Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on remarks/amendment 12/11/2025 has been entered.
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
Claims 1, 16, and 22 are amended.
Claims 2, 11, and 18 are canceled.
Claims 1, 3-10, 12-17, and 19-23 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks pages 8-12, filed 12/11/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive with regard to Alon (US 4,837,718) in view of Squire et al. (US 5,796474). Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Pautler et al. (US 2019/0056198 A1) in view of Hampikian (US 2015/0323660 A1). While the primary reference has changed from Alon (US 4,837,718) to Pautler et al. (‘198), Hampikian (‘660) remains part of the rejection. Accordingly, the Examiner addresses Applicant’s arguments regarding Hampikian and the claimed limitations below.
Argument Regarding Automatic Trigger Initiation (Claims 1, 16, and 22) - Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach a trigger “configured to automatically initiate operation of the radar apparatus to transmit the radar signal, initiate operation of the radar apparatus to receive the reflected signal and initiate transmission to the chirp radar data processor.” In view of Pautler et al. (‘198), this argument is not persuasive. Pautler et al. (‘198) directly teaches automatic firing detection that initiates system operation. Specifically, Pautler et al. (‘198) teaches at [0023]: “When the shot detection function 206 detects that a shot has been fired by measuring a sudden acceleration of the gun in the axis of the barrel via an accelerometer or gyroscope, measuring the angular rates via a gyroscope, sensing an abrupt shift in the image via subsequent image comparisons, measuring the loud sound through a speaker or pressure transducer, strain gauge on the gun, observation of the gun action, or any combination of these, the processor 210 will retrieve the contents of the rotation measurement and the image storage buffers 212.” Pautler’s automatic shot detection directly teaches the claimed automatic trigger functionality. Unlike Alon’s trigger detector (which Applicant argued merely delays A/D operation), Pautler’s shot detection function automatically initiates the entire data processing chain upon detecting firearm discharge. This includes automatic detection via multiple sensor modalities (accelerometer, gyroscope, acoustic sensors, strain gauges) and automatic initiation of data retrieval and processing.
Applicant further argues that “Hampikian fails to cure the deficiencies of Alon and Squire” because “Hampikian merely teaches a system of determining distance and relative speed of objects using a continuous-wave signal and a chirp electromagnetic signal” and “does not disclose tracking projectiles from a firearm.” This argument mischaracterizes the obviousness analysis. The test for obviousness is not whether each reference individually teaches every claim limitation, but whether the combination of references renders the claimed invention obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2141. Hampikian (‘660) is relied upon for its teachings regarding chirp radar signal processing, not for automatic trigger functionality. Pautler et al. (‘198) provides the automatic trigger initiation, and Hampikian (‘660) provides the chirp radar implementation. The combination teaches all elements of the claimed automatic triggering coupled to a chirp radar data processor. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to configure Pautler’s automatic shot detection system to initiate Hampikian’s chirp radar transmission/reception sequence upon the same trigger event. Pautler et al. (‘198) already contemplates using radar for range measurement ([0024]: “If range is measured using radar or LIDAR, or other direct measurements, the images may not need to be used”), and Hampikian (‘660) provides the specific chirp radar implementation. The combination achieves the claimed functionality with a reasonable expectation of success.
Argument Regarding Chirp Radar and Phase Shift for Range Determination (Claims 1, 16, and 22)- Applicant argues that “Hampikian does not disclose tracking projectiles from a firearm” and therefore cannot teach the claimed chirp radar data processor and phase shift-based range determination. This argument is not persuasive. Hampikian (‘660) is not relied upon for teaching projectile tracking from a firearm. Rather, Hampikian (‘660) is relied upon for teaching chirp radar signal processing techniques that determine range based on phase shift. The claimed invention does not require that the chirp radar technology itself be developed specifically for firearm projectiles. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that chirp radar technology, which determines range and velocity of moving objects, can be applied to track any moving object including projectiles. Hampikian (‘660) explicitly teaches phase shift-based range determination. At [0005], Hampikian (‘660) teaches: “The samples are typically processed to determine relative velocity of the object by detecting phase differences or phase rotations, i.e., Doppler shifts, in the reflected CW signal.” At [0008], Hampikian (‘660) further teaches: “A first set of phase differences among the plurality of samples of the reflected CW signal is determined. A second set of phase differences among the plurality of samples of the reflected chirp signal is determined.”
Hampikian (‘660) also teaches that this processing enables unambiguous range and velocity determination. At [0059], Hampikian (‘660) teaches: “both velocity and range for each target are unambiguously determined.” At [0036], Hampikian (‘660) teaches: “range, bearing and relative velocity of an object or target, whether moving or stationary, can be determined.”
Pautler et al. (‘198) contemplates radar for range measurement (Claim 9: “wherein the determined range is based on at least one of a radar, sonar, laser rangefinder and lidar”), establishing that radar-based range determination in projectile tracking systems was within the skill of the art. Combining Pautler’s projectile tracking system with Hampikian’s chirp radar implementation provides all-weather range and velocity measurement capability. This combination represents a straightforward application of known techniques to achieve predictable results.
Argument Regarding Shot Pattern Generation for Multiple Projectiles (Claim 16) - Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach “generating … a pattern of the shot cloud of the two or more of the plurality of projectiles.” Applicant specifically argues that “Hampikian only teaches tracking objects generally and provides no teachings regarding tracking projectiles from a firearm” and that “Hampikian does not disclose generating a pattern of the shot cloud.” This argument is not persuasive for several reasons.
First, Pautler et al. (‘198)—the new primary reference—directly teaches shot pattern generation for shotgun pellets. At [0010], Pautler et al. (‘198) teaches: “a method, comprises receiving an initial velocity of a projectile, determining a barrel position and a barrel orientation of a barrel, determining a shot pattern of the projectile in relation to at least one of time and distance and presenting the shot pattern to a user device.” At [0038], Pautler et al. (‘198) teaches: “Two circles 402 represent where the pellets from the shot pass thru the plane of the target.” At [0041], Pautler et al. (‘198) further teaches: “At the time of the shot, the pellets will follow an expanding pattern, as defined by the choke or a user input of a pattern geometry, represented by the two circles 704 in the figure.”
Pautler’s explicit teachings of shot pattern generation and display for shotgun pellets directly address the claimed shot cloud pattern functionality. Unlike Alon (which Applicant argued teaches away from tracking multiple projectiles), Pautler et al. (‘198) is specifically directed to shotgun applications where tracking multiple pellets and generating shot patterns is the intended purpose.
Second, regarding Hampikian’s role in the combination, Hampikian (‘660) teaches simultaneous tracking of multiple objects. At [0055], Hampikian (‘660) teaches: “the returns illustrate three frequency bin peaks in the FFT, which would correspond to three respective Dopplers of moving objects or targets indicated in the returns. Specifically, the three peaks occur in frequency bins K1, K2 and K3.” At [0059], Hampikian (‘660) teaches: “both velocity and range for each target are unambiguously determined.”
Hampikian’s FFT-based processing inherently provides position and velocity data for each detected object. When combined with Pautler’s shot pattern tracking for shotgun pellets, Hampikian’s chirp radar processing enables precise range and velocity determination for multiple projectiles simultaneously. This combination predictably yields spatial distribution data (i.e., a pattern) for multiple projectiles, representing a straightforward application of known techniques to achieve predictable results.
Applicant’s argument that “Hampikian does not disclose generating a pattern of the shot cloud” improperly requires that Hampikian (‘660) alone teach this limitation. The test for obviousness is whether the combination of references renders the claimed invention obvious. Pautler et al. (‘198) teaches shot pattern generation; Hampikian (‘660) teaches the chirp radar processing that enables range and velocity determination for multiple simultaneously tracked objects. The combination provides the claimed functionality.
Argument Regarding Displaying Ballistic Curve, Average Velocity, or Shot Pattern (Claims 1 and 22) - Applicant argues that “Hampikian does not teach generating a ballistic curve of a projectile, an average velocity, or a shot cloud for presenting on a user interface.” This argument is not persuasive. The claims recite “at least one of a ballistic curve of the projectile, an average velocity, or a shot pattern.” This limitation contains an “or” statement; therefore, the prior art need only teach one of the alternatives.
Pautler et al. (‘198) directly teaches presenting a shot pattern on a user interface. At [0010], Pautler et al. (‘198) teaches: “presenting the shot pattern to a user device.” At [0021], Pautler et al. (‘198) teaches: “The tracking device will analyze the target and present the results to at least one of a display device 106 and/or an audio headphone 108 that provides feedback to the shooter in real-time or near real-time on how to improve the shot.” At [0038], Pautler et al. (‘198) teaches: “Two circles 402 represent where the pellets from the shot pass thru the plane of the target.”
Pautler’s teachings of presenting shot patterns on a display device satisfy the claim limitation without requiring Hampikian (‘660) to independently teach this feature. Hampikian (‘660) is relied upon for chirp radar processing, not for display functionality.
Argument Regarding Linear Frequency Modulated (LFM) / Sawtooth Chirp Signal (Claims 3 and 19) - Applicant previously argued that the prior art does not disclose “a sawtooth chirp signal or a triangular chirp signal.” Hampikian (‘660) directly teaches linear frequency modulated signals. At [0006], Hampikian (‘660) teaches: “A chirp signal is an electromagnetic signal whose frequency changes with time. Generally, the frequency of an up-chirp signal increases over time, and the frequency of a down-chirp signal decreases over time. The frequency variation of a chirp signal can take many different forms. For example, the frequency of a linear frequency modulated (LFM) signal varies linearly.” A linear frequency modulated signal describes a sawtooth pattern where frequency increases or decreases linearly over time. Hampikian’s teaching of LFM chirp signals directly satisfies the claim limitation.
Argument Regarding Response to “Teaching Away” - Applicant previously argued that Alon teaches away from tracking multiple projectiles. This argument is now moot because Alon is no longer the primary reference. Pautler et al. (‘198) does not teach away from tracking multiple projectiles. To the contrary, Pautler et al. (‘198) is specifically directed to tracking shotgun pellets, which necessarily involves multiple projectiles in a shot cloud. Pautler’s entire disclosure contemplates shotgun applications with multiple pellets ([0029]: “optional choke 324 if the shooting device is a shotgun”; [0038]: “Two circles 402 represent where the pellets from the shot pass thru the plane of the target”; [0041]: “At the time of the shot, the pellets will follow an expanding pattern”).
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.
Claims 1, 3-10, 12-17, and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pautler et al. (US 2019/0056198 A1) in view of Hampikian (US 2015/0323660 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Pautler et al. (‘198) in view of Hampikian (‘660) teaches:
Pautler et al. (‘198) teaches: A system for monitoring at least one projectile during flight, the system comprising: ([0002]: “The present disclosure is in the technical field of shooting sports. More particularly, the present disclosure is in the technical field of shooting moving targets.”; [0007]: “a method comprises receiving an initial velocity of a projectile”).
Pautler et al. (‘198) teaches: a radar apparatus configured to transmit a radar signal, ([0024]: “If range is measured using radar or LIDAR, or other direct measurements, the images may not need to be used.”; Claim 9: “wherein the determined range is based on at least one of a radar, sonar, laser rangefinder and lidar.”).
Pautler et al. (‘198) does not explicitly teach the radar signal comprising a base radar frequency signal with a frequency shift, but Hampikian (‘660) teaches this limitation ([0006]: “A chirp signal is an electromagnetic signal whose frequency changes with time. Generally, the frequency of an up-chirp signal increases over time, and the frequency of a down-chirp signal decreases over time.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the radar contemplated by Pautler et al. (‘198) using the chirp signal of Hampikian (‘660). One would have been motivated to do so because Hampikian teaches that chirp signals enable simultaneous determination of both range and velocity of targets ([0036]: “range, bearing and relative velocity of an object or target, whether moving or stationary, can be determined”). There is a reasonable expectation of success because Pautler already contemplates using radar for range measurement ([0024]), and Hampikian provides a well-documented implementation of chirp radar technology.
Pautler et al. (‘198) teaches: the radar signal having a signal profile in a direction of a chosen target, wherein the radar signal incident upon the projectile traveling through at least a portion of the signal profile toward the target reflects off the projectile, the radar apparatus further configured to receive at least one reflected signal from the projectile, wherein the reflected signal and the radar signal comprise radar data; ([0024]: “If range is measured using radar or LIDAR, or other direct measurements”). Radar inherently operates by transmitting signals toward a target area and receiving reflected signals.
Pautler et al. (‘198) does not explicitly teach a chirp radar data processor configured to receive the radar data from the radar apparatus; but Hampikian (‘660) teaches this limitation ([0034]: “Processor 20 can be one of various types of processors capable of carrying out the processing on the digitized receive signals and control of RF signal generator 12 and radar transmit circuitry 14 to provide the radar operation and functionality of radar system 10”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the tracking system of Pautler et al. (‘198) with the chirp radar data processor of Hampikian (‘660). One would have been motivated to do so because Hampikian teaches that such a processor enables processing of chirp radar signals to determine both range and velocity of targets ([0034], [0036]). There is a reasonable expectation of success because Pautler already teaches a processor for tracking data ([0023]: “the processor 210 will retrieve the contents”), and integrating chirp radar processing as taught by Hampikian would be a straightforward enhancement.
Pautler et al. (‘198) teaches: a trigger operably coupled to the radar apparatus, wherein the trigger is configured to automatically initiate operation of the radar apparatus to transmit the radar, initiate operation of the radar apparatus to receive the reflected signal, and initiate transmission to the chirp radar data processor; ([0023]: “When the shot detection function 206 detects that a shot has been fired by measuring a sudden acceleration of the gun in the axis of the barrel via an accelerometer or gyroscope, measuring the angular rates via a gyroscope, sensing an abrupt shift in the image via subsequent image comparisons, measuring the loud sound through a speaker or pressure transducer, strain gauge on the gun, observation of the gun action, or any combination of these, the processor 210 will retrieve the contents of the rotation measurement and the image storage buffers 212.”).
Pautler et al. (‘198) teaches: a user interface operably coupled to chirp radar data processor; ([0021]: “The tracking device will analyze the target and present the results to at least one of a display device 106 and/or an audio headphone 108 that provides feedback to the shooter in real-time or near real-time on how to improve the shot.”).
Pautler et al. (‘198) does not explicitly teach a memory coupled to the chirp radar data processor, the memory storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed, configure the chirp radar data processor for: but Hampikian (‘660) teaches this limitation ([0034]: “processor 20 interfaces via a system bus 22 with one or more other required circuits, such as one or more memory devices 24”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the processor of Pautler et al. (‘198) with the memory configuration of Hampikian (‘660). One would have been motivated to do so because Hampikian teaches that memory devices coupled to the processor enable storage of instructions for radar signal processing ([0034]). There is a reasonable expectation of success because Pautler already teaches storage for data ([0023]: “storing information in a rotating buffer”).
Pautler et al. (‘198) does not explicitly teach determining a phase shift between the radar signal and the reflected signal; but Hampikian (‘660) teaches this limitation ([0005]: “The samples are typically processed to determine relative velocity of the object by detecting phase differences or phase rotations, i.e., Doppler shifts, in the reflected CW signal.”; [0008]: “A first set of phase differences among the plurality of samples of the reflected CW signal is determined. A second set of phase differences among the plurality of samples of the reflected chirp signal is determined.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the tracking system of Pautler et al. (‘198) with the phase shift determination of Hampikian (‘660). One would have been motivated to do so because Hampikian teaches that determining phase shift enables calculation of both range and velocity from radar signals ([0005], [0008]). There is a reasonable expectation of success because phase-based measurements are a well-established technique in radar signal processing.
