UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`15/703,788
`
`09/13/2017
`
`TAKAAKI KISHIGAMI
`
`731156.646
`
`4435
`
`Seed IP Law Group LLP/Panason1e
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5400
`Seattle, WA 98104
`
`ARMAND' MARC ANTHONY
`
`ART UNIT
`
`3646
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`09/27/2019
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`
`following e—mail address(es):
`US PTOeACtion @ SeedIP .Com
`
`pairlinkdktg @ seedip .eom
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`0,7709 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`15/703,788
`Examiner
`MARC ANTHONY ARMAN D
`
`Applicant(s)
`KISHIGAMI, TAKAAKI
`Art Unit
`AIA (FITF) Status
`3646
`Yes
`
`- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet wit/7 the correspondence address -
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing
`date of this communication.
`|f NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1). Responsive to communication(s) filed on 09/13/2017.
`[:1 A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a)D This action is FINAL.
`
`2b)
`
`This action is non-final.
`
`3)[:] An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)[:] Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Expat/7e Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)
`
`Claim(s) fl is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`E] Claim(s)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`Claim(s) fl is/are rejected.
`
`[:1 Claim(s) _ is/are objected to.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`[j Claim(s)
`9
`* If any claims have been determined aflowabie. you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPeredback@uspto.gov.
`
`Application Papers
`10)[:] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11). The drawing(s) filed on 09/13/2017 is/are: a). accepted or b)[:] objected to by the Examiner.
`
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12). Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a). All
`
`b)D Some**
`
`C)D None of the:
`
`1.. Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2.[:] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`3:] Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date_
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) C] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) CI Other-
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20190923
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/703,788
`Art Unit: 3646
`
`Page 2
`
`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 Rejections - 35 USC § 1 12
`
`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 3,5,6,8 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 pre-AIA the
`
`applicant regards as the invention.
`
`Regarding claim 3, the limitation: “a configuration spacing between adjacent ones
`
`of the plurality of receiving antennas takes on a value that is equal to or greater than
`
`a value obtained by multiplying a configuration spacing between the adjacent
`
`transmitting subarrays by the number of transmitting subarrays” is not clear, the
`
`base of the value is not defined and numeral number is not disclosed and established,
`
`the spacing between the adjacent transmitting subarrays are not defined.
`
`Regarding claim 5, the limitation: “wherein the plurality of receiving antennas are
`
`placed at configuration spacing that are wider than a sum of the transmitting
`
`subarray configuration spacing” the spacing between the adjacent transmitting
`
`subarrays are not defined, the sum is also not defined.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/703,788
`Art Unit: 3646
`
`Page 3
`
`Regarding claim 6, the limitation: “wherein the plurality of receiving antennas are
`
`placed at configuration spacings that are wider than a sum of the transmitting
`
`subarray configuration spacings” the spacing between the adjacent transmitting
`
`subarrays are not defined, the sum is also not defined.
`
`Regarding claim 8, the limitation: “configuration spacings between adjacent ones
`
`of the plurality of receiving antennas in the first direction include a configuration spacing
`
`that is identical to a configuration spacing between the transmitting subarrays and a
`
`configuration spacing that takes on a value that is equal to or greater than a value
`
`obtained by multiplying the configuration spacing between the transmitting
`
`subarrays by the number of transmitting subarrays.” the base of the value is not
`
`defined and numeral number is not disclosed and established.
`
`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 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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/703,788
`Art Unit: 3646
`
`Page 4
`
`The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148
`
`USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
`
`1.
`
`Claims 1, 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Maruyama US 2019/0058262.
`
`Regarding claim 1, Maruyama discloses and shows in fig.1-11, a radar apparatus
`
`comprising: a radar transmitter (1 )(0041) that transmits a plurality of radar signals while
`
`switching (0037 switching among antenna elements) among a plurality of transmitting
`
`subarrays; and a radar receiver (1 )(0041) that receives reflected-wave signals produced
`
`by the plurality of radar signals being reflected by a target, the plurality of radar signals
`
`being transmitted from the respective transmitting subarrays (1 ), wherein each of the
`
`plurality of transmitting subarrays includes a plurality of transmitting antennas (2—1 to 2-
`
`N), and adjacent ones of the plurality of transmitting subarrays share at least one of the
`
`plurality of transmitting antennas with each other (1 sub-arrays). I would have been
`
`obvious that (1) would have sets of arrays antennas for the TX and subarrays for RX).
