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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 04/13/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in this application. Claims 1-3, 8, 10, and 14-15 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled or are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 04/13/2026 regarding prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. All previous prior art rejections are overcome in consideration of amendments. However, additional prior art rejections are presented below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is:
The phrase “signal processing subsystem” in claim 1 uses the generic placeholder “subsystem” with the functional language “signal processing”. The functional language is not modified by sufficient structure to perform the function. Sufficient structure, material, or acts for this limitation is found in the specification (See at least [0033]).
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Examiner’s Comment
Claim 3 appears to written as two versions with differing amendments. In a telephonic interview with attorney of record Gary McFaline, the attorney confirmed that the second portion of the claim is the correct amendment. For the purposes of this examination, the Examiner will interpret claim 3 as “The bistatic radar receiver of claim 2, wherein the signal processing subsystem further comprises a range calculator configured to derive the range to the target from the one or more jamming signals and the one or more reflections using according to r=m1-cosα, wherein cosα=u∙d, wherein u is the unit vector provided by the angle of arrival data and a pointing angle of the second antenna wherein d is a unit vector from the bistatic radar receiver to the target based on the pointing angle of the scanning beam, wherein the range calculator further applies a weighting factor to the unit vector u based on signal strength and angle sensitivity”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 of this title, 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, 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam (US 20250035735 A1), hereinafter Nam, in view of Li (US 20240291606 A1), hereinafter Li, in view of Yu (US 20030071749 A1), hereinafter Yu.
Regarding claim 1, Nam, as shown below, discloses a bistatic radar system (See at least Fig. 5B, [0148] “FIG. 5B is a diagram 530 illustrating a bistatic sensing scenario”) comprising the following limitations:
at least one first antenna configured to receive one or more (See at least Figs. 3A-3C, [0111] “an antenna array, that permits the respective apparatus (e.g., UE 302, base station 304) to perform receive beamforming”)
a second antenna (See at least Figs. 3A-3C, 5B, [0111] “an antenna array, that permits the respective apparatus (e.g., UE 302, base station 304) to perform receive beamforming”) configured to point a scanning beam to detect one or more reflections of the one or more (See at least Figs. 5B, [0148] “The sensing device 504 can measure various properties (e.g., times of arrival (ToAs), angles of arrival (AoAs), phase shift, etc.) of the reflections 536 of the RF sensing signals 534”, [0153] “the sensing device 504 may determine the direction to the target object as the angle of arrival (AoA) of the RF sensing signal, which is the angle of the receive beam used to receive the RF sensing signal”); and
a signal processing subsystem coupled to the at least one first antenna and to the second antenna, the signal processing subsystem configured to process the one or moreconfigured to determine an angle of arrival of the one or more (See at least [0153] “the sensing device 504 can calculate the distance to the target object as the difference between the ToA of the LOS path and the ToA of the NLOS path multiplied by the speed of light. In addition, if the sensing device 504 is capable of receive beamforming, the sensing device 504 may be able to determine the general direction to a target object as the direction (angle) of the receive beam on which the RF sensing signal following the NLOS path was received”), a jammer isolation module configured to form a direct beam using the angle of arrival and to form a scan beam using a pointing angle of the scanning beam (See at least [0153] “the sensing device 504 may determine the direction to the target object as the angle of arrival (AoA) of the RF sensing signal, which is the angle of the receive beam used to receive the RF sensing signal”), (See at least [0153] “the sensing device 504 can calculate the distance to the target object as the difference between the ToA of the LOS path and the ToA of the NLOS path multiplied by the speed of light. In addition, if the sensing device 504 is capable of receive beamforming, the sensing device 504 may be able to determine the general direction to a target object as the direction (angle) of the receive beam on which the RF sensing signal following the NLOS path was received”)
Nam does not explicitly disclose a beam correlation processing circuit configured to cross correlate time-aligned samples of the direct beam and the scan beam to determine a difference between correlation peaks corresponding to a path-length difference m. However, Li, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses:
a beam correlation processing circuit configured to cross correlate time-aligned samples of the direct beam and the scan beam to determine a difference between correlation peaks corresponding to a path-length difference m (See at least [0075] “the receiver can determine the time delay Δt between LoS signal 314 and a reflection signal 316 (note there may be multiple reflection signals from different objects) by finding the maximum (or maxima) in the correlated data”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the bistatic radar system disclosed by Nam with the correlation system disclosed by Li. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve object detection (See at least [0095] “with process 300) to improve precision with object detection”).
The combination of Nam and Li does not explicitly disclose
(See at least Fig. 1, Item 12, [0010] “Signals being transmitted by jammer 12 radiates outward in all directions from the jammer 12”);
jamming signals (See at least Fig. 1, Item 12, [0010] “Signals being transmitted by jammer 12 radiates outward in all directions from the jammer 12”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the bistatic radar system disclosed by Nam with the correlation system disclosed by Li with the jamming system disclosed by Yu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously covertly track a target (See at least [0003] “it is advantageous, in some circumstances, for the radar system to remain covert (no transmission). Thus, there is a need for a radar system and method for covertly detecting and tracking a target of interest, such as an LO target, in the presence of jamming.”).
Regarding claim 10, Nam, as shown below, discloses a bistatic radar (See at least Fig. 5B, [0148] “FIG. 5B is a diagram 530 illustrating a bistatic sensing scenario”) comprising the following limitations:
pointing a scanning beam to acquire at least one reflection of the (See at least Figs. 5B, [0148] “The sensing device 504 can measure various properties (e.g., times of arrival (ToAs), angles of arrival (AoAs), phase shift, etc.) of the reflections 536 of the RF sensing signals 534”, [0153] “the sensing device 504 may determine the direction to the target object as the angle of arrival (AoA) of the RF sensing signal, which is the angle of the receive beam used to receive the RF sensing signal”);
forming a direct beam using the angle of arrival and forming a scan beam using a pointing angle of the scanning beam (See at least [0153] “the sensing device 504 may determine the direction to the target object as the angle of arrival (AoA) of the RF sensing signal, which is the angle of the receive beam used to receive the RF sensing signal”);
deriving a range to the target based on the angle of arrival of the jamming signal, the correlation path-length difference m, and a pointing angle of the scanning beam (See at least [0153] “the sensing device 504 can calculate the distance to the target object as the difference between the ToA of the LOS path and the ToA of the NLOS path multiplied by the speed of light. In addition, if the sensing device 504 is capable of receive beamforming, the sensing device 504 may be able to determine the general direction to a target object as the direction (angle) of the receive beam on which the RF sensing signal following the NLOS path was received”)
Nam does not explicitly disclose determining, by cross correlating time-aligned samples of the direct beam and the scan beam, a difference between correlation peaks corresponding to a path-length difference m. However, Li, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses:
cross correlating time-aligned samples of the direct beam and the scan beam, a difference between correlation peaks corresponding to a path-length difference m (See at least [0075] “the receiver can determine the time delay Δt between LoS signal 314 and a reflection signal 316 (note there may be multiple reflection signals from different objects) by finding the maximum (or maxima) in the correlated data”); and
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the bistatic radar system disclosed by Nam with the correlation system disclosed by Li. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve object detection (See at least [0095] “with process 300) to improve precision with object detection”).
The combination of Nam and Li does not explicitly disclose acquiring at least one jamming signal emitted by a jammer; jamming signals. However, Yu, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses:
acquiring at least one jamming signal emitted by a jammer (See at least Fig. 1, Item 12, [0010] “Signals being transmitted by jammer 12 radiates outward in all directions from the jammer 12”)
jamming signals (See at least Fig. 1, Item 12, [0010] “Signals being transmitted by jammer 12 radiates outward in all directions from the jammer 12”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the bistatic radar system disclosed by Nam with the correlation system disclosed by Li with the jamming system disclosed by Yu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously covertly track a target (See at least [0003] “it is advantageous, in some circumstances, for the radar system to remain covert (no transmission). Thus, there is a need for a radar system and method for covertly detecting and tracking a target of interest, such as an LO target, in the presence of jamming.”).
Regarding claim 14, Nam, as shown below, discloses a passive ranging apparatus (See at least Fig. 5B, [0148] “FIG. 5B is a diagram 530 illustrating a bistatic sensing scenario”) comprising the following limitations:
a first antenna configured to receive a (See at least Figs. 3A-3C, [0111] “an antenna array, that permits the respective apparatus (e.g., UE 302, base station 304) to perform receive beamforming”) ;
a second antenna (See at least Figs. 3A-3C, 5B, [0111] “an antenna array, that permits the respective apparatus (e.g., UE 302, base station 304) to perform receive beamforming”) configured to point a scanning beam (See at least Figs. 5B, [0148] “The sensing device 504 can measure various properties (e.g., times of arrival (ToAs), angles of arrival (AoAs), phase shift, etc.) of the reflections 536 of the RF sensing signals 534”, [0153] “the sensing device 504 may determine the direction to the target object as the angle of arrival (AoA) of the RF sensing signal, which is the angle of the receive beam used to receive the RF sensing signal”);
at least one processor (See at least [0053] “the sequence(s) of actions described herein can be considered to be embodied entirely within any form of non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein a corresponding set of computer instructions that, upon execution, would cause or instruct an associated processor of a device to perform the functionality described herein”); and
at least one tangible non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing program instructions that when executed by the at least one processor configure the passive ranging apparatus to (See at least [0053] “the sequence(s) of actions described herein can be considered to be embodied entirely within any form of non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein a corresponding set of computer instructions that, upon execution, would cause or instruct an associated processor of a device to perform the functionality described herein”)
point the scanning beam to acquire a reflection of the (See at least Figs. 5B, [0148] “The sensing device 504 can measure various properties (e.g., times of arrival (ToAs), angles of arrival (AoAs), phase shift, etc.) of the reflections 536 of the RF sensing signals 534”, [0153] “the sensing device 504 may determine the direction to the target object as the angle of arrival (AoA) of the RF sensing signal, which is the angle of the receive beam used to receive the RF sensing signal”),
determine an angle of arrival of the (See at least [0153] “the sensing device 504 can calculate the distance to the target object as the difference between the ToA of the LOS path and the ToA of the NLOS path multiplied by the speed of light. In addition, if the sensing device 504 is capable of receive beamforming, the sensing device 504 may be able to determine the general direction to a target object as the direction (angle) of the receive beam on which the RF sensing signal following the NLOS path was received”), and
derive a range to the target based on the path-length difference m, the angle of arrival, and a pointing angle of the scanning beam (See at least [0153] “the sensing device 504 can calculate the distance to the target object as the difference between the ToA of the LOS path and the ToA of the NLOS path multiplied by the speed of light. In addition, if the sensing device 504 is capable of receive beamforming, the sensing device 504 may be able to determine the general direction to a target object as the direction (angle) of the receive beam on which the RF sensing signal following the NLOS path was received”)
Nam does not explicitly disclose determine, by cross correlating time-aligned samples of the direct beam and the scan beam, a difference between correlation peaks corresponding to a path-length difference m, and. However, Li, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses:
determine, by cross correlating time-aligned samples of the direct beam and the scan beam, a difference between correlation peaks corresponding to a path-length difference m, and (See at least [0075] “the receiver can determine the time delay Δt between LoS signal 314 and a reflection signal 316 (note there may be multiple reflection signals from different objects) by finding the maximum (or maxima) in the correlated data”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the bistatic radar system disclosed by Nam with the correlation system disclosed by Li. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve object detection (See at least [0095] “with process 300) to improve precision with object detection”).
The combination of Nam and Li does not explicitly disclose
(See at least Fig. 1, Item 12, [0010] “Signals being transmitted by jammer 12 radiates outward in all directions from the jammer 12”);
jamming signals (See at least Fig. 1, Item 12, [0010] “Signals being transmitted by jammer 12 radiates outward in all directions from the jammer 12”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the bistatic radar system disclosed by Nam with the correlation system disclosed by Li with the jamming system disclosed by Yu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously covertly track a target (See at least [0003] “it is advantageous, in some circumstances, for the radar system to remain covert (no transmission). Thus, there is a need for a radar system and method for covertly detecting and tracking a target of interest, such as an LO target, in the presence of jamming.”).
Claims 2, 4-7, 11, 13, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam, in view of Li, in further view of Yu, in further view of Stockmaster (US 6744408 B1), hereinafter Stockmaster.
