). Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIN STOYTCHEV STOYTCHEV whose telephone number is (571)272-3467. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:00-17:00.
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, Dimary Lopez can be reached at 571-270-7893. 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.
/MARIN STOYTCHEV STOYTCHEV/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights