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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 09/10/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-29 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/10/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/28/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 41.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being
considered by the examiner.
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 1-9 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "given a prescribed center frequency, incidence angle” in lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear or readily apparent if they are these parameters have the same or different value from the set of parameters claimed in lines 6-7.
Claims 2-9 are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim.
Regarding claims 2-4, The term “a second set of complex feature values closest to the first set of complex feature values” in claims 2, 3, and 4 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “a second set of complex feature values closest to the first set of complex feature values” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification, paragraph [0038] does not give further clarification such that a bound to quantity the proximity in value.
Additionally in claim 4 the term “closest distance metric” is present, this is also a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “closest distance metric” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. There is some discussion in the specification of distance measuring techniques, but no criteria are presented.
The term “type for the target device” in claims 7 and 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “type for the target device” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Three Criteria for categorizing targets are presented in claim 7. Claims 7 and 8 have no dependence upon claim 5. The metes and bounds of “target devices” are defined only through claim 1 which is a device that communicates using radiofrequency. For the purpose of examination, the examiner has interpreted the phrase “type for the target device” to mean aerodynamic design (multi-rotor, fixed-wing, single-rotor, and hybrid VTOL (vertical take-off and landing)), manufacturer, and model of unmanned aerial system.
Claims 9 is also rejected based on its dependency on the defected parent claim.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCorkle (US 2016/0018509), hereinafter McCorkle in view of Johnson et al. (Johnson, R.L., Hipp, J.E. and Sherrill, W.M. (1999). Radio Direction Finding. In Wiley Encyclopedia of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, J.G. Webster (Ed.)), hereinafter Johnson.
PNG
media_image1.png
626
976
media_image1.png
Greyscale
McCorkle, Fig. 14
Regarding claim 1, McCorkle discloses a system comprising:
an antenna system (Fig. 14, antenna-system 101C; [0152] FIG. 14 shows a low cost embodiment in which the antenna-system 101C has 14 ports,) receiving RF signals including radio signal waveforms communicated between a target device and a second device, the antenna system comprising at least one multiport antenna ([0114] Disclosed are miniature space-saving 4-port, 6-port, and 12-port PxMA antennas) having a plurality of ports adapted to receive the radio signal waveforms, and
an RF receiver system (Fig. 14, receivers 1410; [0152] two coherent receivers 1410) configured to receive signals from the plurality of ports ([0152] But in the embodiment of FIG. 14, each port is isolated and provided sequentially to the processor 1420 in the measurement element 103B.) and for each port, produce the radio signal waveform communicated between the target device and the second device; and
a processing system (Fig. 14, Estimator Element 103B; [0158] More typically, the estimator element contains a processor that takes in the signal of interest (SoI) outputs from the isolation element and generates an estimate of the AoA.) comprised of at least one computer processor programmed to determine a direction to the target device ([0048] The estimator element is configured to output, for each SoI, one or more of (a) an estimated range, (b) an estimated AoA, and (c) an estimated polarization.) based on the received RF signals from the plurality of ports and the antenna system manifold,
wherein the multiport antenna comprises two or more ports ([0042] where the PxMA element is comprised of one or more pairs of conductive surfaces offset from one another comprised of a first conductive surface and a second conductive surface with one or more pairs of ports) located at different locations ([0058] The antenna-system's port configuration includes items associated with each port, such as the position), each port having a first terminal and a second terminal ([0140] Each port, or feed point, has a two terminals (e.g., + and −) that connect to their respective conductive surface.), and two or more conductive pieces, and wherein at least one pair of the conductive pieces connects through the first and second terminals of each of two or more ports ([0042] and wherein each port is formed by a connection to the two conductive surfaces, and wherein each port-pair forms a loop going from the first terminal of said first port, through said first conductive surface to the first terminal of said second port, through said second port to the second terminal of said second port, and through said second conductive surface to the second terminal of said first port, and through the first port back to the first terminal of the first port to complete the loop.)
McCorkle fails to disclose an associated antenna system manifold which,
given a prescribed center frequency, incidence angle, and first polarization, provides a first set of complex output numbers representative of the set of complex voltages from the plurality of ports in the antenna system given an incoming waveform at the prescribed center frequency, incidence angle, and first polarization, and
given a prescribed center frequency, incidence angle, and second polarization different from or orthogonal to the first polarization, provides a second set of complex output numbers representative of the set of voltages from the plurality of ports in the antenna system given an incoming waveform at the prescribed center frequency, incidence angle, and second polarization.