Regarding claim 2, The combination of Nam, Li, and Yu, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Nam, Li, and Yu does not explicitly disclose the signal processing subsystem comprises the direction finding circuit configured to provide angle of arrival data for the one or more jamming signals, wherein the angle of arrival data provides a unit vector u. However, Stockmaster, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the signal processing subsystem comprises the direction finding circuit configured to provide angle of arrival data for the one or more jamming signals, wherein the angle of arrival data provides a unit vector u (See at least Col. 3 Lines 8-10 “This angle can be determined from two unit vectors: one from the observation point to the satellite (u) and the other from the observation point to the target (d)”, Col. 3 Lines 20-21 “The angle .phi. and .theta. can be measured from a GPS receiver as it calculates the satellite positions.” Stockmaster discloses obtaining satellite (jammer) angle of arrival data.)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the bistatic radar system disclosed by Nam with the correlation system disclosed by Li with the jamming system disclosed by Yu with the bistatic system disclosed by Stockmaster. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously overcome issues including signal strength, multi-path, and jamming (See at least Col. 4 Lines 28-64 “overcome several issues including: (1) Signal Strength Issues […] Multi-path Issues […] Jamming Issues”).
Regarding claim 4, The combination of Nam, Li, and Yu, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Nam, Li, and Yu does not explicitly disclose the bistatic radar receiver is an anti-jam receiver. However, Stockmaster, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the bistatic radar receiver is an anti-jam receiver (See at least Fig. 5, Col. 6 Lines 36-39 “However, STAP processing on the direct antenna may also be used. Depending on the cost and complexity desired, anti-jamming improvements of up to 60 dB or more may be achieved”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the bistatic radar system disclosed by Nam with the correlation system disclosed by Li with the jamming system disclosed by Yu with the bistatic system disclosed by Stockmaster. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously overcome issues including signal strength, multi-path, and jamming (See at least Col. 4 Lines 28-64 “overcome several issues including: (1) Signal Strength Issues […] Multi-path Issues […] Jamming Issues”).
Regarding claim 5, The combination of Nam, Li, Yu, and Stockmaster as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 4. The combination of Nam, Li, and Yu does not explicitly disclose the anti-jam receiver comprises: a navigation module; and anti-jam circuitry configured to filter the one or more jamming signals to mitigate an effect of the one or more jamming signals on the navigation module. However, Stockmaster, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the anti-jam receiver comprises: a navigation module; and anti-jam circuitry configured to filter the one or more jamming signals to mitigate an effect of the one or more jamming signals on the navigation module (See at least Fig. 5, Col. 6 Lines 36-39 “However, STAP processing on the direct antenna may also be used. Depending on the cost and complexity desired, anti-jamming improvements of up to 60 dB or more may be achieved”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the bistatic radar system disclosed by Nam with the correlation system disclosed by Li with the jamming system disclosed by Yu with the bistatic system disclosed by Stockmaster. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously overcome issues including signal strength, multi-path, and jamming (See at least Col. 4 Lines 28-64 “overcome several issues including: (1) Signal Strength Issues […] Multi-path Issues […] Jamming Issues”).
Regarding claim 6, The combination of Nam, Li, and Yu, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Nam, Li, and Yu does not explicitly disclose the at least one first antenna is a controlled reception pattern antenna. However, Stockmaster, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the at least one first antenna is a controlled reception pattern antenna (See at least Fig. 5, Col. 6 Lines 61-63 “signals from satellites 410, 420, and 430 and from pseudolites 440 and 450 are received by a second CRPA 520.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the bistatic radar system disclosed by Nam with the correlation system disclosed by Li with the jamming system disclosed by Yu with the bistatic system disclosed by Stockmaster. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously overcome issues including signal strength, multi-path, and jamming (See at least Col. 4 Lines 28-64 “overcome several issues including: (1) Signal Strength Issues […] Multi-path Issues […] Jamming Issues”).
