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
Applicant' s amendment filed on 13 FEB 2026 has been entered. Claims 5-6, 10, 16, and 19 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are still pending in this application, with claims 1, 12, and 20 being independent.
Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome the objection(s) raised in the previous office action dated 18 DEC 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 13 FEB 2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 FEB 2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter, the applicant argues that “the alleged additional elements in combination with the alleged judicial exception provide an improvement for detecting failure in radar system technology” (Applicant’s remarks p. 10).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 is directed to the determining a reliability of the radar system. Determining the reliability of the radar system is reasonably considered a mental process, i.e. an abstract idea, in light of the specification teaching calculating the difference in magnitude, as described in ¶ [0036] where “In some cases, to determine the reliability of radar system 104, sensor health monitoring system 105 may determine whether a difference between the actual magnitude of reflected radar signals 108B and the expected magnitude of reflected radar signals 108B is greater than a threshold difference value.” Applicant is advised that “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.” (MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) In this case, applicant’s claimed invention is an improvement in determining the reliability of the radar system, which as discussed above is an abstract idea. The determined reliability is not integrated into a practical application as the court has held that “Merely requiring the selection and manipulation of information – to provide a “humanly comprehensible” amount of information useful for user… by itself does not transform the otherwise-abstract processes of information collection and analysis.” See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Additionally, although applicant argues that the claimed invention provides an improvement for detecting failure in a radar system, the claim does not recite that a failure is detected or the conditions indicating a failure, such as those described above. The claim merely recites “determine… a reliability of the radar system.”
Therefore, applicant’s argument on this issue is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues that “Applicant’s claims as a whole are directed to a particular solution to the problem of accurately detecting a reliability of a radar system, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or an outcome.” (Applicant’s remarks p. 10)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims as whole are directed to determining a reliability of the radar system. The reliability of the radar system is an abstract idea, and therefore, the claims as a whole are directed to a particular solution for an abstract idea.
Therefore, applicant’s argument on this issue is not persuasive.
Regarding the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 12 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Woodell ‘427 in view of Smith, the applicant argues that the cited reference fails to disclose all of the features of the claimed invention, specifically “determine, based on one or more characteristics of the object, the one or more expected parameter values of radar data of the set of radar data corresponding to the object.” (applicant’s remarks p. 13)
Applicant’s arguments are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Crisholm (US 4,283,725), where the measured intensity of an object of known radar cross-section and location is measured and compared to a reference intensity established by the manufacturer in order to measure and correct for the error (Crisholm Col. 5, lines 34-35; Col. 9, lines 33-43; Col. 11, lines 18-29).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter according to the subject matter eligibility flowchart analysis described below:
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a system (i.e. product)
Claim 12 is directed to a method (i.e. process)
Claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e. product)
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas:
mathematical concepts,
certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or
mental processes
Independent claims 1, 12, and 20 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized in bold below).
Claim 1 (Original): A system comprising:
a radar system comprising:
transmission circuitry configured to output a set of transmitted radar signals;
receiving circuitry configured to detect a set of reflected radar signals corresponding to the set of transmitted radar signals; and
first processing circuitry configured to determine, based on the set of transmitted signals and the set of reflected radar signals, a set of radar data; and
a sensor health monitoring system comprising second processing circuitry configured to:
receive object data indicative of one or more characteristics of an object, wherein the object data is separate from the set of radar data;
determine, based on the one or more characteristics of the object, one or more expected parameter values of radar data of the set of radar data corresponding to the object;
compare one or more actual parameter values of the radar data corresponding to the object with the one or more expected parameter values of the radar data; and
determine, based on comparing the one or more actual parameter values with the one or more expected parameter values, a reliability of the radar system.
The examiner submits that the foregoing limitations constitute “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers the performance of the limitations in the human mind. For example, “determine… one or more expected parameter values of radar data…” (lines 11-12) and “determine… a reliability of the radar system” (lines 15-16) are reasonably considered mental processes in light of the specification teaching the use of the relative positions to determine the expected parameter value (see ¶ [0004] and [0036]). Additionally, “compare…” (lines 13-14) in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Claim 12 (Original): A method comprising:
outputting, by transmission circuitry of a radar system, a set of transmitted radar signals;
detecting, by receiving circuitry of the radar system, a set of reflected radar signals corresponding to the set of transmitted radar signals;
determining, by first processing circuitry of the radar system, a set of radar data based on the set of transmitted signals and the set of reflected radar signals;
receiving, by second processing circuitry of a sensor health monitoring system, object data indicative of one or more characteristics of an object, wherein the object data is separate from the set of radar data;
determining, by the second processing circuitry based on the one or more characteristics of the object relative to the radar system, one or more expected parameter values of radar data of the set of radar data corresponding to the object;
comparing, by the second processing circuitry, one or more actual parameter values of the radar data corresponding to the object with the one or more expected parameter values of the radar data; and
determining, by the second processing circuitry based on comparing the one or more actual parameter values with the one or more expected parameter values, a reliability of the radar system.
The examiner submits that the foregoing limitations constitute “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers the performance of the limitations in the human mind. For example, “determining… one or more expected parameter values of radar data…” (lines 10-12) and “determining… a reliability of the radar system” (lines 16-17) are reasonably considered mental processes in light of the specification teaching the use of the relative positions to determine the expected parameter value (see ¶ [0004] and [0036]). Additionally, “comparing…” (lines 13-15) in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Claim 20 (Original): A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions for causing one or more processors to:
control transmission circuitry of a radar system to output a set of transmitted radar signals;
control receiving circuitry of the radar system to detect a set of reflected radar signals corresponding to the set of transmitted radar signals;
determine a set of radar data based on the set of transmitted signals and the set of reflected radar signals;
receive object data indicative of one or more characteristics of an object, wherein the object data is separate from the set of radar data;
determine, based on the one or more characteristics of the object, one or more expected parameter values of radar data of the set of radar data corresponding to the object;
compare one or more actual parameter values of the radar data corresponding to the object with the one or more expected parameter values of the radar data; and
determine, based on comparing the one or more actual parameter values with the one or more expected parameter values, a reliability of the radar system.
The examiner submits that the foregoing limitations constitute “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers the performance of the limitations in the human mind. For example, “determine… one or more expected parameter values of radar data…” (lines 10-11) and “determine… a reliability of the radar system” (lines 14-15) are reasonably considered mental processes in light of the specification teaching the use of the relative positions to determine the expected parameter value (see ¶ [0004] and [0036]). Additionally, “compare…” (lines 14-15) in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding prong 2 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the judicial exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra-solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the judicial exception are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” and the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract ideas”):
Claim 1 (Original): A system comprising:
a radar system comprising:
transmission circuitry configured to output a set of transmitted radar signals;
receiving circuitry configured to detect a set of reflected radar signals corresponding to the set of transmitted radar signals; and
first processing circuitry configured to determine, based on the set of transmitted signals and the set of reflected radar signals, a set of radar data; and
a sensor health monitoring system comprising second processing circuitry configured to:
receive object data indicative of one or more characteristics of an object, wherein the object data is separate from the set of radar data;
determine, based on the one or more characteristics of the object, one or more expected parameter values of radar data of the set of radar data corresponding to the object;
compare one or more actual parameter values of the radar data corresponding to the object with the one or more expected parameter values of the radar data; and
determine, based on comparing the one or more actual parameter values with the one or more expected parameter values, a reliability of the radar system.
For the following reasons, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations beyond the judicial exception fail to integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application:
(claim 1, lines 2-7) a radar system comprising: transmission circuitry configured to output a set of transmitted radar signals; receiving circuitry configured to detect a set of reflected radar signals corresponding to the set of transmitted radar signals generally links the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of radar and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
(claim 1, lines 6-7) first processing circuitry configured to determine, based on the set of transmitted signals and the set of reflected radar signals, a set of radar data amounts to using a computer or generic computer components as a tool to perform the process steps and mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
(claim 1, lines 8) a sensor health monitoring system comprising second processing circuitry amounts to merely using a computer or generic computer components as a tool to perform the process steps.
(claim 1, lines 9-10) receive object data indicative of one or more characteristics of an object, wherein the object data is separate from the set of radar data amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 12 (Original): A method comprising:
outputting, by transmission circuitry of a radar system, a set of transmitted radar signals;
detecting, by receiving circuitry of the radar system, a set of reflected radar signals corresponding to the set of transmitted radar signals;
determining, by first processing circuitry of the radar system, a set of radar data based on the set of transmitted signals and the set of reflected radar signals;
receiving, by second processing circuitry of a sensor health monitoring system, object data indicative of one or more characteristics of an object, wherein the object data is separate from the set of radar data;
determining, by the second processing circuitry based on the one or more characteristics of the object relative to the radar system, one or more expected parameter values of radar data of the set of radar data corresponding to the object;
comparing, by the second processing circuitry, one or more actual parameter values of the radar data corresponding to the object with the one or more expected parameter values of the radar data; and
determining, by the second processing circuitry based on comparing the one or more actual parameter values with the one or more expected parameter values, a reliability of the radar system.
For the following reasons, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations beyond the judicial exception fail to integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application:
(claim 12, lines 2-4) outputting, by transmission circuitry of a radar system, a set of transmitted radar signals; detecting, by receiving circuitry of the radar system, a set of reflected radar signals corresponding to the set of transmitted radar signals generally links the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of radar and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
(claim 12, lines 5-6 ) determining, by first processing circuitry of the radar system, a set of radar data based on the set of transmitted signals and the set of reflected radar signals amounts to using a computer or generic computer components as a tool to perform the process steps and mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
(claim 12, lines 7) second processing circuitry of a sensor health monitoring system amounts to merely using a computer or generic computer components as a tool to perform the process steps.
(claim 12, lines 7-9) receiving by second processing circuitry of a sensor health monitoring system, object data indicative of one or more characteristics of an object, wherein the object data is separate from the set of radar data amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 20 (Original): A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions for causing one or more processors to:
control transmission circuitry of a radar system to output a set of transmitted radar signals;
control receiving circuitry of the radar system to detect a set of reflected radar signals corresponding to the set of transmitted radar signals;
determine a set of radar data based on the set of transmitted signals and the set of reflected radar signals;
receive object data indicative of one or more characteristics of an object, wherein the object data is separate from the set of radar data;
determine, based on the one or more characteristics of the object, one or more expected parameter values of radar data of the set of radar data corresponding to the object;
compare one or more actual parameter values of the radar data corresponding to the object with the one or more expected parameter values of the radar data; and
determine, based on comparing the one or more actual parameter values with the one or more expected parameter values, a reliability of the radar system.
For the following reasons, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations beyond the judicial exception fail to integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application:
(claim 20, lines 1-2) A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions for causing one or more processors to… amounts to merely using a computer or generic computer components as a tool to perform the process steps.
(claim 20, lines 3-7) control transmission circuitry of a radar system to output a set of transmitted radar signals; control receiving circuitry of the radar system to detect a set of reflected radar signals corresponding to the set of transmitted radar signals; determine a set of radar data based on the set of transmitted signals and the set of reflected radar signals generally links the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of radar and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
(claim 20, lines 8-9) receive object data indicative of one or more characteristics of an object, wherein the object data is separate from the set of radar data amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding step 2B of the 2019 PEG, independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “second processing circuitry…” amount to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally, an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the examiner submits that the additional limitation of “receive object data…” is an insignificant extra-solution activity.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is an insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations “a radar system...,” is a well-understood routine / conventional activity in the field because the specification does not provide any indication that the components of the radar system are anything other than conventional components (see ¶ [0047]-[0048]; [0107]-[0109]). MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-11 and 13-19 include additional steps of identifying, determining and comparing data which constitute mental processes, similar to the independent claims discussed above. Claims 7 and 17 includes the limitations of “receive position data” and “receive altitude data,” however, these limitations are considered extra-solution activity and fall under “Mere Data Gathering” as disclosed in section 2106.5(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity of the MPEP. Therefore, all dependent claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 in a similar fashion and analysis as shown above for the rejected independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, 8-13, 16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodell et al. ‘427 (US 7.783,427 B1, cited by applicant in IDS dated 6 JUN 2024, previously relied upon by the examiner) in view of Crisholm (US 4,283,725, newly cited by the examiner).
Regarding claim 1 (Original), Woodell et al. ‘427 discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Woodell et al. ‘427 has been struck-through]
A system (Woodell et al. ‘427 runway incursion system 100, Figs. 1-3) comprising:
a radar system (Woodell et al. ‘427 weather radar system 200, Figs. 1-4) comprising:
transmission circuitry (Woodell et al. ‘427 receiver/transmitter 102, Figs. 1-4) configured to output a set of transmitted radar signals;
receiving circuitry (Woodell et al. ‘427 receiver/transmitter 102, Figs. 1-4) configured to detect a set of reflected radar signals corresponding to the set of transmitted radar signals; and
first processing circuitry (Woodell et al. ‘427 processor 208, Figs. 1-4) configured to determine, based on the set of transmitted signals and the set of reflected radar signals, a set of radar data (Woodell et al. ‘427 “Detector 212 can analyze returns and determine the location of objects detected by the system. In one embodiment, system 200 provides relative positional data (e.g. as range and direction data).” Col. 5, lines 43-46); and
receive object data indicative of one or more characteristics of an object, wherein the object data is separate from the set of radar data (Woodell et al. ‘427 “Wireless receiver 150 is preferably part of a system which receives locations of obstacles from an outside source.” – Col. 6, lines 8-9; where the location is one of the characteristics);
determine, based on the one or more characteristics of the object, one or more expected (Woodell et al. ‘427 “Wireless receiver 150 is preferably part of a system which receives locations of obstacles from an outside source. In one embodiment, receiver 150 is part of an ADS-B system and receives an RF signal including positional information associated with an obstacle.” – Col. 8-12);
compare one or more actual (Woodell et al. ‘427 “At a step 158, the matched or correlated objects and their locations are compared…” – Col. 8, lines 12-13); and
determine, based on comparing the one or more actual (Woodell et al. ‘427 “At a step 155, the data associated with steps 144, 148, and 152 is utilized to estimate errors associated with the obstacle locations.” – Col. 8, lines 4-6; where the errors are considered a measure of reliability).
Crisholm discloses:
a sensor health monitoring system comprising second processing circuitry (Crisholm microprocessor 30 includes calibrator 38, Fig. 1) configured to:
receive object data indicative of one or more characteristics of an object (Crisholm reflector 10, Fig. 1), wherein the object data is separate from the set of radar data (Crisholm “On a practical basis calibration can be achieved by selecting one predetermined aircraft approach range and the radar point target size with which to accomplish this calibration. The reflector radar cross-section can either be the same for all airports, or different and so noted in the appropriate navigational data such as an approach plate. Finally, it can be permanently stored in the microprocessor memory for each airport.” – Col. 9, lines 20-27)
determine, based on the one or more characteristics of the object (Crisholm “It is another major object of this invention to provide a target of stable and known cross-section…” – Col. 5, lines 34-35), one or more expected parameter values of radar data of the set of radar data corresponding to the object (Crisholm "When this signal coincides with recognition of coded reflections from the reflectors 10, 11 and 12, a calibration step is performed by the calibrator 38. For instance, the digital level of the signal on the wire 29 is sampled, averaged and held by the calibrator 38 to produce a signal level which should correspond with a certain reference voltage representing the analog pulse signal appearing on wire 25 as determined by the manufacturer for a reflection from a target of given equivalent radar cross-section and at a range of two miles.” – Col. 9, lines 33-43; where the reference voltage represents the expected intensity of the signal received from the object);
compare one or more actual parameter values of the radar data corresponding to the object with the one or more expected parameter values of the radar data (Crisholm "When the aforesaid predetermined range has been reached, the intensity of the reflections from the calibration reflectors is sampled, averaged and held as shown in the box in FIG. 1, and the microprocessor then compares the intensity of these signals from the calibration reflectors with a standard reference intensity level established by the manufacturer of that weather radar, thereby to develop an indication of any error between these signal intensities." - Col. 11, lines 18-27);
determine, based on comparing the one or more actual parameter values with the one or more expected parameter values, a reliability of the radar system (Crisholm "an indication of the magnitude of error can be displayed to the weather radar operator…" - Col. 11, lines 28-29; where the error is a measure of the reliability of the radar system)
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Crisholm into the invention of Woodell et al. ‘427 to yield the invention of claim 1 above. Both Woodell et al. ‘427 and Crisholm are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose obstacle detection systems for aircraft. Woodell et al. ‘427 discloses the limitations of claim 1 outlined above. Although Woodell et al. ‘427 does not explicitly disclose determining and comparing expected and actual parameter values, Woodell et al. ‘427 does disclose determining and comparing expected and actual values. These features are disclosed by Crisholm where the measured intensity of an object of known radar cross-section and location is measured and compared to a reference intensity established by the manufacturer in order to measure and correct for the error (Crisholm Col. 5, lines 34-35; Col. 9, lines 33-43; Col. 11, lines 18-29). The combination of Woodell et al. ‘427 and Crisholm would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to “provide a procedure for the absolute calibration of air-borne weather radars in terms of radar cross-section on a frequent basis…” (Crisholm Col. 4, lines 23-26).
Regarding claim 2 (Original), Woodell et al. ‘427 as modified above discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the second processing circuitry is configured to:
identify, in the set of radar data, the radar data corresponding to the object (Woodell et al. ‘427 “Detector 212 can analyze returns and determine the location of objects detected by the system. In one embodiment, system 200 provides relative positional data (e.g. as range and direction data).” Col. 5, lines 43-46); and
determine, based on the radar data, the one or more actual (Woodell et al. ‘427 “At a step 152, RF receiver 150 determines the location of the obstacles associated with the RF signals received on receiver 150 and provides the location to detector 212.” – Col.7, lines 60-62).
Crisholm discloses:
determine, based on the radar data, the one or more actual parameter values of the radar data corresponding to the object (Crisholm "When the aforesaid predetermined range has been reached, the intensity of the reflections from the calibration reflectors is sampled, averaged and held as shown in the box in FIG. 1, and the microprocessor then compares the intensity of these signals from the calibration reflectors with a standard reference intensity level established by the manufacturer of that weather radar, thereby to develop an indication of any error between these signal intensities." - Col. 11, lines 18-27)
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Crisholm into the invention of Woodell et al. ‘427 as modified above to yield the invention of claim 2 above. Both Woodell et al. ‘427 and Crisholm are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose disclose obstacle detection systems for aircraft. Woodell et al. ‘427 as modified above discloses the invention of claim 1. Although Woodell et al. ‘427 does not explicitly disclose determining the actual parameter values, Woodell et al. ‘427 does disclose determining actual values. This feature is disclosed by Crisholm where "When the aforesaid predetermined range has been reached, the intensity of the reflections from the calibration reflectors is sampled, averaged and held as shown in the box in FIG. 1, and the microprocessor then compares the intensity of these signals from the calibration reflectors with a standard reference intensity level established by the manufacturer of that weather radar, thereby to develop an indication of any error between these signal intensities." (Crisholm Col. 11, lines 18-27). The combination of Woodell et al. ‘427 and Crisholm would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to “provide a procedure for the absolute calibration of air-borne weather radars in terms of radar cross-section on a frequent basis…” (Crisholm Col. 4, lines 23-26).
Regarding claim 6 (Currently Amended), Woodell et al. ‘427 as modified above discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the radar system is oriented along a sensor axis,
wherein the second processing circuitry is configured to determine, based on the object data, a location of the object relative to the sensor axis (Woodell et al. ‘427 “The positions derived from system 100 and receiver 150 are preferably converted to the same reference location (latitude and longitude, relative position from the aircraft, etc.)” – Col. 7, lines 21-24), and
wherein to determine the one or more expected the one or more expected (Woodell et al. ‘427 “The positions derived from system 100 and receiver 150 are preferably converted to the same reference location (latitude and longitude, relative position from the aircraft, etc.)” – Col. 7, lines 21-24).
Crisholm discloses:
wherein to determine the one or more expected parameter values of the radar data corresponding to the object, the second processing circuitry is configured to determine the one or more expected parameter values of the radar data based on the location of the object relative to the sensor axis (Crisholm "When the aforesaid predetermined range has been reached, the intensity of the reflections from the calibration reflectors is sampled, averaged and held as shown in the box in FIG. 1, and the microprocessor then compares the intensity of these signals from the calibration reflectors with a standard reference intensity level established by the manufacturer of that weather radar, thereby to develop an indication of any error between these signal intensities." - Col. 11, lines 18-27).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Crisholm into the invention of Woodell et al. ‘427 as modified above to yield the invention of claim 6 above. Both Woodell et al. ‘427 and Crisholm are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose disclose obstacle detection systems for aircraft. Woodell et al. ‘427 as modified above discloses the invention of claim 1. Although Woodell et al. ‘427 does not explicitly disclose expected parameter values of the radar data based on the location of the object relative to the sensor axis, Woodell et al. ‘427 does disclose determining expected values based on the location of the object relative to the sensor axis. This feature is disclosed by Crisholm where "When the aforesaid predetermined range has been reached, the intensity of the reflections from the calibration reflectors is sampled, averaged and held as shown in the box in FIG. 1, and the microprocessor then compares the intensity of these signals from the calibration reflectors with a standard reference intensity level established by the manufacturer of that weather radar, thereby to develop an indication of any error between these signal intensities." (Crisholm Col. 11, lines 18-27). The combination of Woodell et al. ‘427 and Crisholm would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to “provide a procedure for the absolute calibration of air-borne weather radars in terms of radar cross-section on a frequent basis…” (Crisholm Col. 4, lines 23-26).
Regarding claim 8 (Original), Woodell et al. ‘427 as modified above discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the object data comprises one or both of Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) data (Woodell et al. ‘427 “Wireless receiver 150 is preferably part of a system which receives locations of obstacles from an outside source. In one embodiment, receiver 150 is part of an ADS-B system and receives an RF signal including positional information associated with an obstacle. “ – Col. 6, liens 8-12) and traffic collision avoidance system (TCAS) data.
Regarding claim 9 (Original), Woodell et al. ‘427 as modified above discloses:
The system of claim 1,
wherein to compare the one or more actual (Woodell et al. ‘427 “At step 158, the matched or correlated objects and their locations are compared to determine if they are within the error range from step 155.” – Col. 8, lines 12-14; where the difference between the locations, or distance, is compared to the error range), and
wherein to determine the reliability of the radar system, the second processing circuitry is configured to determine whether the difference between the one or more actual (Woodell et al. ‘427 “If in step 158,the location from receiver 150 is not within an error range of the location derived from returns, both objects are selected for display…” – Col. 8, lines 30-32; where the difference between the locations, or distance, is compared to the error range, and exceeding the error range indicates two separate objects).
Crisholm discloses:
wherein to compare the one or more actual parameter values with the one or more expected parameter values, the second processing circuitry is configured to determine a difference between the one or more actual parameter values and the one or more expected parameter values (Crisholm "…when the predetermined range is reached, comparing the sampled intensities with a reference signal intensity to determine the difference therebetween…” – Col. 14, lines 8-11).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Crisholm into the invention of Woodell et al. ‘427 as modified above to yield the invention of claim 9 above. Both Woodell et al. ‘427 and Crisholm are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose obstacle detection systems for aircraft. Woodell et al. ‘427 as modified above discloses the invention of claim 1. Although Woodell et al. ‘427 does not explicitly disclose comparing and determining a difference between expected parameter values and actual parameter values, Woodell et al. ‘427 does disclose comparing and determining a difference between expected and actual values. This feature is disclosed by Crisholm where "When the aforesaid predetermined range has been reached, the intensity of the reflections from the calibration reflectors is sampled, averaged and held as shown in the box in FIG. 1, and the microprocessor then compares the intensity of these signals from the calibration reflectors with a standard reference intensity level established by the manufacturer of that weather radar, thereby to develop an indication of any error between these signal intensities." (Crisholm Col. 11, lines 18-27). The combination of Woodell et al. ‘427 and Crisholm would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to “provide a procedure for the absolute calibration of air-borne weather radars in terms of radar cross-section on a frequent basis…” (Crisholm Col. 4, lines 23-26).
Regarding claim 10 (Original), Woodell et al. ‘427 as modified above discloses:
The system of claim 9, wherein the second processing circuitry is configured to:
determine that the reliability of the radar system is not sufficient when the difference between the one or more actual parameter values and the one or more expected parameter values is greater than a threshold difference (Woodell et al. ‘427 “If in step 158,the location from receiver 150 is not within an error range of the location derived from returns, both objects are selected for display…” – Col. 8, lines 30-32; where the difference between the locations, or distance, is compared to the error range, and exceeding the error range indicates that the reliability is not sufficient correlate the objects); and
determine that the reliability of the radar system is sufficient when the difference between the one or more actual parameter values and the one or more expected parameter values is not greater than a threshold difference (Woodell et al. ‘427 “At step 158, the matched or correlated objects and their locations are compared to determine if they are within the error range from step 155.” – Col. 8, lines 12-14; where the difference between the locations, or distance, is compared to the error range, and falling within the error range indicates that the reliability is sufficient to correlate the objects).
Regarding claim 11 (Original), Woodell et al. ‘427 as modified above discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the object is a first object, wherein the object data is first object data, wherein the radar data is first radar data, wherein the one or more expected parameter values are a first one or more expected parameter values, wherein the one or more actual parameter values are a first one or more actual parameter values (Woodell et al. ‘427 “Processor 208 can determine the presence of one, two, three, or more obstacles and calculate the position of those obstacles.” – Col. 5, line 66 – Col. 6, line 1), and wherein the second processing circuitry is further configured to:
receive second object data indicative of one or more characteristics of a second object, wherein the second object data is separate from the set of radar data (Woodell et al. ‘427 “Detector 212 can analyze returns and determine the location of objects detected by the system. In one embodiment, system 200 provides relative positional data (e.g. as range and direction data).” Col. 5, lines 43-46; multiple objects are detected);
determine, based on the one or more characteristics of the second object, a second one or more expected (Woodell et al. ‘427 “Wireless receiver 150 is preferably part of a system which receives locations of obstacles from an outside source. In one embodiment, receiver 150 is part of an ADS-B system and receives an RF signal including positional information associated with an obstacle.” – Col. 8-12);
compare a second one or more actual (Woodell et al. ‘427 “At a step 158, the matched or correlated objects and their locations are compared…” – Col. 8, lines 12-13); and
determine, based on comparing the first one or more actual (Woodell et al. ‘427 “At a step 155, the data associated with steps 144, 148, and 152 is utilized to estimate errors associated with the obstacle locations.” – Col. 8, lines 4-6).
Crisholm discloses:
receive second object data indicative of one or more characteristics of a second object (Crisholm reflectors 11 and/or 12, Fig. 1), wherein the second object data is separate from the set of radar data Crisholm “On a practical basis calibration can be achieved by selecting one predetermined aircraft approach range and the radar point target size with which to accomplish this calibration. The reflector radar cross-section can either be the same for all airports, or different and so noted in the appropriate navigational data such as an approach plate. Finally, it can be permanently stored in the microprocessor memory for each airport.” – Col. 9, lines 20-27);
determine, based on the one or more characteristics of the second object, a second one or more expected parameter values of second radar data of the set of radar data corresponding to the second object (Crisholm "When this signal coincides with recognition of coded reflections from the reflectors 10, 11 and 12, a calibration step is performed by the calibrator 38. For instance, the digital level of the signal on the wire 29 is sampled, averaged and held by the calibrator 38 to produce a signal level which should correspond with a certain reference voltage representing the analog pulse signal appearing on wire 25 as determined by the manufacturer for a reflection from a target of given equivalent radar cross-section and at a range of two miles.” – Col. 9, lines 33-43; where the reference voltage represents the expected intensity of the signal received from the object);
compare a second one or more actual parameter values of the reflected radar signals corresponding to the second object with the second one or more expected parameter values of the second radar data (Crisholm "When the aforesaid predetermined range has been reached, the intensity of the reflections from the calibration reflectors is sampled, averaged and held as shown in the box in FIG. 1, and the microprocessor then compares the intensity of these signals from the calibration reflectors with a standard reference intensity level established by the manufacturer of that weather radar, thereby to develop an indication of any error between these signal intensities." - Col. 11, lines 18-27); and
determine, based on comparing the first one or more actual parameter values with the first one or more expected parameter values and based on comparing the second one or more actual parameter values with the second one or more expected parameter values, a reliability of the radar system (Crisholm "an indication of the magnitude of error can be displayed to the weather radar operator…" - Col. 11, lines 28-29; where the error is a measure of the reliability of the radar system).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Crisholm into the invention of Woodell et al. ‘427 as modified above to yield the invention of claim 11 above. Both Woodell et al. ‘427 and Crisholm are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose obstacle detection systems for aircraft. Woodell et al. ‘427 discloses the system of claim 1 detecting multiple objects. Although Woodell et al. ‘427 does not explicitly disclose determining and comparing expected and actual parameter values corresponding to multiple objects, Woodell et al. ‘427 does disclose determining and comparing expected and actual values corresponding to multiple objects. This feature is disclosed by Crisholm where the measured intensity of multiple objects of known radar (Crisholm reflectors 10, 11, 12, Fig. 1) cross-section and location is measured and compared to a reference intensity established by the manufacturer in order to measure and correct for the error (Crisholm Col. 5, lines 34-35; Col. 9, lines 33-43; Col. 11, lines 18-29). The combination of Woodell et al. ‘427 and Crisholm would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to “provide a procedure for the absolute calibration of air-borne weather radars in terms of radar cross-section on a frequent basis…” (Crisholm Col. 4, lines 23-26).