Pautler et al. (‘198) teaches: calculating a velocity of the projectile based on the received radar data; ([0007]: “a method comprises receiving an initial velocity of a projectile”; [0030]: “The trajectory of the shot consists of the initial orientation and initial velocity of the shooting device as well as initial velocity of the projectile.”).
Pautler et al. (‘198) does not explicitly teach generating a relative range of the projectile from the radar apparatus as a function of the phase shift, wherein the chirp radar data processor outputs the calculated velocity and the determined relative range of the projectile; but Hampikian (‘660) teaches this limitation ([0036]: “According to exemplary embodiments, range, bearing and relative velocity of an object or target, whether moving or stationary, can be determined.”; [0042]: “Once a pair is established, range for each object/target can be determined by removing the number of FFT bins due to velocity from the FFT index of the peak. The resulting index is then due solely to range.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the velocity determination of Pautler et al. (‘198) with the phase shift-based range determination of Hampikian (‘660). One would have been motivated to do so because Hampikian teaches that combining CW Doppler with chirp signals enables unambiguous determination of both range and velocity ([0058]: “values for range and velocity of a target are unambiguously determined”). There is a reasonable expectation of success because Hampikian demonstrates successful implementation of combined range and velocity measurement.
Pautler et al. (‘198) teaches: presenting, on the user interface, the calculated velocity, the determined relative range of the projectile, and at least one of ballistic curve of the projectile, an average velocity, or a shot pattern. Note: This limitation contains an “or” statement; therefore, the prior art need only teach one of the alternatives. Pautler teaches presenting a shot pattern ([0010]: “a method, comprises receiving an initial velocity of a projectile, determining a barrel position and a barrel orientation of a barrel, determining a shot pattern of the projectile in relation to at least one of time and distance and presenting the shot pattern to a user device.”; [0038]: “Two circles 402 represent where the pellets from the shot pass thru the plane of the target.”).
Regarding Claim 3, Pautler et al. (‘198) in view of Hampikian (‘660) teaches the system of claim 1.
Claim 3 depends from canceled claim 2. To the extent claim 3 is intended to depend from claim 1:
Pautler et al. (‘198) does not explicitly teach wherein the frequency shift of the base radar frequency signal is in a pattern comprising at least one of a sawtooth chirp signal and a triangular chirp signal. Note: This limitation contains an “or” statement (“at least one of”); therefore, the prior art need only teach one of the alternatives. Hampikian (‘660) teaches this limitation ([0006]: “the frequency of a linear frequency modulated (LFM) signal varies linearly.”). A linear frequency modulated signal describes a sawtooth pattern where frequency increases or decreases linearly over time.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the radar of Pautler et al. (‘198) using the linear frequency modulated signal pattern of Hampikian (‘660). One would have been motivated to do so because Hampikian teaches that such signals are effective for range determination ([0006]). There is a reasonable expectation of success because LFM/sawtooth chirp signals are well-established in radar technology.
Regarding Claim 4, Pautler et al. (‘198) in view of Hampikian (‘660) teaches the system of claim 1.
Pautler et al. (‘198) does not explicitly teach wherein the chirp radar data processor is configured to calculate a frequency shift between the radar signal and the reflected signal for calculating the velocity of the projectile. Hampikian (‘660) teaches this limitation ([0005]: “The samples are typically processed to determine relative velocity of the object by detecting phase differences or phase rotations, i.e., Doppler shifts, in the reflected CW signal.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the tracking system of Pautler et al. (‘198) with the frequency shift-based velocity calculation of Hampikian (‘660). One would have been motivated to do so because Hampikian teaches that Doppler shift detection enables precise velocity measurement ([0005]). There is a reasonable expectation of success because Doppler-based velocity measurement is a well-established radar technique.
Regarding Claim 5, Pautler et al. (‘198) in view of Hampikian (‘660) teaches the system of claim 1.
Pautler et al. (‘198) teaches: wherein the radar apparatus comprises an aiming device having a peep sight through which an operator is able to view the chosen target. ([0021]: “The device is aligned to the boresight of the gun using a laser, selecting an aim point on the display, aiming at a target at a fixed range, or use of a boresighting device inserted into the barrel visible to the device.”). Pautler teaches aligning the tracking device to the gun boresight. It would have been obvious to include a peep sight as a simple mechanical aiming device to allow the operator to align the apparatus with the intended projectile path, as peep sights are well-known aiming devices commonly used on firearms.
Regarding Claim 6, Pautler et al. (‘198) in view of Hampikian (‘660) teaches the system of claim 1.
Pautler et al. (‘198) does not explicitly teach wherein the signal profile has a height, and a width in a direction transverse to a direction of the height, wherein the height is larger than the width when measured at the chosen target. Hampikian (‘660) teaches directional radar transmission ([0036]: “range, bearing and relative velocity of an object or target, whether moving or stationary, can be determined.”). Hampikian teaches radar systems that determine bearing, which requires a directional beam pattern. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, a beam pattern extending farther in one spatial dimension than another necessarily has a height, a transverse width, and a relationship between them.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the beam pattern with height larger than width. One would have been motivated to do so to accommodate typical projectile trajectory variations in elevation while maintaining horizontal precision. There is a reasonable expectation of success because beam shaping is a well-established technique in radar antenna design.
Regarding Claim 7, Pautler et al. (‘198) in view of Hampikian (‘660) teaches the system of claim 1.
Pautler et al. (‘198) does not explicitly teach wherein the signal profile has a cross section of a vertical ellipse, non-circular cone covering a larger elevation area than horizontal area. Hampikian (‘660) teaches directional radar transmission with bearing determination ([0036]). Configuring such a beam pattern as a vertical ellipse covering larger elevation area than horizontal area is an obvious design choice for tracking projectiles that may vary in elevation while traveling along a generally horizontal path. There is a reasonable expectation of success because elliptical antenna beam patterns are routinely implemented in radar systems.
Regarding Claim 8, Pautler et al. (‘198) in view of Hampikian (‘660) teaches the system of claim 1.
Pautler et al. (‘198) teaches: wherein the trigger is activated by a recoil, a vibrational force, an acoustic force, or reflected radar signal. Note: This limitation contains an “or” statement; therefore, the prior art need only teach one of the alternatives. ([0023]: “When the shot detection function 206 detects that a shot has been fired by measuring a sudden acceleration of the gun in the axis of the barrel via an accelerometer or gyroscope, measuring the angular rates via a gyroscope, sensing an abrupt shift in the image via subsequent image comparisons, measuring the loud sound through a speaker or pressure transducer, strain gauge on the gun, observation of the gun action, or any combination of these”). Pautler teaches trigger activation by recoil (“sudden acceleration”), vibrational force (“strain gauge”), and acoustic force (“loud sound”).
Regarding Claim 9, Pautler et al. (‘198) in view of Hampikian (‘660) teaches the system of claim 1.
Pautler et al. (‘198) teaches: wherein the trigger is operably coupled to the chirp radar data processor to automatically initiate chirp radar data the processor to collect the radar data. ([0023]: “When the shot detection function 206 detects that a shot has been fired… the processor 210 will retrieve the contents of the rotation measurement and the image storage buffers 212.”).
Regarding Claim 10, Pautler et al. (‘198) in view of Hampikian (‘660) teaches the system of claim 1.
Pautler et al. (‘198) does not explicitly teach wherein the chirp radar data processor is further configured to calculate a signal strength of the reflected radar signal. Hampikian (‘660) teaches this limitation ([0040]: “The approach includes generating Fast Fourier Transforms (FFT) of the return for the CW section and detecting all Doppler peaks above a predetermined threshold.”). FFT processing with threshold detection inherently requires calculating signal strength to identify peaks above the threshold.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the tracking system of Pautler et al. (‘198) with the signal strength calculation of Hampikian (‘660). One would have been motivated to do so because signal strength information enables distinguishing valid targets from noise. There is a reasonable expectation of success because signal strength calculation is inherent in FFT-based radar processing with threshold detection.
Regarding Claim 12, Pautler et al. (‘198) in view of Hampikian (‘660) teaches the system of claim 1.
Pautler et al. (‘198) teaches: wherein the projectile comprises a plurality of pellets being fired simultaneously. ([0029]: “optional choke 324 if the shooting device is a shotgun.”; [0038]: “Two circles 402 represent where the pellets from the shot pass thru the plane of the target.”; [0041]: “At the time of the shot, the pellets will follow an expanding pattern, as defined by the choke or a user input of a pattern geometry, represented by the two circles 704 in the figure.”).
Regarding Claim 13, Pautler et al. (‘198) in view of Hampikian (‘660) teaches the system of claim 1.
Pautler et al. (‘198) teaches: A method of monitoring at least one projectile during flight with the system set forth in claim 1, wherein the method comprises: triggering the radar apparatus to transmit the radar signal in the direction of the chosen target, ([0023]: “When the shot detection function 206 detects that a shot has been fired”);
Pautler et al. (‘198) teaches: generating the radar signal from the radar apparatus in response to the triggering; ([0024]: “If range is measured using radar or LIDAR, or other direct measurements”);
Pautler et al. (‘198) teaches: acquiring data from the radar signal from the radar apparatus; ([0023]: “the processor 210 will retrieve the contents of the rotation measurement and the image storage buffers 212.”);
Pautler et al. (‘198) teaches: acquiring data from the reflected signal off the projectile passing through the signal profile of the radar signal; ([0024]: “If range is measured using radar or LIDAR, or other direct measurements”). Radar range measurement inherently requires acquiring reflected signal data; and
Pautler et al. (‘198) does not explicitly teach binning the radar data for use of determining the velocity of the projectile. Hampikian (‘660) teaches this limitation ([0040]: “The approach includes generating Fast Fourier Transforms (FFT) of the return for the CW section and detecting all Doppler peaks above a predetermined threshold.”; [0055]: “Specifically, the three peaks occur in frequency bins K1, K2 and K3.”). FFT processing organizes data into frequency bins for analysis.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement binning of radar data in Pautler et al. (‘198) as taught by Hampikian (‘660). One would have been motivated to do so because Hampikian teaches that organizing samples into frequency bins via FFT processing enables velocity determination. There is a reasonable expectation of success because FFT-based signal processing with binned data is standard practice in radar systems.
Regarding Claim 14, Pautler et al. (‘198) in view of Hampikian (‘660) teaches the method of claim 13.
Pautler et al. (‘198) does not explicitly teach wherein determining velocity of the projectile includes determining a frequency shift between the radar data collected. Hampikian (‘660) teaches this limitation ([0005]: “The samples are typically processed to determine relative velocity of the object by detecting phase differences or phase rotations, i.e., Doppler shifts, in the reflected CW signal.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine velocity using frequency shift as taught by Hampikian (‘660) in the system of Pautler et al. (‘198). One would have been motivated to do so because Doppler shift is a well-established method for velocity measurement in radar systems. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Hampikian demonstrates successful implementation of this technique.
Regarding Claim 15, Pautler et al. (‘198) in view of Hampikian (‘660) teaches the method of claim 14.
Pautler et al. (‘198) does not explicitly teach wherein determining velocity of the projectile comprises comparing the radar data to an approximate velocity of the projectile to filter out noise. Hampikian (‘660) teaches this limitation ([0040]: “detecting all Doppler peaks above a predetermined threshold.”; [0041]: “Further qualification of match can also conditioned on other criteria such as a maximum allowed phase difference and a minimum SNR.”). Threshold comparison and SNR filtering distinguish valid velocity measurements from noise.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to filter noise by comparing radar data to thresholds as taught by Hampikian (‘660) in the system of Pautler et al. (‘198). One would have been motivated to do so because noise filtering improves measurement accuracy. There is a reasonable expectation of success because threshold-based filtering is a standard signal processing technique.
Regarding Claim 16, Pautler et al. (‘198) in view of Hampikian (‘660) teaches:
Pautler et al. (‘198) teaches: A system for monitoring a plurality of projectiles in a shot cloud during flight, the system comprising: ([0029]: “optional choke 324 if the shooting device is a shotgun.”; [0038]: “Two circles 402 represent where the pellets from the shot pass thru the plane of the target.”; [0041]: “At the time of the shot, the pellets will follow an expanding pattern”).
Pautler et al. (‘198) teaches: a radar apparatus configured to transmit a radar signal ([0024]: “If range is measured using radar or LIDAR”; Claim 9: “wherein the determined range is based on at least one of a radar, sonar, laser rangefinder and lidar.”).
Pautler et al. (‘198) does not explicitly teach comprising a base radar frequency signal with a frequency shift, but Hampikian (‘660) teaches this limitation ([0006]: “A chirp signal is an electromagnetic signal whose frequency changes with time.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the radar contemplated by Pautler et al. (‘198) using the frequency-shifting chirp signal of Hampikian (‘660). One would have been motivated to do so because Hampikian teaches that chirp signals enable range determination ([0036]). There is a reasonable expectation of success because Pautler already contemplates radar for range measurement ([0024]).
Pautler et al. (‘198) teaches: the radar signal having a signal profile in a direction of a chosen target, wherein the radar signal incident upon off the plurality of projectiles within the shot cloud traveling through at least a portion of the signal profile toward the target reflects off the projectiles, the radar apparatus being configured to receive reflected signals from the plurality of projectiles within the shot cloud, wherein the reflected signals and the chirp signal comprise radar data; ([0024]: “If range is measured using radar or LIDAR”; [0038]: “Two circles 402 represent where the pellets from the shot pass thru the plane of the target.”). Pautler teaches tracking shotgun pellets; radar range measurement inherently involves transmitting signals and receiving reflections.
Pautler et al. (‘198) does not explicitly teach a chirp radar data processor configured to receive the radar data from the radar apparatus; but Hampikian (‘660) teaches this limitation ([0034]: “Processor 20 can be one of various types of processors capable of carrying out the processing on the digitized receive signals”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the processor of Pautler et al. (‘198) with the chirp radar data processor of Hampikian (‘660). One would have been motivated to do so because Hampikian teaches that such processing enables range and velocity determination ([0034], [0036]). There is a reasonable expectation of success because Pautler already includes a processor ([0023]: “processor 210”).
Pautler et al. (‘198) teaches: a trigger operably coupled to the radar apparatus, wherein the trigger is configured to automatically initiate operation of the radar apparatus to transmit the radar signal, receive the reflected signals, and initiate transmission to the chirp radar data processor; ([0023]: “When the shot detection function 206 detects that a shot has been fired… the processor 210 will retrieve the contents of the rotation measurement and the image storage buffers 212.”).
Pautler et al. (‘198) teaches: a user interface operably coupled to chirp radar data processor; ([0021]: “present the results to at least one of a display device 106 and/or an audio headphone 108 that provides feedback to the shooter”).
Pautler et al. (‘198) does not explicitly teach a memory coupled to the chirp radar data processor, the memory storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed, configure the chirp radar data processor for: but Hampikian (‘660) teaches this limitation ([0034]: “processor 20 interfaces via a system bus 22 with one or more other required circuits, such as one or more memory devices 24”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the processor of Pautler et al. (‘198) with the memory configuration of Hampikian (‘660). One would have been motivated to do so because Hampikian teaches that memory enables storage of processor-executable instructions ([0034]). There is a reasonable expectation of success because Pautler already includes storage ([0023]: “storing information in a rotating buffer”).
Pautler et al. (‘198) does not explicitly teach determining a phase shift between the radar signal and the reflected signal; but Hampikian (‘660) teaches this limitation ([0005]: “detecting phase differences or phase rotations, i.e., Doppler shifts, in the reflected CW signal.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the tracking system of Pautler et al. (‘198) with the phase shift determination of Hampikian (‘660). One would have been motivated to do so because phase shift enables range calculation ([0008]). There is a reasonable expectation of success because phase-based measurements are well-established in radar.
Pautler et al. (‘198) teaches: calculating a velocity of each projectile of two or more of the plurality of projectiles within the shot cloud based on the received radar data; ([0007]: “a method comprises receiving an initial velocity of a projectile”; [0029]: “The point of impact of the shot logic 320 is performed in processor 210 and uses the inertial rate of the gun, range to target, initial velocity of the projectile 322, and optional choke 324 if the shooting device is a shotgun.”).
Pautler et al. (‘198) does not explicitly teach generating a relative range of the projectile of the two or more of the plurality of projectiles within the shot from the radar apparatus as a function of the phase shift but Hampikian (‘660) teaches range determination based on phase shift ([0057]: “values for range and velocity of a target are unambiguously determined.”).
Pautler et al. (‘198) teaches: and a pattern of the shot cloud of the two or more of the plurality of projectiles, wherein the chirp radar data processor outputs the calculated velocities and the relative ranges of the two or more of the plurality of projectiles within the shot cloud; ([0031]: “using information based on choke used for a shotgun, the size of the pattern of the shot at the target range can be combined with the impact location to determine where the target was in relation to the pattern.”; [0038]: “Two circles 402 represent where the pellets from the shot pass thru the plane of the target.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the shot pattern generation of Pautler et al. (‘198) with the phase shift-based range determination of Hampikian (‘660). One would have been motivated to do so because combining range data with pattern information provides complete shot cloud characterization. There is a reasonable expectation of success because each reference successfully implements its respective functionality.
Pautler et al. (‘198) teaches: presenting, on the user interface the calculated velocities, the relative ranges, and at least one of the pattern of the shot cloud of the two or more of the plurality of projectiles, one or more ballistic characteristics of the shot cloud, or an average velocity of the plurality of projectiles. Note: This limitation contains an “or” statement; therefore, the prior art need only teach one of the alternatives. ([0038]: “Two circles 402 represent where the pellets from the shot pass thru the plane of the target.”; [0042]: “presenting the shot pattern to a user device.”).
Regarding Claim 17, Pautler et al. (‘198) in view of Hampikian (‘660) teaches the system of claim 16.
Pautler et al. (‘198) teaches: wherein the plurality of projectiles within a shot cloud begin flight at a same initial point. ([0041]: “At the time of the shot, the pellets will follow an expanding pattern, as defined by the choke”). Shotgun pellets originate from the same barrel and thus begin flight at the same initial point.
Regarding Claim 19, Pautler et al. (‘198) in view of Hampikian (‘660) teaches the system of claim 16.
Claim 19 depends from canceled claim 18. To the extent claim 19 is intended to depend from claim 16:
Pautler et al. (‘198) does not explicitly teach wherein the frequency shift of the base radar frequency signal is in a pattern of a sawtooth chirp signal or a triangular chirp signal. Note: This limitation contains an “or” statement; therefore, the prior art need only teach one of the alternatives. Hampikian (‘660) teaches this limitation ([0006]: “the frequency of a linear frequency modulated (LFM) signal varies linearly.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the radar of Pautler et al. (‘198) using the linear frequency modulated signal pattern of Hampikian (‘660). One would have been motivated to do so because Hampikian teaches that LFM signals are effective for range determination. There is a reasonable expectation of success because LFM/sawtooth chirp signals are well-established in radar technology.
Regarding Claim 20, Pautler et al. (‘198) in view of Hampikian (‘660) teaches the system of claim 16.
Pautler et al. (‘198) does not explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to determine a frequency shift between the radar signal and each of the reflected signals for calculating relative ranges of the projectiles from the radar apparatus. Hampikian (‘660) teaches this limitation ([0057]: “each peak P1, P2 and P3 is associated with some combination of range and velocity for the associated object(s)/target(s).”; [0059]: “values for range and velocity of a target are unambiguously determined.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the tracking system of Pautler et al. (‘198) with the frequency shift-based range calculation of Hampikian (‘660). One would have been motivated to do so because Hampikian teaches that this technique enables unambiguous range determination for multiple targets ([0057]-[0059]). There is a reasonable expectation of success because Hampikian demonstrates successful implementation of this technique.
Regarding Claim 21, Pautler et al. (‘198) in view of Hampikian (‘660) teaches the system of claim 16.
Pautler et al. (‘198) teaches: wherein the trigger is activated by a recoil, a vibrational force, an acoustic force, or a reflected radar signal. Note: This limitation contains an “or” statement; therefore, the prior art need only teach one of the alternatives. ([0023]: “measuring a sudden acceleration of the gun in the axis of the barrel via an accelerometer or gyroscope… measuring the loud sound through a speaker or pressure transducer, strain gauge on the gun”). Pautler teaches trigger activation by recoil, vibrational force, and acoustic force.
Regarding Claim 22, Pautler et al. (‘198) in view of Hampikian (‘660) teaches:
Pautler et al. (‘198) teaches: A chronograph system for monitoring at least one projectile during flight, the chronograph system comprising: ([0002]: “The present disclosure is in the technical field of shooting sports.”; [0007]: “a method comprises receiving an initial velocity of a projectile”).
Pautler et al. (‘198) teaches: a housing ([0021]: “there is an optical tracking device 102 that is mounted to a shooting device 104”; [0045]: “A device described in Embodiment 1 where the device is mounted to the gun”).
Pautler et al. (‘198) does not explicitly teach containing a chirp radar data processor configured to receive radar data including a radar signal and a reflecting signal, but Hampikian (‘660) teaches this limitation ([0034]: “Processor 20 can be one of various types of processors capable of carrying out the processing on the digitized receive signals”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the tracking device of Pautler et al. (‘198) with the chirp radar data processor of Hampikian (‘660). One would have been motivated to do so because Hampikian teaches that chirp processing enables range determination in addition to velocity ([0036]), providing all-weather tracking capability. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Pautler already includes a processor ([0023]) and contemplates radar ([0024]).
Pautler et al. (‘198) does not explicitly teach determine a range of the projectile relative to the housing based on a phase shift between the radar signal and the reflected signal, but Hampikian (‘660) teaches this limitation ([0036]: “range, bearing and relative velocity of an object or target, whether moving or stationary, can be determined.”; [0057]: “values for range and velocity of a target are unambiguously determined.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add phase shift-based range determination as taught by Hampikian (‘660) to the tracking device of Pautler et al. (‘198). One would have been motivated to do so because range information provides additional useful data for projectile tracking. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Hampikian demonstrates successful phase-based range determination.
Pautler et al. (‘198) teaches: and calculate a velocity of the projectile based on monitoring the projectile during flight, wherein the chirp radar data processor outputs the velocity of the projectile; ([0007]: “a method comprises receiving an initial velocity of a projectile”; [0030]: “The trajectory of the shot consists of the initial orientation and initial velocity of the shooting device as well as initial velocity of the projectile.”).
Pautler et al. (‘198) teaches: an aiming device coupled to the housing, the aiming device comprising a peep sight through which an operator is able to view an intended path of the projectile; ([0021]: “The device is aligned to the boresight of the gun using a laser, selecting an aim point on the display, aiming at a target at a fixed range, or use of a boresighting device inserted into the barrel visible to the device.”).
Pautler et al. (‘198) teaches: a trigger operably coupled to the chirp radar data processor, wherein the trigger is configured to automatically initiate operation of the chirp radar data processor for calculating the velocity of the projectile and determining the range of the projectile and initiate transmission to the chirp radar data processor; ([0023]: “When the shot detection function 206 detects that a shot has been fired… the processor 210 will retrieve the contents”).
Pautler et al. (‘198) teaches: a display operably coupled to the chirp radar data processor, wherein the display is configured to display a user interface comprising the calculated velocity, the relative range, and at least one of a ballistic curve, an average velocity, or a pattern of the shot cloud. Note: This limitation contains an “or” statement; therefore, the prior art need only teach one of the alternatives. ([0021]: “present the results to at least one of a display device 106”; [0038]: “Two circles 402 represent where the pellets from the shot pass thru the plane of the target.”).
Regarding Claim 23, Pautler et al. (‘198) in view of Hampikian (‘660) teaches the chronograph system of claim 22.
Pautler et al. (‘198) teaches: further comprising a radar apparatus contained in the housing, the radar apparatus configured to transmit a radar signal, ([0024]: “If range is measured using radar or LIDAR, or other direct measurements”; Claim 9: “wherein the determined range is based on at least one of a radar, sonar, laser rangefinder and lidar.”).
Pautler et al. (‘198) does not explicitly teach the radar signal comprising a base radar frequency signal with a frequency shift, but Hampikian (‘660) teaches this limitation ([0006]: “A chirp signal is an electromagnetic signal whose frequency changes with time.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the radar contemplated by Pautler et al. (‘198) using the frequency-shifting chirp signal of Hampikian (‘660). One would have been motivated to do so because chirp signals enable range determination. There is a reasonable expectation of success because both references relate to tracking systems.
Pautler et al. (‘198) teaches: the radar signal having a signal profile in a direction of the intended path of the projectile, wherein the radar signal incident upon the projectile traveling through at least a portion of the signal profile along the intended path reflects off the projectile, the radar apparatus further configured to receive at least one reflected signal from the projectile, wherein the reflected signal and the radar signal comprise radar data, and wherein the processor is responsive to the collected radar data for calculating the velocity of the projectile. ([0024]: “If range is measured using radar or LIDAR”; [0007]: “a method comprises receiving an initial velocity of a projectile”). Radar range measurement inherently involves transmitting and receiving signals; Pautler teaches determining projectile velocity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REMASH R GUYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-0115. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571) 270-5144. 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.
/REMASH R GUYAH/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648