Regarding claim 7, The combination of Nam, Li, and Yu, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Nam, Li, and Yu does not explicitly disclose the second antenna is a controlled reception pattern antenna. However, Stockmaster, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the second antenna is a controlled reception pattern antenna (See at least Fig. 5, Col. 6 Lines 58-61 “Signals from satellites 410, 420, and 430 and pseudolites 440 and 450 bounce signals off of a target 460 such signals being directed to a controlled reception pattern antenna (CRPA) 510”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the bistatic radar system disclosed by Nam with the correlation system disclosed by Li with the jamming system disclosed by Yu with the bistatic system disclosed by Stockmaster. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously overcome issues including signal strength, multi-path, and jamming (See at least Col. 4 Lines 28-64 “overcome several issues including: (1) Signal Strength Issues […] Multi-path Issues […] Jamming Issues”).
Regarding claim 11, The combination of Nam, Li, and Yu, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 10. The combination of Nam, Li, and Yu does not explicitly disclose acquiring the at least one jamming signal includes acquiring the at least one jamming signal with an anti-jam receiver. However, Stockmaster, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
acquiring the at least one jamming signal includes acquiring the at least one jamming signal with an anti-jam receiver (See at least Fig. 5, Col. 6 Lines 36-39 “However, STAP processing on the direct antenna may also be used. Depending on the cost and complexity desired, anti-jamming improvements of up to 60 dB or more may be achieved”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the bistatic radar system disclosed by Nam with the correlation system disclosed by Li with the jamming system disclosed by Yu with the bistatic system disclosed by Stockmaster. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously overcome issues including signal strength, multi-path, and jamming (See at least Col. 4 Lines 28-64 “overcome several issues including: (1) Signal Strength Issues […] Multi-path Issues […] Jamming Issues”).
Regarding claim 13, The combination of Nam, Li, and Yu, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 10. The combination of Nam, Li, and Yu does not explicitly disclose controlling a shape of the scanning beam using spatial adaptive processing. However, Stockmaster, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
controlling a shape of the scanning beam using spatial adaptive processing (See at least Col. 6 Lines 13-15 “STAP can be used to not only increase the signal power in a desired direction, but decrease it in undesired directions by controlling the shape of the antenna pattern.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the bistatic radar system disclosed by Nam with the correlation system disclosed by Li with the jamming system disclosed by Yu with the bistatic system disclosed by Stockmaster. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously overcome issues including signal strength, multi-path, and jamming (See at least Col. 4 Lines 28-64 “overcome several issues including: (1) Signal Strength Issues […] Multi-path Issues […] Jamming Issues”).
Regarding claim 17, The combination of Nam, Li, and Yu, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 14. The combination of Nam, Li, and Yu does not explicitly disclose the first antenna is a controlled reception pattern antenna. However, Stockmaster, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the first antenna is a controlled reception pattern antenna (See at least Fig. 5, Col. 6 Lines 61-63 “signals from satellites 410, 420, and 430 and from pseudolites 440 and 450 are received by a second CRPA 520.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the bistatic radar system disclosed by Nam with the correlation system disclosed by Li with the jamming system disclosed by Yu with the bistatic system disclosed by Stockmaster. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously overcome issues including signal strength, multi-path, and jamming (See at least Col. 4 Lines 28-64 “overcome several issues including: (1) Signal Strength Issues […] Multi-path Issues […] Jamming Issues”).
Regarding claim 18, The combination of Nam, Li, and Yu, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 14 and 17. The combination of Nam, Li, and Yu does not explicitly disclose control a shape of an antenna pattern of the first antenna using spatial adaptive processing. However, Stockmaster, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
control a shape of an antenna pattern of the first antenna using spatial adaptive processing (See at least Col. 6 Lines 13-15 “STAP can be used to not only increase the signal power in a desired direction, but decrease it in undesired directions by controlling the shape of the antenna pattern.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the bistatic radar system disclosed by Nam with the correlation system disclosed by Li with the jamming system disclosed by Yu with the bistatic system disclosed by Stockmaster. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously overcome issues including signal strength, multi-path, and jamming (See at least Col. 4 Lines 28-64 “overcome several issues including: (1) Signal Strength Issues […] Multi-path Issues […] Jamming Issues”).
Regarding claim 19, The combination of Nam, Li, and Yu, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 14. The combination of Nam, Li, and Yu does not explicitly disclose the passive ranging apparatus is implemented in an anti-jam receiver. However, Stockmaster, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the passive ranging apparatus is implemented in an anti-jam receiver (See at least Fig. 5, Col. 6 Lines 36-39 “However, STAP processing on the direct antenna may also be used. Depending on the cost and complexity desired, anti-jamming improvements of up to 60 dB or more may be achieved”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the bistatic radar system disclosed by Nam with the correlation system disclosed by Li with the jamming system disclosed by Yu with the bistatic system disclosed by Stockmaster. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously overcome issues including signal strength, multi-path, and jamming (See at least Col. 4 Lines 28-64 “overcome several issues including: (1) Signal Strength Issues […] Multi-path Issues […] Jamming Issues”).
Regarding claim 20, The combination of Nam, Li, Yu, and Stockmaster as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 14 and 19. The combination of Nam, Li, and Yu does not explicitly disclose the anti-jam receiver comprises: a navigation module; and anti-jam circuitry configured to filter the jamming signal to mitigate an effect of the jamming signal on the navigation module. However, Stockmaster, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the anti-jam receiver comprises: a navigation module; and anti-jam circuitry configured to filter the jamming signal to mitigate an effect of the jamming signal on the navigation module (See at least Fig. 5, Col. 6 Lines 36-39 “However, STAP processing on the direct antenna may also be used. Depending on the cost and complexity desired, anti-jamming improvements of up to 60 dB or more may be achieved”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the bistatic radar system disclosed by Nam with the correlation system disclosed by Li with the jamming system disclosed by Yu with the bistatic system disclosed by Stockmaster. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously overcome issues including signal strength, multi-path, and jamming (See at least Col. 4 Lines 28-64 “overcome several issues including: (1) Signal Strength Issues […] Multi-path Issues […] Jamming Issues”).
Claims 8-9 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam, in view of Li, in further view of Yu, in further view of Rouwet (US 20210165073 A1), hereinafter Rouwet.
Regarding claim 8, The combination of Nam, Li, and Yu, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Nam, Li, and Yu does not explicitly disclose to derive the range to the target, the signal processing subsystem comprises a beam correlation processing circuit configured to determine a correlation between a peak of the one or more jamming signals and a corresponding peak of the one or more reflections, wherein the difference between correlation peaks provides the path-length difference m corresponding to a sum of a distance a from the bistatic radar receiver to a source of the one or more jamming signals and the range to the target. However, Rouwet, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
to derive the range to the target, the signal processing subsystem comprises a beam correlation processing circuit configured to determine a correlation between a peak of the one or more jamming signals and a corresponding peak of the one or more reflections, wherein the difference between correlation peaks provides the path-length difference m corresponding to a sum of a distance a from the bistatic radar receiver to a source of the one or more jamming signals and the range to the target (See at least [0027] “The radar receiver will perform correlation activities between received signals that can contain reflected signals including the transmitted waveform. Correlation output peaks on SSB windows where reflections occur”, [0042] “If a correlation with the transmitted beam is made, a range can be determined”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the bistatic radar system disclosed by Nam with the correlation system disclosed by Li with the jamming system disclosed by Yu with the correlation system disclosed by Rouwet. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously enhance surroundings information (See at least [0043] “This information can be used to generate a mapping of objects around the base station that can be used for purposes such as enhancing surroundings information used by an automated vehicle or other traffic control tasks.”).
Regarding claim 9, The combination of Nam, Li, Yu, and Rouwet as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 8. The combination of Nam, Li, and Yu does not explicitly disclose the signal processing subsystem further comprises a synthetic aperture radar circuit configured to produce a synthetic aperture radar image based on relative movement between the bistatic radar receiver and a source of the one or more jamming signals, the correlation, and the range to the target. However, Rouwet, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the signal processing subsystem further comprises a synthetic aperture radar circuit configured to produce a synthetic aperture radar image based on relative movement between the bistatic radar receiver and a source of the one or more jamming signals, the correlation, and the range to the target (See at least Fig. 6, [0037] “This output is provided to a synthetic aperture radar logic 665 that converts the digital signature fro the correlation logic to radar data that is usable for other radar applications, such as display”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the bistatic radar system disclosed by Nam with the correlation system disclosed by Li with the jamming system disclosed by Yu with the correlation system disclosed by Rouwet. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously enhance surroundings information (See at least [0043] “This information can be used to generate a mapping of objects around the base station that can be used for purposes such as enhancing surroundings information used by an automated vehicle or other traffic control tasks.”).
Regarding claim 15, The combination of Nam, Li, and Yu, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 14. The combination of Nam, Li, and Yu does not explicitly disclose determine that the path-length difference m corresponds to a sum of a distance a from the passive ranging apparatus to a source of the jamming signal and the range to the target. However, Rouwet, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
determine that the path-length difference m corresponds to a sum of a distance a from the passive ranging apparatus to a source of the jamming signal and the range to the target (See at least [0027] “The radar receiver will perform correlation activities between received signals that can contain reflected signals including the transmitted waveform. Correlation output peaks on SSB windows where reflections occur”, [0042] “If a correlation with the transmitted beam is made, a range can be determined”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the bistatic radar system disclosed by Nam with the correlation system disclosed by Li with the jamming system disclosed by Yu with the correlation system disclosed by Rouwet. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously enhance surroundings information (See at least [0043] “This information can be used to generate a mapping of objects around the base station that can be used for purposes such as enhancing surroundings information used by an automated vehicle or other traffic control tasks.”).
Regarding claim 16, The combination of Nam, Li, Yu, and Rouwet as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 14 and 15. The combination of Nam, Li, and Yu does not explicitly disclose produce a synthetic aperture radar image based on the correlation, the range, and relative motion between the passive ranging apparatus and the jammer. However, Rouwet, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
produce a synthetic aperture radar image based on the correlation, the range, and relative motion between the passive ranging apparatus and the jammer (See at least Fig. 6, [0037] “This output is provided to a synthetic aperture radar logic 665 that converts the digital signature fro the correlation logic to radar data that is usable for other radar applications, such as display”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the bistatic radar system disclosed by Nam with the correlation system disclosed by Li with the jamming system disclosed by Yu with the correlation system disclosed by Rouwet. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously enhance surroundings information (See at least [0043] “This information can be used to generate a mapping of objects around the base station that can be used for purposes such as enhancing surroundings information used by an automated vehicle or other traffic control tasks.”).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam, in view of Li, in further view of Yu, in further view of Stockmaster, in further view of Rouwet.
Regarding claim 12, The combination of Nam, Li, Yu, and Stockmaster as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 10 and 11. Stockmaster further discloses
(See at least Fig. 5, Col. 6 Lines 36-39 “However, STAP processing on the direct antenna may also be used. Depending on the cost and complexity desired, anti-jamming improvements of up to 60 dB or more may be achieved”)
Stockmaster does not disclose producing a synthetic aperture radar image based on the correlation, the range, and relative movement between the jammer and the
producing a synthetic aperture radar image based on the correlation, the range, and relative movement between the jammer and the (See at least Fig. 6, [0037] “This output is provided to a synthetic aperture radar logic 665 that converts the digital signature fro the correlation logic to radar data that is usable for other radar applications, such as display”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the bistatic radar system disclosed by Nam with the correlation system disclosed by Li with the jamming system disclosed by Yu with the bistatic radar receiver system disclosed by Stockmaster with the correlation system disclosed by Rouwet. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously enhance surroundings information (See at least [0043] “This information can be used to generate a mapping of objects around the base station that can be used for purposes such as enhancing surroundings information used by an automated vehicle or other traffic control tasks.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Allowance of claim 3 is indicated because:
None of the prior art of record teach or suggest the subject matter of dependent claims 3. The prior art of record does not anticipate or render fairly obvious in combination to teach all of the additional limitations of the claimed invention, as best understood within the context of Applicant’s claimed invention as a whole, such as in claim 3, the signal processing subsystem further comprises a range calculator configured to derive the range to the target from the one or more jamming signals and the one or more reflections using according to r=m1-cosα, wherein cosα=u∙d, wherein u is the unit vector provided by the angle of arrival data and a pointing angle of the second antenna wherein d is a unit vector from the bistatic radar receiver to the target based on the pointing angle of the scanning beam, wherein the range calculator further applies a weighting factor to the unit vector u based on signal strength and angle sensitivity.
Accordingly, claim 3 is deemed to have allowable subject matter.
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH W GOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-4186. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:30 am - 5:00 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.
/KENNETH W GOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights