DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 12/19/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-13 and 16-25 are pending in the application. Claims 1 and 12-13 are amended, claims 20-25 are new and claims 6-11 and 16-19 are withdrawn and claims 14-15 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
The applicant argues that Seisenberger does not disclose a pulsed radar signal, the examiner agrees. However, Tuttle in the analogous arts does disclose a pulsed radar signal as shown in the arguments below.
Applicant’s arguments for claims 1 and 12 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been considered but are unpersuasive. The applicant argues that Tuttle does not disclose a pulse radar signal (page 8, REM: “Tuttle, therefore, fails to teach or disclose at least "the flying object signal being a pulsed signal" as claimed in amended claim 1.”). The examiner respectfully disagrees, the disclosure of Tuttle teaches a pulsed radar signal for locating an RFID tag, Tuttle (Detailed Description (33): “FIG. 3 shows waveforms of a plurality of signals in an RFID system using pulsed radar signals according to one embodiment. In FIG. 3, the transmitted radar signals (50) are in a form of pulses having duration of T.sub.2 and a repetition period T.sub.3. The received signals, reflected from the RFID tag, have a time delay T.sub.1 relative to the corresponding transmitted radar signal. The time delay represents the round trip travel time by the radar signal over the distance between the radar antenna and the RFID tag (and the object having the RFID tag). Since the speed of the radar signal is known, a measurement of the time delay (round trip time) can be used to calculate the distance between the radar antenna and the RFID tag (and the object having the RFID tag).”). Applicant’s argument remains unpersuasive and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of independent claims 1 and 12 based on the combination of Seisenberger and Tuttle is hereby maintained.
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, 4, 12, 13 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Seisenberger (US20100231410A1) in view of Tuttle (US10571558B2).
Regarding claim 1 Seisenberger discloses: A passive transponder for attachment to an object to be located (Para. [0002]: “The present invention relates to a radio-based system for the multi-dimensional location of a target object, in particular an RFID transponder” and Para. [0042]: “The transponders 2 to be located can be passive, i.e. operate with a field supply without their own power supply.”), the passive transponder comprising: one or more antennas (Figure 3, element 3)
Seisenberger does not teach “wherein the one or more antennas are configured to reflect at least a portion of a flying object signal transmitted by a flying object as a function of the modulated backscattering coefficient such that a position of the passive transponder can be determined based on the reflected portion of the flying object signals wherein the flying object signal is a pulsed signal.”.
However, Tuttle in analogous arts teaches: wherein the one or more antennas are configured to reflect at least a portion of a flying object signal transmitted by a flying object as a function of the modulated backscattering coefficient such that a position of the passive transponder can be determined based on the reflected portion of the flying object signals wherein the flying object signal is a pulsed signal (Para 5: “A passive RFID tag does not have an internal battery or power source. A passive RFID tag operates using the power drawn from the interrogating electromagnetic wave. A passive RFID tag provides responses through modulating the interrogating electromagnetic wave backscattered by the tag.”; Para. 11: “When the RFID tag is connected to an onboard computer of the vehicle, various vehicle operation statuses, such as speed, location, fuel level, heading, etc., can be reported through interrogating the RFID tag via the radar signals. RFID tags can also be used to tag other objects. For example, RFID tagged weather balloons can be detected using a radar system; and the weather data can be transmitted via the RFID tag through the radar signals according to various embodiments described in the present disclosure. The use of radar-based RFID system obviates the need for expensive and heavy radio equipment for data communications. In general, various remote data could be collected using combined Radar/RFID systems described herein. The RFID tag can be carried by an airplane or placed in a central location such as on a mountain top.”; Para 33: “FIG. 3 shows waveforms of a plurality of signals in an RFID system using pulsed radar signals according to one embodiment. In FIG. 3, the transmitted radar signals (50) are in a form of pulses having duration of T.sub.2 and a repetition period T.sub.3. The received signals, reflected from the RFID tag, have a time delay T.sub.1 relative to the corresponding transmitted radar signal. The time delay represents the round trip travel time by the radar signal over the distance between the radar antenna and the RFID tag (and the object having the RFID tag). Since the speed of the radar signal is known, a measurement of the time delay (round trip time) can be used to calculate the distance between the radar antenna and the RFID tag (and the object having the RFID tag).”).
It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Seisenberger with Tuttle to incorporate the feature of: wherein the one or more antennas are configured to reflect at least a portion of a flying object signal transmitted by a flying object as a function of the modulated backscattering coefficient such that a position of the passive transponder can be determined based on the reflected portion of the flying object signals wherein the flying object signal is a pulsed signal. However, Seisenberger fails to disclose a feature of pulsed radar signal to local a passive transponder. This feature is disclosed by Tuttle. It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Seisenberger with Tuttle to incorporate the feature of: : wherein the one or more antennas are configured to reflect at least a portion of a flying object signal transmitted by a flying object as a function of the modulated backscattering coefficient such that a position of the passive transponder can be determined based on the reflected portion of the flying object signals wherein the flying object signal is a pulsed signal. Such a feature would improve radar range/distance resolution thus increase the efficiency of the system.
Claims 12 and 23 recites limitations that are similar to those of claim 1, therefore claims 12 and 23 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 4 the combination of Seisenberger and Tuttle discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Seisenberger further teaches: wherein the modulator is configured to modulate the backscattering coefficient of the one or more antennas using frequency modulation (Para. 0013: “With the radio-based system it is possible to locate target objects, in particular transponders, which operate according to the modulated backscatter principle, with the aid of a frequency-modulated radio signal transmitted by the base station. The one-dimensional distance measurement is effected by way of a measurement of the propagation time of the electromagnetic radio signal from the transmitter by way of the transponder back to the receiver. The two or three-dimensional location is achieved with a suitable antenna arrangement using a novel phase evaluation. From the measurement of the phase information of the signal reflected by the transponder occurring at the individual antennas of the base station it is possible to conclude the respective deviation angle .alpha..sub.z of the transponder.”) .
Regarding claim 13 the combination of Seisenberger and Tuttle discloses all the limitations of claim 12. Seisenberger further teaches: receiving the reflected flying object signal using a linear antenna array of the flying object, the linear antenna array comprising a plurality of antennas ( Figure 7); processing the received reflected flying object signal by each processing device of a plurality of processing devices of the linear antenna array (Para 0022: “According to a further advantageous embodiment the distance r.sub.z between the base station and the target object is essentially greater than mutual intervals d.sub.j of adjacent antennas in relation to one another. For a two-dimensional position determination the distance from the target object is advantageously much greater than the mutual interval of the antennas in relation to one another, in other words r.sub.z>>d.sub.j. It can thus be approximately assumed that the beams reflected from the target object to the antennas run parallel to one another.”), each processing device of the plurality of processing devices being associated with an antenna of the plurality of antennas (Para. 0020: “According to a further advantageous embodiment the second facility can be used to determine distance differences .DELTA.r.sub.i between adjacent antennas and the target object or transponder based respectively on a difference in maximum value phase differences. The high level of sensitivity of the phase gradient curve means that the smallest distance differences .DELTA.r.sub.i can be resolved over a phase evaluation. This characteristic is used to determine a path difference .DELTA.r.sub.i occurring between antennas and therefore the target deviation angle .alpha..sub.z.”), wherein the processing of the received reflected flying object signal is by a processing device and comprises: determining a phase difference of the received reflected flying object signal (Para. 0018: “According to a further advantageous embodiment the second facility can be used to determine a distance r.sub.i between the target object and an antenna using maximum value phase differences. A maximum value phase difference is the difference between the phase values at the frequency points where the above-mentioned maximum values occur.”); and determining the elevation angle of the passive transponder using the position of the flying object (Para 0025: “According to a further advantageous embodiment the antennas are arranged along a horizontal line or along a vertical line. This allows three-dimensional location. It is possible to determine the azimuth one the one hand and the elevation of a target object on the other hand.”); determining the azimuth angle of the passive transponder using the phase differences of the received reflected flying object signal determined by each processing device of the plurality of processing devices object (Para 0025: “According to a further advantageous embodiment the antennas are arranged along a horizontal line or along a vertical line. This allows three-dimensional location. It is possible to determine the azimuth one the one hand and the elevation of a target object on the other hand.”); and determining the position of the object using the determined elevation angle and the determined azimuth angle (Para 0025: “According to a further advantageous embodiment the antennas are arranged along a horizontal line or along a vertical line. This allows three-dimensional location. It is possible to determine the azimuth one the one hand and the elevation of a target object on the other hand. The x-, y- and z-coordinates can be calculated together with the measured distance. “).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Seisenberger (US20100231410A1) in view of Tuttle (US10571558B2) and further in view of Maggiora (Maggiora et al. An Innovative Harmonic Radar to Track Flying Insects: the Case of Vespa velutina. Sci Rep 9, 11964 (2019)).
Regarding claim 2 the combination of Seisenberger and Tuttle discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Seisenberger does not teach “wherein the transmitted flying object signal is a frequency modulated flying object signal and/or an encoded flying object signal “.
However, Maggiora in the analogous arts teaches: wherein the transmitted flying object signal is a frequency modulated flying object signal and/or an encoded flying object signal (System architecture: “High range resolution and high sensitivity, as may be obtained with a transmitted short pulse, are important for all radar applications, in particular for harmonic radars where passive transponders have very low efficiency. The main limitation in achieving high sensitivity with short duration pulses is that a high peak power is required for a large pulse energy. We use a transmitted long pulse to solve this problem; the long pulse is modulated in frequency or phase and the received echoes are processed with a proper matched filter without losing the short pulse advantages.”).
It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Seisenberger with Maggiora to incorporate the feature of: wherein the transmitted flying object signal is a frequency modulated flying object signal and/or an encoded flying object signal. Seisenberger and Maggiora are all considered analogous arts as they all disclose the use of radio-frequency devices to locate objects. However, Seisenberger fails to disclose a feature of frequency modulation. This feature is disclosed by Maggiora. It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Seisenberger with Maggiora to incorporate the feature of: wherein the transmitted flying object signal is a frequency modulated flying object signal and/or an encoded flying object signal as such a feature would increase the efficiency of the system.
Regarding claim 3 the combination of Seisenberger and Tuttle discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Seisenberger does not teach “wherein the passive transponder comprises a mass of less than 1 g“.
However, Maggiora teaches: wherein the passive transponder comprises a mass of less than 1 g (Transponders: “The weight of the transponder is 15 mg, while the overall height corresponds to the longer arm, i.e. 12 mm; the paper pedestal is a 3 mm edge square. Such a light weight can be handled by several insects, from honeybees to bumble bees.”).
It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Seisenberger with Maggiora to incorporate the feature of: wherein the passive transponder comprises a mass of less than 1 g. Seisenberger and Maggiora are all considered analogous arts as they all disclose the use of radio-frequency devices to locate objects. However, Seisenberger fails to disclose a feature of frequency modulation. This feature is disclosed by Maggiora. It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Seisenberger with Maggiora to incorporate the feature of: wherein the passive transponder comprises a mass of less than 1 g as such a feature make the transponder feasible for attachment on small size objects.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Seisenberger (US20100231410A1) in view of Tuttle (US10571558B2) and further in view of Armstrong (US20110215922).
Regarding claim 5 the combination of Seisenberger and Tuttle discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Seisenberger does not teach “wherein the modulator is configured to modulate the backscattering coefficient of the one or more antennas such that the reflected portion of the flying object signal can be mapped to the passive transponder using the modulation “.
However, Armstrong in the analogous arts teaches: wherein the modulator is configured to modulate the backscattering coefficient of the one or more antennas such that the reflected portion of the flying object signal can be mapped to the passive transponder using the modulation (Para. 0035: “[0035] The chip 304 which is implanted in the child or person, preferably comprises a passive radio frequency identification (RFID) transponder encased in the chip. The transponder is an intrinsic part of the RFID. The entire RFID is about the same dimension and depth of a postage stamp, so that it can be easily implanted in the person. Because the transponder is completely passive, no electrical current is contained in the chip, and it does not require any local power (such as a battery) to operate. By eliminating the need for a battery, the transponder remains small and the transponder need not be removed in order to replace the battery. In addition, the passive transponder is completely non-toxic, unlike chips containing batteries, and is difficult to visually detect. The passive transponder becomes active when it receives a properly tuned signal from an RFID transmitter, and then converts that signal to electrical energy. The transponder is completely inert until it receives the interrogation signal. Once the transponder (transmitter/receiver) receives the interrogation signal, it converts the RF energy to electrical power which powers the device to transmit a response.”; Para. 0048: “When the drone aircraft, in search pattern, sends electronic signals with the unique code, the passive RFID, implanted in a person, will receive, save, and use that energy to respond to the drone. By retrofitting a supercapacitor onto the passive RFID, much more electrical energy can be gathered by the supercapacitor, which by the nature of its being, makes very fast charges and discharges through the RFID transmitter. In effect, the drone aircraft continuously transmits signals at a fast rate, and the passive RFID transponder device, with the supercapacitor, responds with the same rapidity, and with a stronger signal that has a longer range (about 300 plus feet).”).
It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Seisenberger with Armstrong to incorporate the feature of: wherein the modulator is configured to modulate the backscattering coefficient of the one or more antennas such that the reflected portion of the flying object signal can be mapped to the passive transponder using the modulation. Seisenberger and Armstrong are all considered analogous arts as they all disclose the use of radio-frequency devices to locate objects. However, Seisenberger fails to disclose a feature of mapping an RF (radio-frequency) signal to the transponder using modulation. This feature is disclosed by Armstrong. It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Seisenberger with Armstrong to incorporate the feature of: wherein the modulator is configured to modulate the backscattering coefficient of the one or more antennas such that the reflected portion of the flying object signal can be mapped to the passive transponder using the modulation as such a feature would increase the efficiency of the system.
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Seisenberger (US20100231410A1) in view of Tuttle (US10571558B2) and further in view of Zorea (US20180024236).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Seisenberger and Tuttle discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Seisenberger does not teach “wherein the pulsed flying object signal is a chirp signal whose frequency varies with time “.
However, Zorea in the analogous arts teaches: wherein the pulsed flying object signal is a chirp signal whose frequency varies with time (Para 0032: “The radiated energy signal waveform may be selected from, but not limited to: (i) a radio frequency (RF) pulse; (ii) a RF pulse with linear frequency modulation (LFM); (iii) continuous frequency modulation (FMCW); (iv) unique waveform so as to distinguish between other radar systems. Some examples for unique waveforms may be Barker-codes; or (v) a signal pattern so as to properly query and interrogate the transponders located on the UAVs.”).
It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Seisenberger with Zorea to incorporate the feature of: wherein the pulsed flying object signal is a chirp signal whose frequency varies with time. Seisenberger and Zorea are all considered analogous arts as they all disclose the use of radio-frequency devices to locate objects. However, Seisenberger fails to disclose a feature of chirp signal whose frequency varies with time. This feature is disclosed by Zorea. It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Seisenberger with Zorea to incorporate the feature of: wherein the pulsed flying object signal is a chirp signal whose frequency varies with time as such a feature would increase the efficiency of the system.
Claim 21 recites limitations that are similar to those of claim 20, therefore claim 21 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 22 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Seisenberger (US20100231410A1) in view of Tuttle (US10571558B2) and further in view of Axline (US5486830A).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Seisenberger and Tuttle discloses all the limitations of claim 12. Seisenberger does not teach “processing the received reflected flying object signal by performing a synthetic aperture radar procedure to determine the transponders position and identity “.
However, Axline in the analogous arts teaches: processing the received reflected flying object signal by performing a synthetic aperture radar procedure to determine the transponders position and identity (Background 8: “The present invention overcomes the shortcomings not yet addressed by the prior art by providing a novel, active (battery-powered), phase-coded, time-gating transponder and novel SAR signal-processing methods that, in combination, allow recognition and location of the transponder in the SAR image, allow communication of information messages from the transponder to the SAR, and allow the transponder to be constructed with only one antenna. The present invention fulfills the need for a radar transponder concept and SAR signal-processing techniques that enhance the transponder's echo relative to the surrounding clutter or noise. Said concepts and techniques allow the true geographical location of the transponder relative to other features in the scene to be revealed in the SAR image and allow reliable, low-power communications from the transponder to the SAR. The time-gating feature of the present invention, to be described in more detail below, provides a method for making the transponder's transmitting and receiving time intervals mutually exclusive. In this way, the transponder's transmitted echo does not interfere with that same transponder's receiver. This feature allows the transponder to be constructed using only one antenna.”)
It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Seisenberger with Axline to incorporate the feature of: processing the received reflected flying object signal by performing a synthetic aperture radar procedure to determine the transponders position and identity. However, Seisenberger fails to disclose a feature SAR data processing. This feature is disclosed by Axline. It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Seisenberger with Axline to incorporate the feature of: processing the received reflected flying object signal by performing a synthetic aperture radar procedure to determine the transponders position and identity as such a feature would increase the efficiency of the system.
Claim 25 recites limitations that are similar to those of claim 22, therefore claim 25 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Seisenberger and Tuttle discloses all the limitations of claim 12. Seisenberger does not teach “a flying object configured to transmit the flying object signal in the direction of the one or more passive transponders “.
However, Axline in the analogous arts teaches: a flying object configured to transmit the flying object signal in the direction of the one or more passive transponders (Field of Invention: “The present invention relates generally to the combination of radio-frequency (rf) tagging concepts with an airborne or spaceborne synthetic-aperture radar (SAR). More specifically, the invention is directed to radar transponders which receive, modulate, and retransmit pulses transmitted by a SAR wherein the radar transponder, after special processing of the transponder's echo by the SAR's image-formation processor, can be discerned in a SAR image, can be used as a precise location marker at a fixed position on the earth's surface, and can communicate status or other information back to the illuminating SAR.”).
The reason to combine Seisenberger with Axline is the same as on given in claim 22 above.
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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bongani J. Mashele whose telephone number is (703)756-5861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8 AM - 4:30 PM).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Resha H. Desai can be reached on 571-270-7792. 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.
/BONGANI JABULANI MASHELE/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648