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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3-18-2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Note: 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 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.
Claim(s) 16-23, 25 and 28-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charvat, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0413114, published December 29, 2022.
As per claim 16, Charvat discloses a scanning-array radar device comprising a transmitter and a receiver;
wherein the transmitter comprises a first lensed scanning-array transmitter unit comprising: a first array of transmit antennas each having a respective output feed having a phase centre spaced apart along a first axis; a first radio frequency, RF, integrated circuit, IC, configured to operate with the first array of transmit antennas as a scanning-array transmitter; and a first lens configured to focus radiation from each of the output feeds (Charvat, ¶92 and Fig. 12E showing Tx array and focusing element);
and wherein the receiver comprises a first lensed scanning-array receiver unit comprising: a first array of receive antennas each having a respective input feed having a phase centre spaced apart along a second axis; a second RF IC, configured to operate with the first array of receive antennas as a first scanning-array receiver; and a second lens configured to focus radiation reflected from a target towards each of the input feeds (Charvat, ¶92 and Fig. 12E showing Rx and focusing element).
Charvat fails to expressly disclose separate ICs for transit and receive, instead providing one (Fig. 5E-2, item 16). Charvat suggests having portions of the IC in separate areas (¶226) and so it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have separate ICs, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by Charvat in providing the necessary control.
As per claim 17, Charvat further discloses the scanning-array radar device of claim 16, wherein the first RF IC and the first array of transmit antennas are integrated within a transmitter package, and wherein the second RF IC and the first array of receive antennas are integrated within a receiver package (Charvat, ¶226).
As per claim 18, Charvat further discloses the scanning-array radar device of claim 16, wherein the first lens and the second lens are respectively elliptical or hyper hemispherical (Charvat, ¶92).
As per claim 19, Charvat further discloses the scanning-array radar device of claim 16, further comprising: a frequency synthesizer configured to provide a common local oscillator signal to the first RF IC and to the second RF IC (Charvat, ¶62).
As per claim 20, Charvat further discloses the scanning-array radar device of claim 16:wherein the transmitter is operable as a first transceiver, and the first lensed scanning-array transmitter unit is a first lensed scanning-array transceiver unit further comprises: a second array of receive antennas each having a respective input feed having a phase centre spaced apart along a third axis which is parallel to and spaced apart from the first axis, and a third RF IC configured to operate with the second array of receive antennas as a second scanning-array receiver; and wherein the receiver is operable as a second transceiver, and the first lensed scanning-array receiver unit is a second lensed scanning-array transceiver unit further comprising: a second array of transmit antennas each having a respective output feed having a phase centre spaced apart along a fourth axis which is parallel to and spaced apart from the second axis, and a fourth RF IC configured to operate with the second array of transmit antennas as a second scanning-array transmitter (Charvat, Fig. 5F showing multiple transmitters and receivers).
As per claim 21, Charvat further discloses the scanning-array radar device of claim 20, further comprising: a frequency synthesizer configured to provide a common local oscillator signal to the first and second RF ICs (Charvat, ¶62).
As per claim 22, Charvat further discloses the scanning-array radar device of claim 21, wherein the frequency synthesizer is further configured to provide the common local oscillator signal to third and fourth RF ICs (Charvat, ¶62).
As per claim 23, Charvat further discloses the scanning-array radar device of claim 22, wherein the first axis is parallel to the second axis (Charvat, Fig. 12E).
As per claim 25, Charvat further discloses the scanning-array radar device of claim 23, wherein the second array of receive antennas is configured to receive radiation reflected by a target from radiation transmitted by the second array of transmit antennas, and wherein the first array of receive antennas is configured to receive radiation reflected by the target from radiation transmitted by the first array of transmit antennas (Charvat, ¶272 where the receivers receive the reflected signals).
As per claim 28, Charvat further discloses the scanning-array radar device of claim 23, further comprising: a first plurality of transceivers, aligned with the first transceiver along the first axis, and a second plurality of transceivers, aligned with the second transceiver along the second axis (Charvat, Fig. 5F).
As per claim 29, Charvat further discloses the scanning-array radar device of claim 28, wherein each of the first transceiver and the first plurality of transceivers abuts a neighbouring transceiver of the first transceiver and the first plurality of transceivers, and wherein each of the second transceiver and the second plurality of transceivers abuts a neighbouring transceiver of the second transceiver and the second plurality of transceivers and abuts a transceiver of the first transceiver and the first plurality of transceivers (Charvat, Fig. 5F).
Note that it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
As per claim 30, Charvat further discloses the scanning-array radar device of claim 16, wherein the scanning-array radar device is configured to operate in one of an RF frequency range between 76 GHz and 81 GHz, and RF frequency range between 134 GHz and 141 GHz (Charvat, ¶254).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the frequency limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
As per claim 31, Charvat further discloses the scanning-array radar device according to claim 16, wherein the first axis is orthogonal to the second axis (Charvat, Fig. 12E).
As per claim 32, Charvat further discloses the scanning-array radar device of claim 31, further comprising: a plurality of transmitters, aligned with the first transmitter along the first axis, and a plurality of receivers, aligned with the receiver along the second axis (Charvat, Fig. 5F).
As per claim 33, Charvat further discloses the scanning-array radar device of claim 32, wherein the first lens of the transmitter and lenses of the plurality of transmitters each have first focal length, in a direction of the first axis, and a second focal length, different to the first focal length, in a direction of the second axis (Charvat, Fig. 12E where the lenses are arranged as per the transmit and receive modules).
Claim(s) 24, 26 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charvat in view of Shams, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0296764, published September 23, 2021.
As per claim 24, Charvat discloses the device of claim 23 but fails to disclose receiving polarization orthogonal to the transmit polarization.
Shams teaches a vehicle radar receiving orthogonal signals (¶41).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to receive orthogonal signals in order to gain the benefit of speeding up system performance as taught by Shams (¶41).
As per claim 26, Charvat as modified by Shams discloses the scanning-array radar device of claim 23, wherein the first lensed scanning- array transmitter unit is configured to scan over angular range of at least 80 (Shams, ¶51).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the scan range limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
As per claim 27, Charvat as modified by Shams further discloses the scanning-array radar device of claim 23, wherein the scanning-array radar device is configured to operate as an automotive radar having an azimuth half-power beamwidth of less than 3° and an elevation resolution of less than 20 (Shams, ¶51 and 109).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the HPBW limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided on form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS E WINDRICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~7-3:30.
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 5712726878. 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.
/MARCUS E WINDRICH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights