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 listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. See paragraph [0012] of the specification.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 1 of claims 1-3 and 7-9, “a DBF system” should be “a digital beam forming (DBF) system”; and line 2 of claims 1-3 and 7-9, “comprising” should be “comprising:”.
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.
Claims 1-11 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.
In claims 1-3 and 7-9, “:=” recited in each of the equations of the claims is not understood. Further, the elements of “WLow”, “W1 … WNlow”, and “Ɛsum”, “wn”, “Ɛsum2”, and “αn2” recited in the equations of the claims are undefined.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 6 recites "An array-fed reflector antenna comprising the signal processing device according to claim 1." However, claim 1 already recited the “array-fed reflector antenna.” In other words, claim 6 merely re-recites the array-fed reflector antenna with that same component without narrowing the scope or adding a new structural limitation, it fails to further limit the invention.
Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because claim 1 (including the dependent claim 6) recites a "signal processing device" comprising an "excitation coefficient calculator," which fits into the statutory category of a machine or apparatus. The core functionality described in the claim relies entirely on mathematical concepts and mental processes (data manipulation). The device executes a Digital Beamforming (DBF) algorithm (including the equation), calculates mathematical coefficients, sorts them in descending order, calculates differences between neighboring values, and compares them to a threshold. In cases like Electric Power Group v. Alstom, the Federal Circuit held that collecting, analyzing, and displaying information using mathematical relationships is an abstract idea. The claim focuses entirely on the mathematical manipulation of coefficients rather than a specific physical or structural improvement to the antenna hardware itself. The claim must contain elements that insignificantly restrict the abstract idea to a practical application, doing more than just claiming "apply it on a generic computer/device." The claim uses generic functional terms like "signal processing device" and "excitation coefficient calculator." It does not disclose any novel hardware architecture or physical modifications to the array-fed reflector antenna. Further, executing DBF algorithms and selecting active antenna elements based on thresholds are well-known mathematical optimization techniques in satellite and radar communication. Simply automating a mathematical selection process using standard processing logic does not supply the required "inventive concept."
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the claims also recite a signal processing device comprising an excitation coefficient calculator. This fits into the statutory category of a machine or apparatus, they recite similar claim features for the same reasons described in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7, it is a method claim. As apply to the signal processing device described in claim 1 above, claim 7 recites a signal processing method comprising executing a DBF algorithm. This fits into the statutory category of a process.
Claim 7 focuses on calculating excitation coefficients, sorting numbers in descending order, comparing differences against a threshold, and evaluating a conditional expression. Courts consider these operations to be mathematical algorithms, mental processes, and data manipulations, which are abstract ideas and not patent-eligible by themselves.
The claim must transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application by adding specific, unconventional technical features. Here, the steps use generic actions like executing a DBF (Digital Beam Forming) algorithm and standard mathematical comparisons. It does not claim a new physical structure of the antenna or a specific unconventional hardware configuration. It only claims the math and data sorting steps applied to a standard system. The claim monopolizes a mathematical calculation and data sorting method rather than a specific physical improvement to the antenna hardware.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, the claims also recite a signal processing method comprising an excitation of a DBF algorithm, which fits into the statutory category of a process. They recite similar claim features for the same reasons described in claim 7 above.
Regarding claims 4-5 and 10-11, the dependent claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they simply add more details about an ineligible math equation or abstract idea without providing a practical, real-world application. Under patent rules, adding extra steps to an abstract idea does not make it eligible unless those steps change the invention into a concrete, practical technical solution.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shima (US 2005/0280572 A1) relates to a radar apparatus that forms multiple digital beams based on reflected waves of a transmitted radio wave. A transmit signal is transmitted in a predetermined cycle from one of transmitting/receiving antennas A1 to A4 arrayed in a row. The antennas A1 to A4, each switched between transmission and reception, are arranged such that the ratio of the spacing between one pair of adjacent antennas to the spacing between the other pair of adjacent antennas is 1:2. The reflected waves are received by the respective antennas, and DBF is performed based on the resulting received signals. Eleven-channel DBF is achieved using the four antennas with a space equivalent to six antennas. By achieving multiple channels with a minimum number of antennas, the size and cost of the apparatus can be reduced while also reducing the processing time and thus enhancing the performance.
Shima (US 2007/0052581 A1) relates to a radar apparatus comprising: a transmitter unit which radiates a transmitter signal; a plurality of antennas each of which receives a reflected wave produced by a reflection of the transmitter signal off an object; a first switch unit which connects output terminals of the plurality of antennas in sequence and one at a time to an input terminal; a downconverting unit which, by using a portion of the transmitter signal, downconverts a received signal input from the antenna connected to the input terminal of the first switch unit; a second switch unit which connects an output of the downconverting unit to a selected one of first to nth filter circuits; a digital signal processing unit which takes outputs of the first to nth filter circuits for input to first to nth AD converters, and which applies prescribed processing to first to nth output signals output from the first to nth AD converters and thereby detects distance or relative velocity with respect to the object; and a signal characteristic checking unit which compares two output signals selected from among the first to nth output signals that were output based on the received signal received by a particular antenna selected from among the plurality of antennas, and thereby checks for a change in characteristics of the first to nth output signals and corrects for any difference in the characteristics.
Chang (US 2018/0205583 A1) relates to a system for remotely generating beams to be concurrently radiated by a downlink broadcast antenna array having N array elements onboard a satellite, the system comprising: a first ground station comprising: a first digital beam forming processor for receiving a first content data stream, applying a first set of beam weight vectors to the first content data stream, the first set of beam weight vectors including information on a first footprint and a first pointing direction of a first beam, and generating N first encoded data streams; a first wavefront multiplexer having M first input ports and M first output ports, M being a positive integer greater than or equal to N, coupled to the first digital beam forming processor, for receiving the N first encoded data streams and M minus N first diagnostic streams as M first input streams at the M first input ports, performing a first spatial transform on the M first input streams to generate M first output data streams; and M first digital-to-analog converters coupled to the first wavefront multiplexer for receiving and converting respectively the M first output data streams to M first baseband signals, wherein the first ground station transforms the M first baseband signals into a first uplink signal and transmits the first uplink signal to the satellite.
CHANG et al. (US 2022/0006189 A1) relates to systems and methods including beam-domain processing in which beam forming and shaping for a phased array antenna with a digital-beam-forming (DBF) network is done by optimizing based on beam weight vectors from selected beams. Since the number of selected beams can be (significantly) less than the number of antenna elements, optimization on the selected beams, rather than on the antenna elements, provides significant computation savings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Young T. Tse whose telephone number is (571)272-3051. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10:30am-7pm.
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, Chieh M Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
/Young T. Tse/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632
Prosecution Insights