However, Johnson (Johnson, R.L., Hipp, J.E. and Sherrill, W.M. (1999). Radio Direction Finding. In Wiley Encyclopedia of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, J.G. Webster (Ed.)) teaches that it is known in the art that an antenna system manifold (array manifold) is an intrinsic property of an antenna array with a defined transfer function between a prescribed center frequency, incidence angle, and polarization (Page 2, col. 2, lines 29-33; The column vector given by Eq. (4) is referred to as the array steering vector. The collection of all array steering vectors as a function of AOA, polarization, and frequency is referred to as the array manifold.) to a set of complex output numbers representative of the set of voltages from the plurality of ports in the antenna system given an incoming waveform at the prescribed center frequency, incidence angle, and polarization. (Johnson, Page 3 Col. 2, lines 8-15 The processing objective of radio direction finding is to determine a unique AOA which is consistent with the set of data measured on the array. The key to this process is a knowledge of the array manifold that includes site effects of the operational environment. In the most general form, the bearing estimation process requires an iterative comparison between the observed data and the array manifold for every possible combination of polarization and AOA.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McCorkle in view of Johnson to incorporate the calibration of the array system through calculating the array system manifold as taught by Johnson to gain the advantage of an antenna system that can accurately find the direction of arrival for signals of interest (Page 8 col. 2, line 31 – Page 9 col. 1, line 1; Beam steering DF system performance is also controlled by the accuracy and completeness of the calibration process used to characterize the array manifold.); and also since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143). While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claim 2, McCorkle as modified by Johnson discloses the system of claim 1. McCorkle further discloses wherein the at least one computer processor programmed to locate or find the direction to the target based on the received waveforms from the plurality of ports([0079] The invention also discloses the above RF emitter sensing device wherein the estimator means is configured to output either or both of an estimated range to the emitter of an SoI, and estimates for one or more angles corresponding to the AoA of an SoI by also using one or more of:), is adapted to
generate a first set of complex feature values based on a correlation between the radio signal waveforms received by the plurality of ports(([0153] It could also be translated to DC and the output for each antenna port could be delivered as a complex pair of signals, i.e. an in-phase and quadrature (I/Q) pair of signals.),
generate a second set of complex feature values based on the outputs of the plurality of ports as represented by the antenna system manifold ([0153] It could also be translated to DC and the output for each antenna port could be delivered as a complex pair of signals, i.e. an in-phase and quadrature (I/Q) pair of signals.), and
determine that the direction to the target is the AoA that produces a second set of complex feature values closest to the first set of complex feature values ([0078] angle estimates based on a computation that is a function that uses the received output signals from the antenna circuit, wherein the function is configured to mitigate estimation bias caused by receiver noise and noise picked up by the antennas, by coherently deriving the amplitude of the SoI on each port, by correlating the signal from each port in a port pair,).
Regarding claim 3, McCorkle as modified by Johnson discloses the system of claim 2. McCorkle further discloses wherein the at least one computer processor is adapted to determine the AoA that produces a second set of complex feature values closest to the first set of complex feature values according to a Euclidean distance ([0078] where the combination of signals includes, selecting one or more porta and summing their signals, selecting one or more ports and weighting and summing their signals, selecting the port with the largest signal from among the available ports and using its signal, and using maximum ratio combining (MRC) to weight and sum the signals from two or more of the ports.).
Regarding claim 4, McCorkle as modified by Johnson discloses the system of claim 1. McCorkle further discloses wherein the at least one computer processor programmed to locate or find the direction to the target based on the received waveforms from the plurality of ports (([0074] the estimator element is configured to output either or both of an estimated range to the emitter of an SoI, and estimates for one or more angles corresponding to the AoA of an SoI by also, computing the estimated range and/or one or more angle estimates based on a computation that is a function that uses the received SoI from the antenna circuit output signals, wherein the function includes:), is adapted to
generate a first set of complex feature values by correlating a first radio signal waveform received by a first port with a plurality of radio signal waveforms received by a plurality of other ports, and
generate a set of feature values for each AoA in a of a set of AoA's of interest based on a complex weighted sum of,
a first complex weight applied to the outputs from the first port and the plurality of other ports represented by the antenna system manifold with an incoming first polarization signal([0074] computing a set of weighted sums, where each weighted sum is a sum of weighted versions of the SoI from two or more output signals received from two or more ports of the antenna circuit, and wherein the weights can be positive, negative, or complex.), and
a second complex weight that is applied to the outputs from the first port and the plurality of other ports represented by the antenna system manifold with an incoming second polarization signal, wherein the first and second complex weights at each AoA in the set of AoA's produce a second set of complex features that is closest to the first set of complex features according to a distance metric ([0076] described the mathematics), and
wherein the determined direction to the target is the AoA in the set of AoA's which produced the closest distance metric ([0077] describes the mathematics).
Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCorkle as modified by Johnson and further in view of Stoica et al. (P. Stoica, S. Basak, C. Molder and B. Scheers, "Review of Counter-UAV Solutions Based on the Detection of Remote Control Communication," 2020 13th International Conference on Communications (COMM), Bucharest, Romania, 2020, pp. 233-238, Published online 07/16/2020), hereinafter Stoica.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, McCorkle as modified by Johnson does not explicitly disclose the target device comprises an unmanned aerial system and the second device comprises a remote control for the unmanned aerial system as claimed. Stoica teaches in the same field of endeavor, radio-frequency signal monitoring and characterization, systems and techniques for receiving radio signal waveforms communicated between an unmanned aerial system and a remote control for the unmanned aerial system (Abstract; One of the problems that we face today is the illegal use of drones. Monitoring the RF transmissions has proved to be a reliable technique for detecting and identifying such devices.
Although there are some solutions on the market for detection and jamming, they are not always successful. The aim of this paper is to analyze the typical communications used by drone manufacturers,). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McCorkle as modified by Johnson in view of Stoica to apply the claimed invention to this area since it is an application of radiofrequency monitoring of significant interest; and also since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 7, McCorkle as modified by Johnson discloses the system of claim 1. McCorkle as modified by Johnson fails to disclose the processing system is further programmed to characterize a type for the target device based on at least one of the target device's radio signal waveform, the target device's direction, and the target device's location.
However, Stoica teaches a processing system programmed to characterize a type for the target device based on at least one of the target device's radio signal waveform, the target device's direction, and the target device's location (Page 1, Col. 1, lines 8-12; One example is the new niche market of drone detectors and jammers that has recently emerged. These systems rely on the fact that most drones have at least one active radio link to the pilot for control and by detecting those communications you could locate both the drone and the operator. If the drone is equipped with a video camera or telemetry device, each of them would have a separate radio link making detection easier.). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities to modify the processing system of McCorkle as modified by Johnson by incorporating the programming for target device characterization from the teachings of Stoica to thereby realize the predictable result of an RF system for unmanned aerial system detection and classification.
Regarding claims 8, McCorkle as modified by Johnson and Stocia discloses the system of claim 7. McCorkle as modified by Johnson fail to disclose the system further comprising a database of RF waveform data that the processing system accesses to characterize the type for the target device.
However, Stoica teaches database of RF waveform data (Page 1, col. 1, lines 37-40; Because the largest number of drones are using the unlicensed 2.4 and 5.8 GHz ISM bands, detection systems are mainly focused on these bands and use large databases with signal characteristics for quick recognition.) that the processing system accesses to characterize the type for the target device (Page 1, col. 2, lines 36-41; Droneshield… compares the communications with sets of characteristics from a database in order to identify the type of drone). 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 McCorkle as modified by Johnson to incorporate the RF waveform data for characterizing target devices of Stoica to thereby realize the predictable result of an RF system for unmanned aerial system detection and classification.
Regarding claims 9, McCorkle as modified by Johnson and Stoica discloses the system of claim 8. McCorkle as modified by Johnson fails to teach wherein the RF waveform data comprises modulation information, and the database comprises a modulation look-up table.
However, Stoica teaches the RF waveform data comprises modulation information (Page 1, col. 1, lines 37-40; Because the largest number of drones are using the unlicensed 2.4 and 5.8 GHz ISM bands, detection systems are mainly focused on these bands and use large databases with signal characteristics for quick recognition.), and the database comprises a modulation look-up table (Page 1, col. 2, lines 36-41; Droneshield… compares the communications with sets of characteristics from a database in order to identify the type of drone). 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 further modified McCorkle as modified by Johnson to incorporate that RF waveform data comprises modulation information and that the database is searchable through modulation information of the RF waveform information for characterizing target devices of Stoica to thereby realize the predictable result of a database for unmanned aerial system detection and classification based on established techniques.
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 11585886 discloses systems and methods for detecting radio frequency (“RF”) signals and corresponding origination locations. An RF sensor device includes a software-defined radio and an antenna pair for receiving RF signals. The device may include a processing unit for processing/analyzing the RF signals, or the processing unit may be remote. The system calculates a phase difference between an RF signal received at two separate antennas of an antenna pair. The phase difference, the distance between the antennas, and the frequency of the RF signal are used for determining the origination direction of the RF signal. In various embodiments, the origination direction may indicate the location of a UAV controller or base station.
US 20150070217 discloses a microwave radio direction finding system including two six-port (SP) circuits with printed patch antennas. The output ports are connected to differential amplifiers that produce in-phase and quadrature signals, which are digitized and input to a digital signal processor, which computes the difference in phase for the signals received at each pair of antennas. The processor uses the differences in phase angles to compute both the azimuth and elevation of the received signals and may do so simultaneously for signals in multiple bands in the microwave region.
US 20070273576 discloses a method for determining the azimuth and elevation to an aircraft at long range that is transmitting an electromagnetic signal while flying at a low altitude above water, the signal being received using a plurality of vertically polarized antennas and horizontally polarized antennas in an antenna array, the received signal is received directly from the aircraft subject to electromagnetic scattering perturbations and is received via multi-path reflections from the surface of the water.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN BS ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4145. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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 (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 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.
/JBSA/Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/PETER M POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3643