DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 11 are amended.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 9-15 are pending.
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 1-2, 4-5, 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornic (EP 2296007) in view of Musso (US 20170205536).
Regarding Claim 1, 11, Cornic teaches the following limitations:
A system for detecting presence and estimating distance, comprising: (Cornic – [pg. 3 para. 4])
a transmission device transmitting signals using a colored transmission method in a first plane, (Cornic – [pg. 3 para. 5]colored emission in the elevation plane to form a sum beam and a difference beam,)
a transmission direction of said signals in the first plane being coded by a color, and the first plane being a horizontal plane, (Cornic – [pg. 3 para. 5], [pg. 3 para. 6] and at least one horizontal linear array 12 in reception, orthogonal to the transmission network 11,)
a reception device comprising at least two sensors arranged in a second plane, the second plane being vertical and transverse to the first plane, and (Cornic – [pg. 3 para. 6] and at least one horizontal linear array 12 in reception, orthogonal to the transmission network 11,)
processing means detecting the presence of an object and estimating: (Cornic – [pg. 3 para. 6] analog-digital converter 28 are processed by processing means 50. [pg. 5 para. 2] obstacle detection radar function for aircraft, [pg. 5 para. 16] it is necessary to supply each source of the transmission network with a coded signal, the codes to be all orthogonal to each other. The necessary electronics and the associated processing are therefore complex,)
a direction and a distance: of the object in the first plane based on signals received from at least one of the sensors of the reception device, said processing means using the color to estimate the direction and the distance in said received signals, (Cornic – [pg. 9 para. 4-6], [pg. 11 para. 1] a first plane and a second array (12) being used to focus a reception beam in a second plane, orthogonal to said first plane… the focusing of the beam being obtained in said first plane by said coloured transmission;)
a direction and a distance of the object in the second plane based on signals received from at least two of the sensors selected of the reception device, and (Cornic – [pg. 11 para. 1])
Cornic does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Musso, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
A method for implementing detection of presence and estimating distance in a detection and distance estimation system comprising: (Musso – [Fig. 14], [0018], [0080])
the sensors hanging interconnected vertically forming a unidimensional antenna array and (Musso – [Fig. 7-8], [0066] in FIG. 7a the two platforms 200 and 200′ are fastened with their own longitudinal axes 340 and 340′ oriented in the second and first vertical direction, respectively; in FIG. 7b the two platforms 200 and 200′ are fastened with their own longitudinal axes 340 and 340′ oriented in the horizontal direction and in the first vertical direction, respectively; [0067] FIG. 8 shows a launch train composed of three platforms 200, 200′ and 200″ in water at the end of flight, wherein all the platforms are arranged in vertical orientation with the lower component 203 provided with the image and/or radio signal and/or radar signal acquisition sensors (and the possible propulsion module, not shown) above the waterline.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the radar system of Cornic with the various sensor orientation of Musso in order to allow for an efficient, effective, reliable, practical, versatile and inexpensive way to professionally and continuously make photographic and/or video shots and/or a radio signal acquisition. This arrangement of sensors may then be configured to operate as a bistatic radar receiver (Musso – [0001, 0018]).
the reception device is distant from the transmission device and said reception device is vertically raised with respect to the transmission device. (Musso – [Fig. 14], [0018], [0080], [0001] configured to be carried by lightweight aviation aircrafts, such as carrier balloons,)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the radar system of Cornic with the bistatic balloon method of Musso in order to allow for an efficient, effective, reliable, practical, versatile and inexpensive way to professionally and continuously make photographic and/or video shots and/or a radio signal acquisition (Musso – [0001]).
Regarding Claim 2, Cornic further teaches:
wherein each sensor comprises a radiating element that is omnidirectional in the first plane. (Cornic – [pg. 7 para. 11] The exemplary embodiment of the figure 3 therefore covers an elevation range of 30 °… three antennas each have an angular aperture of 10 ° and are separated from each other by 10 °,)
Regarding Claim 4, Cornic does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Musso, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein the sensors of the reception device are connected by a cable and suspended under an airborne device. (Musso – [Fig. 14], [0001], [0018], [0080])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the radar system of Cornic with the bistatic balloon method of Musso in order to allow for an efficient, effective, reliable, practical, versatile and inexpensive way to professionally and continuously make photographic and/or video shots and/or a radio signal acquisition (Musso – [0001]).
Regarding Claim 5, Cornic further teaches:
wherein just one sensor is used to detect the presence of an object and estimate a direction and a distance of said object in the first plane. (Cornic – [pg. 3 para. 6], [pg. 7 para. 1] at least one horizontal network is used in reception.)
Regarding Claim 10, Cornic further teaches:
wherein the detection of the presence of an object and the estimation of a direction and a distance of said object in the second plane comprises implementing an interferometry method or a high-resolution processing operation on the signals received from the at least two sensors of the receive antenna, or by utilizing the directivity of an array antenna formed by the at least two sensors of the receive antenna. (Cornic – [pg. 11 para. 1-2], [pg. 11 para. 9])
Regarding Claim 12, Cornic further teaches:
wherein the reception device comprises heterogeneous sensors. (Cornic – [pg. 11 para. 1], [pg. 6 para. 7] the colored emission is carried out using a frequency code F1, F2. The frequency coding consists, for example, in transmitting the transmission signal at a given frequency F1 on the first sub-network and in transmitting the transmission signal at a different frequency F2, these two frequencies being orthogonal over the duration of a given frequency. emission pulse.)
Regarding Claim 13, Cornic does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Musso, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein the airborne device being an inflatable balloon. (Musso – [0001])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the radar system of Cornic with the bistatic balloon method of Musso in order to allow for an efficient, effective, reliable, practical, versatile and inexpensive way to professionally and continuously make photographic and/or video shots and/or a radio signal acquisition (Musso – [0001]).
Regarding Claim 14, 15, Cornic further teaches:
wherein the processing means select sensors of the reception device, the selection being based on the spacing between the sensors of the reception device. (Cornic – [pg. 7 para. 9] The exemplary embodiment of the figure 3 therefore covers an elevation range of 30 ° grouping three subdomains 31, 32, 33 of 10 ° each. Each subdomain is covered by a column antenna 111, 112, 113 of the type of the network antenna 11 illustrated by the figure 1. The three antennas each have an angular aperture of 10 ° and are separated from each other by 10 °, so a first antenna 111 covers an angular sector in elevation between + 5 ° and + 15 °, a second antenna 112 covers a sector between -5 ° and + 5 °and a third antenna 113 covers a sector between -15 ° and -5 °. In other words, each antenna 111, 112, 113 has an emission beam covering one of the aforementioned sectors, the axes of the beams being angularly offset. [pg. 8 para. 1] At reception, it suffices to correlate the echo signal comprising the two components with two sinusoids of frequencies F1 and F2, a component corresponding to the signal emitted by the upper part of an antenna and a component corresponding to the signal emitted by the lower part of the antenna.)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornic (EP 2296007) in view of Musso (US 20170205536) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li (US 5955989).
Regarding Claim 9, Cornic does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Li, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein the sensors of the reception device are connected to the processing means by a fiber-optic link, the sensors furthermore comprising means for converting the received signals to optical signals. (Li – [Fig. 8], [col. 2 ln. 7-9] The optical fiber based radars utilize optical fibers to store the initially transmitted RF signals for comparison with RF signals from reflection.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the radar system of Cornic with the varying acquisition parameters of Li in order to remove system instabilities (Li – [col. 2 ln. 14-15]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Page 5, filed 10/14/2025 regarding the claim objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 5-8, filed 10/14/2025, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the combination of Cornic and Musso does not teach "a reception device comprising at least two sensors arranged in a second plane, the second plane being vertical and transverse to the first plane, the sensors hanging interconnected vertically and forming a unidimensional antenna array" and "and said reception device is vertically raised with respect to the transmission device". The examiner disagrees and has cited Musso – [Fig. 7-8], [0066] to teach the limitations. This combination shows that either vertical/horizontal orientation is acceptable and allows for a bistatic radar receiver configuration between the aircraft and a ground control station described in Musso – [0018], [0066]. The requirement by Cornic is only orthogonality and this can be achieved with the vertical orientation of Musso. Though only three sensors are depicted in Musso [Fig. 8], it is obvious that the plurality of sensors in Cornic can be used in the same orientation presented in Musso, Fig. 7-8 clearly show "hanging interconnected vertically and forming a unidimensional antenna array". This in combination with the embodiments concerning Musso – [Fig. 14], [0018], [0080] teach “said reception device is vertically raised with respect to the transmission device" as cited. Further, the applicant cites “"must be able to be installed on ... aircraft" which have "constraints on the volume of electronics and the surface area available for the antenna." Cornic, at [0005].” The examiner is unsure what publication the applicant is using as reference to provide these citations. The examiner is using Cornic (EP 2296007) as well as providing a page and paragraph referring to the provided translated document. No where in the provided reference does Cornic disclose any requirements for installation location. The volume constraints seem to only further benefit from having any possible equipment located outside the aircraft. The combination of Cornic and Musso further supports that the equipment location and aircraft type is primarily taught by Musso and the radar operation and transmission capabilities are primarily taught by Cornic. The applicant argues that the combination of Cornic and Musso does not teach "selection of a sensor of the reception device". The examiner disagrees, it is inherent that the processing means 50 of Cornic performs a “selection” in order to conduct the embodiments cited in Cornic [pg. 7 para. 9] and [pg. 8 para. 1] as cited in the Office Action above.
Applicant's remaining arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims is understandable and distinguishable from other inventions.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure or directed to the state of art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
The following is a brief description for relevant prior art that was cited but not applied:
Harter (US 2013045232) describes a two-dimensional imaging radar that performs beam forming with spatially separated receivers and transmitters.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON JAMES HENSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Robert Hodge can be reached at 571-272-2097. 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.
/BRANDON JAMES HENSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645