DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed September 11, 2025 has been entered.
Claim 1, 7-8, 14, and 20 are amended.
Claim 4 is cancelled.
Claims 1-20 are pending this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 14-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lue et al (US 11181634 B1) in view of Sishtla et al (US 2022/0082687 A1).
Claim 1, Lue teaches a computer apparatus comprising: an electronically scanned array (ESA) antenna [col 6, lines 10-25];
a data storage element [col 7, lines 10-35];
and at least one processor in data communication with the ESA antenna, the data storage element, and a memory storing processor executable code for configuring the at least one processor to [col 6, lines 10-25, col 7, lines 10-35]:
determine a relative location of a ground clutter source with respect to the ESA antenna [col 8, lines 50-67].
Luo fails to explicitly teach determine an electronic configuration to produce a null in a radiation pattern of the ESA corresponding to the relative location of the ground clutter source; and continuously recalculate and apply the amplitude taper or the non-uniform phase distribution while the relative location of the ground clutter source changes, to maintain side lobe levels toward the ground clutter source.
Sishtla (‘687) has a method for applying an adaptive adjustment or taper to an electronically scanned array (abstract) and teaches determine an electronic configuration to produce a null in a radiation pattern of the ESA corresponding to the relative location of the ground clutter source [0039-0040];
and continuously recalculate and apply the amplitude taper or the non-uniform phase distribution while the relative location of the ground clutter source changes, to maintain side lobe levels toward the ground clutter source [0031, 0035-0037].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the weather scanning techniques, as disclosed by Lue, further including the null steering calculations as taught by Sishtla (‘687) for the purpose to position a null based on a non-uniform phase excitation of elements within the ESA (Sishtla (‘687), 0036).
Regarding Claim 14, Lue teaches a multi-mode radar system comprising: an electronically scanned array (ESA) antenna [col 6, lines 10-25];
a data storage element [col 7, lines 10-35];
and at least one processor in data communication with the ESA antenna, the data storage element, and a memory storing processor executable code for configuring the at least one processor to [col 6, lines 10-25, col 7, lines 10-35]:
determine a relative location of a ground clutter source with respect to the ESA antenna [col 8, lines 50-67].
Lue fails to explicitly teach determine an electronic configuration to produce a null in a radiation pattern of the ESA corresponding to the relative location of the ground clutter source; and continuously recalculate and apply the amplitude taper or the non- uniform phase distribution while the relative location of the ground clutter source changes, to maintain side lobe levels toward the ground clutter source.
Sishtla (‘687) has a method for applying an adaptive adjustment or taper to an electronically scanned array (abstract) and teaches determine an electronic configuration to produce a null in a radiation pattern of the ESA corresponding to the relative location of the ground clutter source [0039-0040];
and continuously recalculate and apply the amplitude taper or the non- uniform phase distribution while the relative location of the ground clutter source changes, to maintain side lobe levels toward the ground clutter source [0031 for feedback loop with active tapering (continuously recalculating), 0035-0037].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the weather scanning techniques, as disclosed by Lue, further including the null steering calculations as taught by Sishtla (‘687) for the purpose to position a null based on a non-uniform phase excitation of elements within the ESA (Sishtla (‘687), 0036).
Regarding Claim 2 and 15, Lue teaches the at least one processor is configured to retrieve a predetermined geolocation of the ground clutter source from the data storage element [col 8, lines 1-10 and col 8, lines 50-67].
Regarding Claim 3 and 16, Lue teaches the at least one processor is further configured to [col 8, lines 30-45]:
receive a plurality of sensor streams from the plurality of sensors [col 8, lines 30-50];
collate the sensor streams based on time stamps and an aircraft location and altitude [col 8, and col 10, lines 50-65];
and identify one or more ground clutter sources based on the sensor streams [col 10, lines 50-65].
Regarding Claim 5 and 18, Lue teaches the plurality of sensors includes one or more of GPS/GNSS receivers, Precision Navigation Timing (PNT), weather radar relative navigation, radar landing altimeter, Electro-optic runway landing imagers, TACAN, LORAN and glide slope/localizer landing systems [col 11, lines 1-10].
Regarding Claim 7 and 20, Lue teaches the at least one processor comprises a processor configured to determine the relative location and a field programmable gate array configured to produce the electronic configuration [col 7, lines 10-20].
Claims 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lue et al (US 11181634 B1) in view of Sishtla et al (US 2022/0082687 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 14, above, and further in view of Vacanti (US 20210132219 A1).
Regarding Claim 4 and 17, Lue teaches the at least one processor is configured as a trained neural network [col 9, lines 25-35, col 12, lines 35-50];
and the trained neural network is configured to [col 12, lines 35-50]:
receive at least the sensor streams [col 12, lines 15-25];
determine a current geolocation [col 12, lines 15-25 for first location];
determine that the neural network is trained for the current geolocation [col 11, lines 50-65 and col 12, lines 35-50].
Lue fails to explicitly teach and determine an I/Q adjustment to a radar return signal.
Vacanti has a weather radar with a transmission antenna array that outputs a high aspect ratio FMCW transmission beam (abstract) and teaches and determine an I/Q adjustment to a radar return signal [0094-0095].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the weather scanning techniques, as disclosed by Lue, further including the I/Q calculations as taught by Vacanti for the purpose to generate a receive beam at a predetermined elevation position (Vacanti, 0094).
Claim 6, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vacanti (US 20210132219 A1) in view of Sishtla et al (US 2022/0082687 A1), as applied to claim 8 above, in view of Sishtla et al (US 9019145 B1).
Regarding Claim 6 and 19, Lue fails to explicitly teach the null is at least 70 dB below a main lobe in the radiation pattern.
Sishtla (‘145) has a weather radar system is coupled to a weather radar antenna (abstract) and teaches the null is at least 70 dB below a main lobe in the radiation pattern [col 3 lines 40-50].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the weather scanning techniques, as disclosed by Lue, further including the null steering calculations as taught by Sishtla (‘145) for the purpose to reduce ground clutter (Sishtla (‘145), col 3, lines 20-40).
Regarding Claim 13, Vacanti fails to explicitly teach the side lobe level is at least 70 dB below a main lobe in the radiation pattern at the location corresponding to the relative location of the ground clutter source.
Sishtla (‘145) has a weather radar system is coupled to a weather radar antenna (abstract) and teaches the side lobe level is at least 70 dB below a main lobe in the radiation pattern at the location corresponding to the relative location of the ground clutter source [col 3 lines 40-50].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the weather scanning techniques, as disclosed by Vacanti, further including the null steering calculations as taught by Sishtla (‘145) for the purpose to reduce ground clutter (Sishtla (‘145), col 3, lines 20-40).
Claim 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vacanti (US 20210132219 A1) as applied to claim 8 above, in view of Sishtla et al (US 2022/0082687 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Vacanti teaches a method comprising: determining a relative location of a ground clutter source with respect to an electronically scanned array (ESA) antenna [0034];
determining an electronic configuration to adjust an amplitude taper or non-uniform phase distribution along an aperture of the ESA antenna to create a radiation pattern of the ESA to manipulate side lobe levels at a location corresponding to the relative location of the ground clutter source [0034-0036, 0052, 0056-0058],
and adjusting the amplitude taper and non-uniform phase distribution as a relative location of the ground clutter source change [0031 for having a closed feedback loop for active tapering (continuous adjusting) with 0034, and 0090-0091]
to maintain the manipulated side lobe levels toward the ground clutter source [0034 for software control, 0095].
Vacanti fails to explicitly teach continuously adjusting the amplitude taper and non-uniform phase distribution.
Sishtla (‘687) has a method for applying an adaptive adjustment or taper to an electronically scanned array (abstract) and teaches continuously adjusting the amplitude taper and non-uniform phase distribution [0031].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the weather scanning techniques, as disclosed by Lue, further including the null steering calculations as taught by Sishtla (‘687) for the purpose to position a null based on a non-uniform phase excitation of elements within the ESA (Sishtla (‘687), 0036).
Regarding Claim 9, Lue teaches retrieving a predetermined geolocation of the ground clutter source from a data storage element [0055-0056].
Claim 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vacanti (US 20210132219 A1) in view of Sishtla et al (US 2022/0082687 A1), as applied to claim 8 above, and in further view of Lue et al (US 11181634 B1).
Regarding Claim 10, Vacanti fails to explicitly teach receiving a plurality of sensor streams from a plurality of sensors; collating the sensor streams based on time stamps and an aircraft location and altitude; and identifying one or more ground clutter sources based on the sensor streams.
Lue has a weather radar system includes a radio frequency (RF) receiver, an entity detector, and a machine learning circuit (abstract) and teaches receiving a plurality of sensor streams from a plurality of sensors [col 8, lines 30-50];
collating the sensor streams based on time stamps and an aircraft location and altitude [col 8, and col 10, lines 50-65];
and identifying one or more ground clutter sources based on the sensor streams [col 10, lines 50-65].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the weather scanning techniques, as disclosed by Vacanti, further including the sensor calculations as taught by Lue for the purpose to output a likelihood that the radar data represents a particular type of weather, another platform, terrain, or other features (Lue, col 8, lines 40-55).
Regarding Claim 11, Vacanti teaches and determine an I/Q adjustment to a radar return signal
Vacanti fails to explicitly teach a trained neural network is configured to: receive at least the sensor streams; determine a current geolocation; determine that the neural network is trained for the current geolocation.
Lue has a weather radar system includes a radio frequency (RF) receiver, an entity detector, and a machine learning circuit (abstract) and teaches a trained neural network is configured to [col 9, lines 25-35, col 12, lines 35-50]:
receive at least the sensor streams [col 12, lines 15-25];
determine a current geolocation [col 12, lines 15-25 for first location];
determine that the neural network is trained for the current geolocation [col4, lines 35-45, and col 12, lines 15-25];
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the weather scanning techniques, as disclosed by Vacanti, further including the sensor calculations as taught by Lue for the purpose to determine that the weather radar system used particular radar data and sensor data to detect a first threat at a first location (Lue, col 12, lines 15-25).
Regarding Claim 12, Lue teaches the plurality of sensors includes one or more of GPS/GNSS receivers, Precision Navigation Timing (PNT), weather radar relative navigation, radar landing altimeter, Electro-optic runway landing imagers, TACAN, LORAN and glide slope/localizer landing systems [0060].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 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.
On page 9, 3rd paragraph applicant argues that Vacanti does not teach for claim 8 continuously updating element excitations based on clutter source changes. Examiner respectfully disagrees: New reference Shishtla (‘687) has a continuous updating of side lobe tapering by using a closed feedback loop (continuously by using an active feedback loop) to actively taper the ESA to minimize ground signals [Shishtla (‘687”), 0031].
On page 11, 2nd paragraph applicant argues that Vacanti does not teach determining a relative location of a ground clutter source with respect to ESA antenna. Examiner respectfully disagrees: New reference Shishtla (‘687) teaches continuously recalculate and apply the amplitude taper or the non-uniform phase distribution while the relative location of the ground clutter source changes (relative location of clutter with respect to the ESA antennas that has the side lobes), to maintain side lobe levels toward the ground clutter source [0031, 0035-0037].
The examiner acknowledges that this is a broader interpretation than Applicant’s.
However, examiners are not only allowed to apply broad interpretations, but are required to do so, as it reduces the possibility that the claims, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. MPEP §2111. Patentability is determined by the “broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification” (MPEP §2111), not the narrowest reasonable interpretation. And Applicant does not have an explicit lexicographical statement in line with MPEP §2111.01
subsection IV requiring a specific interpretation of the relevant phrases which forces the examiner to interpret them only one way.
The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
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.
“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SAMARINA MAKHDOOM whose telephone number is (703)756-1044. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Thursdays from 8:30 to 5:30 pm eastern time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Kelleher can be reached on 571-272-7753 The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SAMARINA MAKHDOOM/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648