`
`Regarding claim 2, Maruyama discloses and shows in fig.1-11, a radar apparatus
`
`wherein each of the plurality of transmitting subarrays (2—1 to 2—N) includes a plurality of
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/703,788
`Art Unit: 3646
`
`Page 5
`
`phase shifters (3-1-3-N) corresponding to the plurality of transmitting antennas,
`
`respectively.
`
`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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148
`
`USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
`
`2.
`
`Claims 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Maruyama as applied to claims 1, 2 and further in view of Zack US 2016/0377705.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/703,788
`Art Unit: 3646
`
`Page 6
`
`Regarding claims 3-7, Maruyama discloses a radar apparatus wherein the radar
`
`receiver includes a plurality of receiving antennas (1), wherein the plurality of receiving
`
`antennas are placed at irregular configuration spacings (fig.11) in a predetermined
`
`direction.
`
`Maruyama differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly
`
`disclose a device having a configuration spacing between adjacent ones of the plurality
`
`of receiving antennas takes on a value that is equal to or greater than a value obtained
`
`by multiplying a configuration spacing between the adjacent transmitting subarrays by
`
`the number of transmitting subarrays; wherein the plurality of receiving antennas are
`
`placed at relatively prime configuration spacings in a predetermined direction; wherein
`
`the plurality of receiving antennas are placed at configuration spacings that are wider
`
`than a sum of the transmitting subarray configuration spacings; the plurality of
`
`transmitting subarrays are placed at irregular configuration spacings in a predetermined
`
`direction.
`
`Zack shows in fig.2N-2R, a configuration spacing between adjacent ones of the
`
`plurality of receiving antennas (110A-110D) takes on a value that is equal to or greater
`
`than a value obtained by multiplying a configuration spacing between the adjacent
`
`transmitting subarrays (101A-101D)(fig.2—2P discloses different configuration that will
`
`meet the limitations) by the number of transmitting subarrays; wherein the plurality of
`
`receiving antennas (110A-110D) are placed at relatively prime configuration spacings in
`
`a predetermined direction (prime value not being defined and 2N-2P show the
`
`limitations); wherein the plurality of receiving antennas (101A-101D)are placed at
`
`configuration spacings that are wider than a sum of the transmitting subarray
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/703,788
`Art Unit: 3646
`
`Page 7
`
`configuration spacings (fig.2N-2P); the plurality of transmitting subarrays (101A-101 D)
`
`are placed at irregular configuration spacings in a predetermined direction.
`
`Zack is evidence that ordinary workers skilled in the art would find reasons,
`
`suggestions or motivations to modify the device of Maruyama. Therefore, at the time the
`
`invention was made; it would have been obvious to use the teaching of Zack in the
`
`device of Maruyama because it will improve the data and signals of the antennas
`
`(0075).
`
`3.
`
`Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Maruyama as applied to claims 1, 2 and further in view of Wintermantel USPAT
`
`8,665,137.
`
`Regarding claim 8, Maruyama discloses and shows in fig.1-11, a radar apparatus
`
`wherein the radar receiver includes a plurality of receiving antennas (1)(2—1-2-N), one or
`
`more of the plurality of receiving antennas is/are arranged in a first direction (fig.11) in
`
`which the plurality of transmitting antennas are arranged; a remaining one(s) of the
`
`plurality of receiving antennas is/are arranged in a second direction that is orthogonal to
`
`the first direction (X, Y directions)(fig.11).
`
`Maruyama differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly
`
`disclose a device having a configuration spacings between adjacent ones of the plurality
`
`of receiving antennas in the first direction include a configuration spacing that is
`
`identical to a configuration spacing between the transmitting subarrays and a
`
`configuration spacing that takes on a value that is equal to or greater than a value
`
`obtained by multiplying the configuration spacing between the transmitting subarrays by
`
`the number of transmitting subarrays.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/703,788
`Art Unit: 3646
`
`Page 8
`
`Wintermantel shows in fig.13, a configuration spacings between adjacent ones
`
`of the plurality of receiving antennas (RX) in the first direction include a configuration
`
`spacing that is identical to a configuration spacing between the transmitting subarrays
`
`(TX) (vertical spacing) and a configuration spacing that takes on a value that is equal to
`
`or greater than a value obtained by multiplying the configuration spacing between the
`
`transmitting subarrays (TX) by the number of transmitting subarrays.
`
`Wintermantel is evidence that ordinary workers skilled in the art would find
`
`reasons, suggestions or motivations to modify the device of Maruyama. Therefore, at
`
`the time the invention was made; it would have been obvious to use the teaching of
`
`Wintermantel in the device of Maruyama because facilitate the measurement of
`
`elevation angles of the objects (cil.13, line 45-55).
`
`4.
`
`Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Maruyama as applied to claims 1, 2 and further in view of Huang US
`
`2016/0365631 .
`
`Regarding claim 9, Maruyama discloses and shows in fig.1-11, a radar apparatus
`
`wherein the radar receiver includes a plurality of receiving antennas (2—1-2—N).
`
`Huang differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose
`
`a system having a virtual receiving array including a plurality of virtual antenna elements
`
`whose number is equal to the product of the number of transmitting subarrays and the
`
`number of receiving antennas, and the radar receiver estimates a direction of arrival of
`
`the plurality of radar signals through the plurality of virtual antenna elements
`
`interpolated by an interpolation process on the plurality of antenna elements.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/703,788
`Art Unit: 3646
`
`Page 9
`
`Huang shows infig.2, and discloses a system having a virtual receiving array
`
`(120) (0031) including a plurality of virtual antenna elements (120) whose number is
`
`equal to the product of the number of transmitting subarrays (130) and the number of
`
`receiving antennas, and the radar receiver estimates a direction of arrival of the plurality
`
`of radar signals through the plurality of virtual antenna elements interpolated by an
`
`interpolation process on the plurality of antenna elements.
`
`Huang is evidence that ordinary workers skilled in the art would find reasons,
`
`suggestions or motivations to modify the device of Maruyama. Therefore, at the time the
`
`invention was made; it would have been obvious to use the teaching of Huang in the
`
`device of Maruyama because facilitate analysis (0032).
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
`
`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 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 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 othenNise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed
`invention.
`
`5.
`
`Claim(s) 1, 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a1) as being unpatentable
`
`over Kondou US 2011/0063158.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/703,788
`Art Unit: 3646
`
`Page 10
`
`Regarding claim 1, Kondou shows in fig.10,11, a radar apparatus comprising: a
`
`radar transmitter (14) that transmits a plurality of radar signals while switching (switch
`
`132) among a plurality of transmitting subarrays; and a radar receiver (15) that receives
`
`reflected-wave signals produced by the plurality of radar signals being reflected by a
`
`target, the plurality of radar signals being transmitted from the respective transmitting
`
`subarrays, wherein each of the plurality of transmitting subarrays includes a plurality of
`
`transmitting antennas (14), and adjacent ones of the plurality of transmitting subarrays
`
`share at least one of the plurality of transmitting antennas with each other.
`
`Regarding claim 2, Kondou shows in fig.10,11, a radar apparatus wherein each
`
`of the plurality of transmitting subarrays (14) includes a plurality of phase shifters (13a)
`
`corresponding to the plurality of transmitting antennas, respectively.
`
`m
`
`Brookner US 2016/0054439, Volman USPAT 8,466,829 will also read on claims
`
`1, 2.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to MARC ANTHONY ARMAND whose telephone number
`
`is (571)272-9751. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm.
`
`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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/703,788
`Art Unit: 3646
`
`Page 11
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
`
`supervisor, Jack W Keith can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the
`
`Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for
`
`published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
`
`Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
`
`For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should
`
`you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic
`
`Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a
`
`USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information
`
`system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272—1000.
`
`MARC - ANTHONY ARMAND
`
`Primary Examiner
`Art Unit 3646
`
`/MARC ANTHONY ARMAND/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
`
`