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 on 12/04/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in this application. No claims have been amended, are cancelled, or are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/04/2025 regarding prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner maintains the prior art rejections for the same or similar reasoning as provided in the previous action dated 09/04/2025
The Applicant argues, beginning on page 4, that claim 1 is not anticipated by Stockmaster. However, the Examiner maintains the argument that “jamming” is merely an intended use of the claimed signal and therefore does not have patentable weight. The system as claimed merely relates to the use of well-known in the art “signals of opportunity” for the purposes of passive radar detection. Notably, the reference cited, Stockmaster, is the Applicant’s own application. As admitted by the applicant in arguments page 6 “neither the current Application nor Stockmaster provide a special definition for “jamming signals””. Therefore, the ordinary meaning must be applied. The ordinary meaning of jamming signals has broad reasonable interpretation when not further defined because any RF signal can be an unwanted (jamming) signal if received by a device unintentionally. Further, the claimed “jamming signal” is not claimed to do any jamming, but rather is intentionally received, contrary to the Applicant’s argued ‘ordinary definition of a jamming signal’. Therefore, the jamming signal is merely a point of perspective which is not defined by the instant claims or specification. Therefore, the “jamming signal” which is not claimed to do any jamming, is reasonably interpreted by the Examiner as consistent with the teachings of Stockmaster. The same or similar reasoning is applied to all similar and dependent claims.
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/04/2025 regarding 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. All 35 USC 101 rejections are withdrawn in consideration of arguments dated 12/04/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stockmaster (US 6744408 B1), hereinafter Stockmaster.
Regarding claim 1, Stockmaster discloses
a bistatic radar receiver comprising (See at least Fig. 4, Item 495, Col. 5 Lines 35-38 “These signals from antennas 470 and 480 are communicated to a two-channel signal conditioner 490 within bi-static processing unit 495”):
at least one first antenna configured to receive one or more jamming signals (See at least Fig. 4, Items 470, 495, Col. 5 Lines 35-38 “These signals from antennas 470 and 480 are communicated to a two-channel signal conditioner 490 within bi-static processing unit 495” Stockmaster discloses satellite signals equivalent to jamming signals of the proposed invention. Additionally, or alternatively, pseudolite signals may be viewed as jamming signals.);
a second antenna configured to point a scanning beam to detect one or more reflections of the one or more jamming signals from a target (See at least Fig. 4, Item 480, Col. 5 Lines 34-35 “Reflected signals from target 460 are received by a second antenna 480.”); 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 more jamming signals and the one or more reflections to derive a range to the target from the one or more jamming signals and the one or more reflections (See at least Fig. 4, Col. 5 Lines 4-16 “The increased PL signal power not only may yield stronger reflections than a GPS signal, but also may provide for jamming immunity on both the reflected and direct antennas. […] This allows the user in many instances to be close enough to the target to measure its range.”, Col. 5 Lines 38-43 “Bi-static processing unit 495 also receives signals from the two-channel signal conditioner 490 into a bi-static GPS processor with pseudolite enabled software 498 which is configured to provide for processing of the signals received in order to generate a position of the target of interest.”).
Regarding claim 2, Stockmaster, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Stockmaster additionally discloses
the signal processing subsystem comprises a direction finding circuit configured to provide angle of arrival data for the one or more jamming signals. (See at least 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.).
Regarding claim 3, Stockmaster, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 2. Stockmaster additionally discloses
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 the angle of arrival data and a pointing angle of the second antenna (See at least Figs. 4-5, Col. 7 Lines 4-9 “The use of STAP 530 provides output to a bi-static GPS processor with pseudolites and STAP enabled software 550 within bi-static processing 540 which provides the location and/or range of target 460 and further may provide the location and range of other alternative targets 560.” See also Col. 6.).
Regarding claim 4, Stockmaster, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Stockmaster additionally 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”).
Regarding claim 5, Stockmaster, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 4. Stockmaster additionally 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”).
Regarding claim 6, Stockmaster, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Stockmaster additionally 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.”).
Regarding claim 7, Stockmaster, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Stockmaster additionally 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”).
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 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stockmaster, in view of Rouwet (US 20210165073 A1), hereinafter Rouwet.
Regarding claim 8, Stockmaster, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Stockmaster 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. 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 (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 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.”).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Stockmaster and Rouwet, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 8. Stockmaster 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 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.”).
Regarding claim 10, Stockmaster, as shown below, discloses a bistatic radar method comprising the following limitations:
acquiring at least one jamming signal emitted by a jammer (See at least Fig. 4, Items 470, 495, Col. 5 Lines 35-38 “These signals from antennas 470 and 480 are communicated to a two-channel signal conditioner 490 within bi-static processing unit 495” Stockmaster discloses satellite signals equivalent to jamming signals of the proposed invention. Additionally, or alternatively, pseudolite signals may be viewed as jamming signals.);
pointing a scanning beam to acquire at least one reflection of the jamming signal from a target (See at least Fig. 4, Item 480, Col. 5 Lines 34-35 “Reflected signals from target 460 are received by a second antenna 480.”);
determining an angle of arrival of the jamming signal (See at least 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.);
deriving a range to the target based on the angle of arrival of the jamming signal, the correlation, and a pointing angle of the scanning beam (See at least Figs. 4-5, Col. 7 Lines 4-9 “The use of STAP 530 provides output to a bi-static GPS processor with pseudolites and STAP enabled software 550 within bi-static processing 540 which provides the location and/or range of target 460 and further may provide the location and range of other alternative targets 560.” See also Col. 6.)
Stockmaster does not explicitly disclose determining a correlation between a peak of the at least one jamming signal and a corresponding peak of the at least one reflection. However, Rouwet, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses:
determining a correlation between a peak of the at least one jamming signal and a corresponding peak of the at least one reflection (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”); 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 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.”).
Regarding claim 11, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 4. Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 4, shown above.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Stockmaster and Rouwet, 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 . However, Rouwet further discloses
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 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.”).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Stockmaster and Rouwet, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 10. Stockmaster further 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.”).
Regarding claim 14, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 10. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 10, shown above.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Stockmaster and Rouwet, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 14. Stockmaster does not disclose determine a correlation between a peak of the jamming signal and a corresponding peak of the reflection. However, Rouwet further discloses
determine a correlation between a peak of the jamming signal and a corresponding peak of the reflection (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 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.”).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Stockmaster and Rouwet, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 14 and 15. Stockmaster does not 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 further 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 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.”).
Regarding claim 17, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 6. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 6, shown above.
Regarding claim 18, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 13. Accordingly, claim 18 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 13, shown above.
Regarding claim 19, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 11. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 11, shown above.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Stockmaster and Rouwet, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 19 and 14. Stockmaster further discloses
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”)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 date of this final action.
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, William J. 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.
/KENNETH W GOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights