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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 10/20/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in this application. Claims 1 and 12 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/20/2025 regarding prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner maintains the prior art rejections for the same or similar reasonings as provided in the previous office action dated 07/22/2025.
Regarding arguments directed to claim 1, and similar independent claim 12, the Applicant argues that the prior art reference Woollard uses a radar image that not being adapted to a template, is the case in the claims of the instant application. However, the Examiner argues that Applicant’s interpretation of the instant applications claims is too limiting and not supported by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. The Applicant appears to refer to the “wherein the correlation […]” element with the term “adapted”, however this limited interpretation is not equivalent. Additionally, the details of a correlation/comparison/adaption are not present in the claims as currently amended. Additionally, the Examiner notes that Woollard explicitly teaches the used of geo-referenced maps from the terrain database (See at least Col. 8 Lines 47-51 “a generic terrain elevation database format orders the elevations on a two-dimensional grid aligned with the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinate system and uses the World Geodetic System (e.g. WGS84) as the terrain reference above MSL.”)
The Applicant further argues that the amended features are not disclosed by Woollard, however the Examiner disagrees. Woollard discloses the use of a radar antenna and factors in the angle (geometry) for the purposes of correlation and evaluation. See at least Col. 4 Lines 59-61 “The radar measurements on a range/Doppler cell-by-cell basis include angle information.” The Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of metadata includes interpretation of metadata as angle information which is a geometry of the antenna in relation to a terrain profile.
The same or similar reasoning is applied to all dependent claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/17/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
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 of this title, 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, 5-12, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woollard (US 9110170 B1), hereinafter Woollard, in view of Bunch (US 20100188280 A1), hereinafter Bunch.
Regarding claim 1, Woollard, as shown below, discloses a navigation system comprising the following limitations:
a radar comprising a radar antenna (See at least Fig. 3, Col. 4, Lines 47-51 “The present invention provides terrain aided navigation using multi-channel monopulse radar imaging. The monopulse radar transmits a single RF pulse transmission or multiple quick RF pulse train bursts to generate a monopulse radar image”, Col. 3 Lines 32-33 “The multi-channel monopulse radar transmits at least one RF pulse burst via the radar's antenna”);
a template database (See at least Col. 8 Line 29 “A terrain elevation database 62 is loaded onto the vehicle”);
a correlation device (See at least Fig. 3, Col. 8, Line 22 “terrain correlator 58”);
an evaluation device (See at least Fig. 3, Col. 8 Lines 21-22 “Avionics hardware 50 includes a navigation processor 52”); and
wherein the radar is configured to create a radar image of a surround with the radar antenna by recording a terrain profile of a terrain (See at least Fig. 3, Col. 4, Lines 47-51 “The present invention provides terrain aided navigation using multi-channel monopulse radar imaging. The monopulse radar transmits a single RF pulse transmission or multiple quick RF pulse train bursts to generate a monopulse radar image”);
wherein the template database is configured to provide at least one template which is substantially matched to the radar image and which contains at least one geo-referenced landmark (See at least Cols. 2-3 Lines 66-2 “This radar image is correlated with the selected digital terrain segment from the database in the reference frame of the database to update the navigation position estimate”, Col. 6 Lines 4-9 “prominent terrain features either forward or off-axis of the vehicle's current navigation position estimate and flight path such as terrain peaks and valleys, hills, mountain peaks will provide sufficient variability in the elevation data of the terrain segment to provide a good terrain correlation.”);
wherein the at least one geo-referenced landmark is geo-referenced by at least one geo-coordinate (See at least Col. 8 Lines 29-31 “A terrain elevation database 62 is loaded onto the vehicle. The database includes elevation z of terrain at given locations (x,y) in a reference frame”);
wherein the correlation device is configured to correlate the at least one geo-referenced landmark present in the at least one template with the radar image (See at least Col. 6 Lines 4-9 “prominent terrain features either forward or off-axis of the vehicle's current navigation position estimate and flight path such as terrain peaks and valleys, hills, mountain peaks will provide sufficient variability in the elevation data of the terrain segment to provide a good terrain correlation.”) and to provide a position of the at least one geo-referenced landmark in relation to the radar image (See at least Col. 13 Lines 9-16 “The correlation operator produces a correlation map 122 that plots the magnitude of the operator versus offset in x and y as shown in FIG. 9. In general, the correlation offset is read out of the map as the x, y coordinates of the sharpest and highest peak. In this example, the best correlation (highest and sharpest peak) occurs at a correlation offset of (0,0), which indicates no error in the current navigation position estimate”);
wherein the evaluation device is configured to determine navigation information of the navigation apparatus from the position of the at least one geo- referenced landmark in relation to the radar image, from the at least one geo- coordinate of the at least one geo-referenced landmark (See at least Figs. 6A-6B “FIGS. 6a and 6b are maps of a digital terrain segment overlaid with the range and Doppler contours 100 and the Azimuth and Elevation contours 102, respectively, from the RF reflections. […] This in turn yields an accurate correlation, and correlation offset that produce an accurate update for the navigation position estimate.”), and from image capturing metadata of the radar (See at least Col. 4 Lines 59-61 “The radar measurements on a range/Doppler cell-by-cell basis include angle information.” The Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of metadata includes interpretation of metadata as angle information which is a geometry of the antenna in relation to a terrain profile.);
wherein the image capturing metadata of the radar describes a relative geometry of the radar antenna in relation to the terrain profile recorded by the radar antenna (See at least Col. 4 Lines 59-61 “The radar measurements on a range/Doppler cell-by-cell basis include angle information.” The Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of metadata includes interpretation of metadata as angle information which is a geometry of the antenna in relation to a terrain profile. See Also Col. 5 Lines 59-67); and
Woollard does not explicitly disclose an output interface; wherein the output interface is configured to provide the determined navigation information. However, Bunch, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses:
an output interface (See at least Fig. 1, Items 114, 118, 122-124, [022] “The radar system 110, by directing its antenna 120 towards the ground, generates the radar image 302 that is displayed on the display 122.”);
wherein the output interface is configured to provide the determined navigation information. (See at least [0033] “Radar returns are used to generate a current radar image that may be displayed on the display 122”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the navigation system disclosed by Woollard with the display system disclosed by Bunch. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously determine up to date images, thereby increasing reliability of the system (See at least [0033] “Radar returns are used to generate a current radar image that may be displayed on the display 122.”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Woollard and Bunch, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Woollard does not disclose the template database is configured to provide at least one metadatum which belongs to the at least one geo-referenced landmark or the output interface comprises a navigation system and/or an image processing device for fusing the navigation information. However, Bunch further discloses
the template database is configured to provide at least one metadatum which belongs to the at least one geo-referenced landmark (See at least [0038] “the airborne vehicle location system 100 retrieve the information from the IMU/INS position information database 128 and determine the amount of and direction of movement of the airborne vehicle between the current time and the time that the current radar image was captured.”),
or the output interface comprises a navigation system and/or an image processing device for fusing the navigation information (This claim limitation is an alternative limitation which is therefore an optional element.).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the navigation system disclosed by Woollard with the metadata system disclosed by Bunch. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously accurately determine locations (See at least [0031] “For the identified objects in the pre-captured image information, an accurate geographic location is either known or determined.”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Woollard and Bunch, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Woollard further discloses
the image capturing metadata of the radar comprises settings data of the radar and the measured variables of the radar (See at least Col. 4 Lines 59-61 “The radar measurements on a range/Doppler cell-by-cell basis include angle information.” The Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of metadata includes interpretation of metadata as angle information. Additionally, the angle observed is a setting because it is a selected angle.).
Regarding claim 7, The combination of Woollard and Bunch, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Woollard further discloses
the image capturing metadata contain a squint angle; and the evaluation device is configured to correct the squint angle based on an altitude error (See at least Col. 2 Lines 64-66 “The range and angle information, and possibly Doppler, are used to map each of these cells into (x,y,z) space to create the three-dimensional image.” ).
Regarding claim 8, The combination of Woollard and Bunch, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 7. Woollard further discloses
the evaluation device is configured to access elevation information of the landmark derived from the at least one metadatum, a measured altitude, and/or an ascertained altitude for correcting an error of the squint angle on account of an assumed reference elevation of a terrain profile (See at least Col. 2 Lines 64-66 “The range and angle information, and possibly Doppler, are used to map each of these cells into (x,y,z) space to create the three-dimensional image. This radar image is correlated with the selected digital terrain segment from the database in the reference frame of the database to update the navigation position estimate”).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Woollard and Bunch, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Woollard does not disclose the template database is configured to provide at least one metadatum which belongs to the at least one geo-referenced landmark or the output interface comprises a navigation system and/or an image processing device for fusing the navigation information. However, Bunch further discloses
the radar is an SAR (synthetic aperture radar) system (See at least [0017] “Alternatively, or additionally, a synthetic aperture radar (SAR) processing system may be used”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the navigation system disclosed by Woollard with the radar system disclosed by Bunch. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously accurately determine locations (See at least [0017] “The radar system 110 may be very accurate in determining information from radar returns from geographic features.”).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Woollard and Bunch, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Woollard further discloses
the evaluation device is configured to ascertain a statistical error of the navigation information (See at least Col. 3 Lines 19-20 “The navigation position estimate has an error component bounded by an uncertainty region”).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Woollard and Bunch, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Woollard further discloses
An aircraft having a navigation apparatus (See at least Col. 5 Lines 25-26 “Referring now to FIG. 1, in an embodiment an airborne vehicle 10”).
Regarding claim 12, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1, shown above.
Regarding claim 15, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 6. Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 6, shown above.
Regarding claim 16, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 5. Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 5, shown above.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Woollard and Bunch, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 12. Woollard does not disclose the output interface comprises a navigation system and/or an image processing device for fusing the navigation information. However, Bunch further discloses
the output interface comprises a navigation system and/or an image processing device for fusing the navigation information (See at least [0022] “The radar system 110, by directing its antenna 120 towards the ground, generates the radar image 302 that is displayed on the display 122. That is, the radar system has generated image information that is used to generate the displayable radar image 302.” The examiner further clarifies that the “for fusing the navigation information” is merely a statement of intended use and therefor does not hold patentable weight as claimed. See MPEP 2111.04 for additional details regarding intended use.).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the navigation system disclosed by Woollard with the display system disclosed by Bunch. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously determine up to date images, thereby increasing reliability of the system (See at least [0033] “Radar returns are used to generate a current radar image that may be displayed on the display 122.”).
Regarding claim 18, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 7. Accordingly, claim 18 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 7, shown above.
Regarding claim 19, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 8. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 8, shown above.
Regarding claim 20, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 9. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 9, shown above.
Claims 2-4 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woollard, in view of Bunch, in further view of Goebel (US 6218980 B1), hereinafter Goebel.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Woollard and Bunch, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Woollard and Bunch does not explicitly disclose the template database is configured to normalize the at least one provided template in relation to the radar image. However, Goebel, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the template database is configured to normalize the at least one provided template in relation to the radar image (See at least Figs. 3-4, Col. 4 Lines 43-67, “the terrain correlation is made independent of altitude by a reference map transformation. That is to say, reference map data is transformed to correlated reference data for comparison with measured actual data.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the navigation system disclosed by Woollard with the display system disclosed by Bunch with the normalization system disclosed by Goebel. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously operate a system independent of altitude, thereby increasing system accuracy (See at least Col. 4 Lines 49-52 “With our invention, the terrain correlation is made independent of altitude by a reference map transformation. That is to say, reference map data is transformed to correlated reference data for comparison with measured actual data.”).
Regarding claim 3, The combination of Woollard, Bunch, and Goebel, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1-2. The combination of Woollard and Bunch does not explicitly disclose the normalizing is implemented by taking account of a distortion present in the radar image in the at least one template. However, Goebel, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the normalizing is implemented by taking account of a distortion present in the radar image in the at least one template (See at least Figs. 3-4, Col. 4 Lines 43-67, “the terrain correlation is made independent of altitude by a reference map transformation. That is to say, reference map data is transformed to correlated reference data for comparison with measured actual data.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the navigation system disclosed by Woollard with the display system disclosed by Bunch with the normalization system disclosed by Goebel. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously operate a system independent of altitude, thereby increasing system accuracy (See at least Col. 4 Lines 49-52 “With our invention, the terrain correlation is made independent of altitude by a reference map transformation. That is to say, reference map data is transformed to correlated reference data for comparison with measured actual data.”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Woollard, Bunch, and Goebel, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1-2. The combination of Woollard and Bunch does not explicitly disclose the normalizing includes taking account of a terrain profile of the template and/or testing of hypotheses about a pose of the at least one template in relation to the radar image. However, Goebel, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the normalizing includes taking account of a terrain profile of the template and/or testing of hypotheses about a pose of the at least one template in relation to the radar image (See at least Figs. 3-4, Col. 4 Lines 43-67, “the terrain correlation is made independent of altitude by a reference map transformation. That is to say, reference map data is transformed to correlated reference data for comparison with measured actual data.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the navigation system disclosed by Woollard with the display system disclosed by Bunch with the normalization system disclosed by Goebel. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously operate a system independent of altitude, thereby increasing system accuracy (See at least Col. 4 Lines 49-52 “With our invention, the terrain correlation is made independent of altitude by a reference map transformation. That is to say, reference map data is transformed to correlated reference data for comparison with measured actual data.”).
Regarding claim 13, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 2. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 2, shown above.
Regarding claim 14, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 3. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 3, shown above.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH W GOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-4186. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:30 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, William J. Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753. 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.
/KENNETH W GOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648