DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hudson (US Pat. 5,045,860) in view of Williams et al. (Williams, US Pat. 4,806,936).
Referring to Claim 1, Hudson teaches carrying out direction-finding measurements by each of the receivers (Fig. 2 SA, SB and SC; Col. 6 ln 7-34) with respect to at least a part of the emitters (Fig. 2 #T; Col. 6 ln 31-34) in order to obtain a respective direction-finding measurement result, collecting the direction-finding measurement results by one of the observers or an external evaluation unit (Fig. 2 #20; Col. 7 ln 67-Col. 8 ln 15), ascertaining for each receiver a respective geometric probability distribution of bearings of emitters from the respective direction-finding measurement results from all of the receivers in order to form a respective partial map for each of the receivers (Fig. 3; Col. 8 ln 31-34, Col. 9 ln 43-48 and Col. 11 ln 1-13), combinatorially multiplying the partial maps in order to generate a plurality of possible hypotheses of positions of the emitters (Col. 11 ln 1-37), adding up all generated hypotheses with a respective weighting to form an overall map in order to obtain a marginalized probability distribution that takes all hypotheses into account (Fig. 5 and 6; Col. 13 ln 7-Col. 14 ln 7), and eliminating, step-by-step, hypotheses that are incompatible with the marginalized probability distribution in order to generate a result map; Fig. 4-7 and Col. 13 ln 7-Col. 14 ln 59, but does not explicitly disclose nor limit determining positions of a number n of multiple emitters from target objects.
Hudson teaches and refers to “targets” multiple times in the specification (Col. 6 “sea-based targets” would imply more than one target; and Col. 9 “nearby targets” would also imply more than one target), and while the assumption would be that this would teach more than one targets, it is not explicit.
Williams, however, teaches determining positions of a number n of multiple emitters from target objects; See Fig. 1 and 2 and Abstract.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hudson with multiple target positioning as taught by Williams as it provides the predictable and well known capability within in the art of providing surveillance in a multi-target environment.
Referring to Claim 2, Hodson as modified by Williams teaches wherein the marginalized probability distribution is formed from direction-finding measurements with respect to emitters of the same type; Col. 13 ln 44-51.
Referring to Claim 3, Hodson as modified by Williams teaches wherein the method generates a respective result map for emitters of multiple types, and wherein multiple result maps are selectively overlaid so that the multiple result maps can be displayed jointly to a user; Col. 13 ln 44-51.
Referring to Claim 4, Hodson as modified by Williams teaches wherein the partial maps each comprise bearing lines which are formed from the direction-finding measurement results of the receivers and are directed to at least a part of the emitters, and wherein the possible hypotheses from the plurality of possible hypotheses comprise intersection points of all of the bearing lines with one another; See Fig. 3.
Referring to Claim 6, Hodson as modified by Williams teaches wherein the collecting, ascertaining, combinatorially multiplying, adding, and eliminating are repeated as soon as a new direction-finding measurement from at least one of the observers is present; Col. 8 ln 3-31.
Referring to Claim 7, Hodson as modified by Williams teaches estimating a movement of at least one of the emitters based on changes over time of corresponding ascertained positions; Col. 8 ln 3-31.
Referring to Claim 8, Hodson as modified by Williams teaches wherein the observers are selected from a group consisting of: stationary observers, terrestrial vehicles, watercraft, aircraft, and spacecraft; Col. 16 ln 19-22.
Referring to Claim 9, Hodson as modified by Williams teaches wherein the observers transmit data on direction-finding measurements one time, repeatedly or continuously to an evaluation unit; Col. 8 ln 3-31.
Referring to Claim 10, Hodson as modified by Williams teaches collecting a priori information that is taken into account when ascertaining the geometric probability distribution of bearings of emitters; Col. 10 ln 9-16.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hodson as modified by Williams in view of Jamieson et al. (Jamieson, US PGPub 2016/0334498).
Referring to Claim 5, Hodson as modified by Williams teaches the step-by-step elimination, but does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein, during the step-by-step elimination, a most probable position of an emitter is respectively ascertained iteratively from all hypotheses, and subsequently all hypotheses that belong to intersection points of the bearing lines that run through an ascertained most probable position of the emitter and lie outside the most probable position are eliminated, and wherein the step-by-step elimination is repeated until no further hypotheses other than most probable positions remain.
However, Jamieson teaches wherein, during the step-by-step elimination, a most probable position of an emitter is respectively ascertained iteratively from all hypotheses, and subsequently all hypotheses that belong to intersection points of the bearing lines that run through an ascertained most probable position of the emitter and lie outside the most probable position are eliminated, and wherein the step-by-step elimination is repeated until no further hypotheses other than most probable positions remain; [0131-0132].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hodson as modified by Williams with the further elimination process as taught by Jamieson so as to optimize the processing in order to find the candidate location that maximizes this overall likelihood.
Claim(s) 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hodson in view Grandin et al. (Grandin, US PGPub 2016/0041254) and Williams.
Referring to Claim 11, Hudson teaches receivers for receiving the electromagnetic signals, and at least one evaluation unit, wherein the receivers are integrated into the observers and are configured to carry out direction-finding measurements with respect to at least a part of the emitters in order to obtain a respective direction-finding measurement result, wherein the evaluation unit is configured to collect direction-finding measurement results from the receivers, and wherein the at least one evaluation unit is configured, for each receiver, to: ascertain a respective geometric probability distribution of bearings of the emitters from the direction-finding measurement results of all of the receivers in order to form a respective partial map for each of the receivers; to multiply the partial maps combinatorially in order to generate a plurality of possible hypotheses of positions of the emitters; add up all generated hypotheses with a respective weighting to form an overall map in order to obtain a marginalized probability distribution that takes all hypotheses into account; and eliminate hypotheses that are incompatible with a marginalized probability distribution, step-by-step, in order to generate a result map; See claim 1 for citations, but it is noted that while it would have been obvious that the elimination could be performed by the evaluation unit, it is not explicitly stated nor limited from taking place by the evaluation unit, or determining positions of a number n of multiple emitters from target objects.
However, Grandin teaches explicitly eliminate hypotheses that are incompatible with a marginalized probability distribution, step-by-step using an evaluation unit; [0013-0014], [0042] and Claim 3.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hodson as modified by Williams with the computer computations as taught by Grandin so as to predictably increase the speed in which the processing takes place and rapidly eliminate phantom or ghost sources and to associate radar tracks originating from one and the same source.
Further, Hudson teaches and refers to “targets” multiple times in the specification (Col. 6 “sea-based targets” would imply more than one target; and Col. 9 “nearby targets” would also imply more than one target), and while the assumption would be that this would teach more than one targets, it is not explicit.
Williams, however, teaches determining positions of a number n of multiple emitters from target objects; See Fig. 1 and 2 and Abstract.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hudson as modified by Grandin with multiple target positioning as taught by Williams as it provides the predictable and well known capability within in the art of providing surveillance in a multi-target environment.
Referring to Claim 12, Hodson as modified by Grandin and Williams teaches wherein at least one group of receivers is configured to receive electromagnetic signals of a same type, and wherein the at least one evaluation unit is configured to form the marginalized probability distribution from direction-finding measurement results of the observers separately for each of the at least one group of receivers; See rejection of Claim 2 above.
Referring to Claim 13, Hodson as modified by Grandin and Williams teach wherein the observers each comprise a communication unit for transmitting the direction-finding measurement results to the at least one evaluation unit; Col. 8 ln 3-31.
Referring to Claim 14, Hodson as modified by Grandin and Williams teach a display unit that can be coupled to the at least one evaluation unit and configured to display the result map; Col. 8 ln 3-31.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
It is also noted that Jamieson could also be used to teach the limitation of determining multiple target emitters, as [0058] teaches that multiple client devices can be emitting signals, and is therefore not limited to a single emitter device.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WHITNEY T MOORE whose telephone number is (571)270-3338. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 7am-4pm.
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.
/WHITNEY MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646