Regarding claim 12 (Original), Woodell et al. ‘427 discloses:
A method comprising:
outputting, by transmission circuitry (Woodell et al. ‘427 receiver/transmitter 102, Figs. 1-4) of a radar system (Woodell et al. ‘427 weather radar system 200, Figs. 1-4), a set of transmitted radar signals;
detecting, by receiving circuitry (Woodell et al. ‘427 receiver/transmitter 102, Figs. 1-4) of the radar system, a set of reflected radar signals corresponding to the set of transmitted radar signals;
determining, by first processing circuitry of the radar system, a set of radar data based on the set of transmitted signals and the set of reflected radar signals (Woodell et al. ‘427 “Detector 212 can analyze returns and determine the location of objects detected by the system. In one embodiment, system 200 provides relative positional data (e.g. as range and direction data).” Col. 5, lines 43-46);
receiving, by (Woodell et al. ‘427 “Wireless receiver 150 is preferably part of a system which receives locations of obstacles from an outside source.” – Col. 6, lines 8-9);
determining, by the second processing circuitry based on the one or more characteristics of the object relative to the radar system, one or more expected (Woodell et al. ‘427 “Wireless receiver 150 is preferably part of a system which receives locations of obstacles from an outside source. In one embodiment, receiver 150 is part of an ADS-B system and receives an RF signal including positional information associated with an obstacle.” – Col. 8-12);
comparing, by the second processing circuitry, one or more actual (Woodell et al. ‘427 “At a step 158, the matched or correlated objects and their locations are compared…” – Col. 8, lines 12-13); and
determining, by the second processing circuitry based on comparing the one or more actual (Woodell et al. ‘427 “At a step 155, the data associated with steps 144, 148, and 152 is utilized to estimate errors associated with the obstacle locations.” – Col. 8, lines 4-6).
Crisholm discloses:
receiving, by second processing circuitry (Crisholm microprocessor 30 includes calibrator 38, Fig. 1) of a sensor health monitoring system, object data indicative of one or more characteristics of an object (Crisholm reflector 10, Fig. 1), wherein the object data is separate from the set of radar data (Crisholm “On a practical basis calibration can be achieved by selecting one predetermined aircraft approach range and the radar point target size with which to accomplish this calibration. The reflector radar cross-section can either be the same for all airports, or different and so noted in the appropriate navigational data such as an approach plate. Finally, it can be permanently stored in the microprocessor memory for each airport.” – Col. 9, lines 20-27);
determining, by the second processing circuitry based on the one or more characteristics of the object (Crisholm “It is another major object of this invention to provide a target of stable and known cross-section…” – Col. 5, lines 34-35) relative to the radar system, one or more expected parameter values of radar data of the set of radar data corresponding to the object (Crisholm "When this signal coincides with recognition of coded reflections from the reflectors 10, 11 and 12, a calibration step is performed by the calibrator 38. For instance, the digital level of the signal on the wire 29 is sampled, averaged and held by the calibrator 38 to produce a signal level which should correspond with a certain reference voltage representing the analog pulse signal appearing on wire 25 as determined by the manufacturer for a reflection from a target of given equivalent radar cross-section and at a range of two miles.” – Col. 9, lines 33-43; where the reference voltage represents the expected intensity of the signal received from the object) ;
comparing, by the second processing circuitry, one or more actual parameter values of the radar data corresponding to the object with the one or more expected parameter values of the radar data (Crisholm "When the aforesaid predetermined range has been reached, the intensity of the reflections from the calibration reflectors is sampled, averaged and held as shown in the box in FIG. 1, and the microprocessor then compares the intensity of these signals from the calibration reflectors with a standard reference intensity level established by the manufacturer of that weather radar, thereby to develop an indication of any error between these signal intensities." - Col. 11, lines 18-27) ; and
determining, by the second processing circuitry based on comparing the one or more actual parameter values with the one or more expected parameter values, a reliability of the radar system (Crisholm "an indication of the magnitude of error can be displayed to the weather radar operator…" - Col. 11, lines 28-29; where the error is a measure of the reliability of the radar system).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Crisholm into the invention of Woodell et al. ‘427 to yield the invention of claim 12 above. Both Woodell et al. ‘427 and Crisholm are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose obstacle detection systems for aircraft. Woodell et al. ‘427 discloses the limitations of claim 12 outlined above. Although Woodell et al. ‘427 does not explicitly disclose determining and comparing expected and actual parameter values, Woodell et al. ‘427 does disclose determining and comparing expected and actual values. This feature is disclosed by Crisholm where the measured intensity of an object of known radar cross-section and location is measured and compared to a reference intensity established by the manufacturer in order to measure and correct for the error (Crisholm Col. 5, lines 34-35; Col. 9, lines 33-43; Col. 11, lines 18-29). The combination of Woodell et al. ‘427 and Crisholm would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to “provide a procedure for the absolute calibration of air-borne weather radars in terms of radar cross-section on a frequent basis…” (Crisholm Col. 4, lines 23-26).
Regarding claim 13 (Original), the same cited section and rationale as corresponding system claim 2 is applied.
Regarding claim 16 (Currently Amended), the same cited section and rationale as corresponding system claim 6 is applied.
Regarding claim 20 (Original), Woodell et al. ‘427 discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Woodell et al. ‘427 has been struck-through]
A (Woodell et al. ‘427 memory 206, Figs. 1-3) comprising instructions (Woodell et al. ‘427 “System 200 utilizes a software routine on processor 208 to embody obstacle presence detector 212.” – Col. 5, lines 42-43) for causing one or more processors (Woodell et al. ‘427 processor 208, Figs. 1-4) to:
control transmission circuitry (Woodell et al. ‘427 receiver/transmitter 102, Figs. 1-4) of a radar system (Woodell et al. ‘427 weather radar system 200, Figs. 1-4) to output a set of transmitted radar signals;
control receiving circuitry (Woodell et al. ‘427 receiver/transmitter 102, Figs. 1-4) of the radar system to detect a set of reflected radar signals corresponding to the set of transmitted radar signals;
determine a set of radar data based on the set of transmitted signals and the set of reflected radar signals (Woodell et al. ‘427 “Detector 212 can analyze returns and determine the location of objects detected by the system. In one embodiment, system 200 provides relative positional data (e.g. as range and direction data).” Col. 5, lines 43-46);
receive object data indicative of one or more characteristics of an object, wherein the object data is separate from the set of radar data (Woodell et al. ‘427 “Wireless receiver 150 is preferably part of a system which receives locations of obstacles from an outside source.” – Col. 6, lines 8-9);
determine, based on the one or more characteristics of the object, one or more expected (Woodell et al. ‘427 “Wireless receiver 150 is preferably part of a system which receives locations of obstacles from an outside source. In one embodiment, receiver 150 is part of an ADS-B system and receives an RF signal including positional information associated with an obstacle.” – Col. 8-12);
compare one or more actual (Woodell et al. ‘427 “At a step 158, the matched or correlated objects and their locations are compared…” – Col. 8, lines 12-13); and
determine, based on comparing the one or more actual (Woodell et al. ‘427 “At a step 155, the data associated with steps 144, 148, and 152 is utilized to estimate errors associated with the obstacle locations.” – Col. 8, lines 4-6).
Crisholm discloses:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium (Crisholm “Finally, it can be permanently stored in the microprocessor memory for each airport.” – Col. 9, lines 26-27) comprising instructions for causing one or more processors to:
receive object data indicative of one or more characteristics of an object (Crisholm reflector 10, Fig. 1), wherein the object data is separate from the set of radar data (Crisholm “On a practical basis calibration can be achieved by selecting one predetermined aircraft approach range and the radar point target size with which to accomplish this calibration. The reflector radar cross-section can either be the same for all airports, or different and so noted in the appropriate navigational data such as an approach plate. Finally, it can be permanently stored in the microprocessor memory for each airport.” – Col. 9, lines 20-27);
determine, based on the one or more characteristics of the object (Crisholm “It is another major object of this invention to provide a target of stable and known cross-section…” – Col. 5, lines 34-35), one or more expected parameter values of radar data of the set of radar data corresponding to the object (Crisholm "When this signal coincides with recognition of coded reflections from the reflectors 10, 11 and 12, a calibration step is performed by the calibrator 38. For instance, the digital level of the signal on the wire 29 is sampled, averaged and held by the calibrator 38 to produce a signal level which should correspond with a certain reference voltage representing the analog pulse signal appearing on wire 25 as determined by the manufacturer for a reflection from a target of given equivalent radar cross-section and at a range of two miles.” – Col. 9, lines 33-43; where the reference voltage represents the expected intensity of the signal received from the object);
compare one or more actual parameter values of the radar data corresponding to the object with the one or more expected parameter values of the radar data (Crisholm "When the aforesaid predetermined range has been reached, the intensity of the reflections from the calibration reflectors is sampled, averaged and held as shown in the box in FIG. 1, and the microprocessor then compares the intensity of these signals from the calibration reflectors with a standard reference intensity level established by the manufacturer of that weather radar, thereby to develop an indication of any error between these signal intensities." - Col. 11, lines 18-27); and
determine, based on comparing the one or more actual parameter values with the one or more expected parameter values, a reliability of the radar system (Crisholm "an indication of the magnitude of error can be displayed to the weather radar operator…" - Col. 11, lines 28-29; where the error is a measure of the reliability of the radar system).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Crisholm into the invention of Woodell et al. ‘427 to yield the invention of claim 20 above. Both Woodell et al. ‘427 and Crisholm are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose obstacle detection systems for aircraft. Woodell et al. ‘427 discloses the limitations of claim 20 outlined above. Although Woodell et al. ‘427 does not explicitly disclose determining and comparing expected and actual parameter values, Woodell et al. ‘427 does disclose determining and comparing expected and actual values. This feature is disclosed by Crisholm where the measured intensity of an object of known radar cross-section and location is measured and compared to a reference intensity established by the manufacturer in order to measure and correct for the error (Crisholm Col. 5, lines 34-35; Col. 9, lines 33-43; Col. 11, lines 18-29). The combination of Woodell et al. ‘427 and Crisholm would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to “provide a procedure for the absolute calibration of air-borne weather radars in terms of radar cross-section on a frequent basis…” (Crisholm Col. 4, lines 23-26).
Regarding claim 18 (Original), the same cited section and rationale as corresponding system claim 9 is applied.
Regarding claim 19 (Original), the same cited section and rationale as corresponding system claim 10 is applied.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodell et al. ‘427 (US 7,783,427 B1, cited by applicant in IDS dated 6 JUN 2024, previously relied upon by the examiner) in view of Crisholm (US 4,283,725, newly cited by the examiner) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Hager et al. (US 7,138,940 B2, previously relied upon by the examiner).
Regarding claim 3, Woodell et al. ‘427 as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Woodell et al. ‘427 has been struck-through]
The system of claim 1, wherein the radar data corresponding to the object comprises any one or combination of:
Although Woodell et al. does not explicitly disclose the radar data corresponding to the object comprises any one or combination of the differences listed above, Woodell et al. does disclose that “The sensing system includes a device for sensing objects outside of an aircraft using reflections from transmitted electromagnetic radiation.” (Woodell et al. ‘427 Col. 3, lines 33-35)
Hager et al. discloses:
a difference between a transmission time of a transmitted radar signal of the set of transmitted radar signals corresponding to the object and a reception time of a reflected radar signal of the set of reflected radar signals corresponding to the object (Hager et al. “a radar altimeter is provided that comprises an altitude processing section configured to generate an uncompensated altitude based on a time delay between transmission and reception of radar signals.” – Col. 1, lines 59-62)
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Hager et al. into the invention of Woodell et al. ‘427 as modified above to yield the invention of claim 4 above. Woodell et al. ‘427, Crisholm and Hager et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose obstacle detection systems for aircraft. Woodell et al. ‘427 as modified above discloses the system of claim 1. However, Woodell et al. ‘427 as modified above fails to explicitly disclose determining a distance value between the transmitted radar signal and the reflected radar signal. This feature is disclosed by Hager et al. where “a radar altimeter is provided that comprises an altitude processing section configured to generate an uncompensated altitude based on a time delay between transmission and reception of radar signals.” (Hager et al. Col. 1, lines 59-62). The combination of Woodell et al. ‘427, Crisholm and Hager et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to “provide a procedure for the absolute calibration of air-borne weather radars in terms of radar cross-section on a frequent basis…” (Crisholm Col. 4, lines 23-26) and accurately detect the location of the object relative to the aircraft in order to avoid collision.
Claim(s) 4-5, 7, 14-15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodell et al. ‘427 (US 7.783,427 B1, cited by applicant in IDS dated 6 JUN 2024, previously relied upon by the examiner) in view of Crisholm (US 4,283,725, newly cited by the examiner) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Woodell et al. ‘449 (US 7,859,449 B2, previously relied upon by the examiner).
Regarding claim 4 (Original), Woodell et al. ‘427 as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Woodell et al. ‘427 has been struck-through]
The system of claim 1, wherein the radar system is oriented along a sensor axis, and wherein the second processing circuitry is configured to:
determine, based on the object data, a location of the object within (Woodell et al. ‘427 “Detector 212 can analyze returns and determine the location of objects detected by the system. In one embodiment, system 200 provides relative positional data (e.g. as range and direction data).” Col. 5, lines 43-46);
identify a location of the radar system within the (Woodell et al. ‘427 “Processor 208 preferably receives an indication of aircraft position from aircraft position sensor 114.” – Col. 5, lines 57-58); and
determine the location of the object relative to the radar system based on the location the object within the (Woodell et al. ‘427 “Processor 208 preferably utilizes the aircraft position to determine an absolute position of the obstacle from the relative position sensed by system 200.” – Col. 5, lines 63-65).
Woodell et al. ‘449 discloses:
a location of the object within a three-dimensional (3D) space (Woodell et al. ‘449 “The terrain elevation data is preferably referenced to geographical coordinates (e.g., latitude, longitude, and altitude or relative position with respect to aircraft 100.” – Col. 5, lines 21-24)
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Woodell et al. ‘449 into the invention of Woodell et al. ‘427 as modified above to yield the invention of claim 4 above. Woodell et al. ‘427, Crisholm and Woodell et al. ‘449 are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose obstacle detection systems for aircraft. Woodell et al. ‘427 as modified above discloses the system of claim 1. However, Woodell et al. ‘427 as modified above fails to explicitly disclose determining a location of the object within a three-dimensional (3D) space. This feature is disclosed by Woodell et al. ‘449 where “The terrain elevation data is preferably referenced to geographical coordinates (e.g., latitude, longitude, and altitude or relative position with respect to aircraft 100.” (Woodell et al. ‘449 Col. 5, lines 21-24). The combination of Woodell et al. ‘427, Crisholm and Woodell et al. ‘449 would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to “provide a procedure for the absolute calibration of air-borne weather radars in terms of radar cross-section on a frequent basis…” (Crisholm Col. 4, lines 23-26) and accurately detect the location of the object relative to the aircraft in order to avoid collision.
Regarding claim 5 (Currently Amended), Woodell et al. ‘427 as modified above discloses:
The system of claim 4, wherein the radar system is oriented along a sensor axis, and wherein to determine the location of the object relative to the radar system, the second processing circuitry is configured to:
determine a distance between the radar system and the object (Woodell et al. ‘427 “Detector 212 can analyze returns and determine the location of objects detected by the system. In one embodiment, system 200 provides relative positional data (e.g. as range and direction data).” Col. 5, lines 43-46); and
determine one or more angles corresponding to a line between the radar system and the object and the sensor axis (Woodell et al. ‘427 “Detector 212 can analyze returns and determine the location of objects detected by the system. In one embodiment, system 200 provides relative positional data (e.g. as range and direction data).” Col. 5, lines 43-46).
Regarding claim 7 (Original), Woodell et al. ‘427 as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Woodell et al. ‘427 has been struck-through]
The system of claim 1, wherein to receive the object data indicative of the one or more characteristics of the object, the second processing circuitry is configured to:
receive position data including two-dimensional (2D) coordinates corresponding to the object, wherein the 2D coordinates (Woodell et al. ‘427 “The positions derived from system 100 and receiver 150 are preferably converted to the same reference location (latitude and longitude, relative position from the aircraft, etc.)” – Col. 7, lines 21-24) indicate a location on a ground surface corresponding to a position of the object (Woodell et al. ‘427 “a method of detecting an object on a runway” – Col. 2, lines 43-44); and
Woodell et al. ‘449 discloses:
receive altitude data indicating an altitude of the object (Woodell et al. ‘449 “The terrain elevation data is preferably referenced to geographical coordinates (e.g., latitude, longitude, and altitude or relative position with respect to aircraft 100.” – Col. 5, lines 21-24), wherein the altitude of the object represents a distance between the object and sea level (Woodell et al. ‘449 “the terrain elevation estimates are referenced to mean sea-level.” – Col. 5, lines 19-20) or a distance between the object and ground level.
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Woodell et al. ‘449 into the invention of Woodell et al. ‘427 as modified above to yield the invention of claim 7 above. Woodell et al. ‘427, Crisholm and Woodell et al. ‘449 are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose obstacle detection systems for aircraft. Woodell et al. ‘427 as modified above discloses the system of claim 1. However, Woodell et al. ‘427 as modified above fails to explicitly disclose receive altitude data indicating an altitude of the object, wherein the altitude of the object represents a distance between the object and sea level or a distance between the object and ground level. This feature is disclosed by Woodell et al. ‘449 where “the terrain elevation estimates are referenced to mean sea-level… The terrain elevation data is preferably referenced to geographical coordinates (e.g., latitude, longitude, and altitude or relative position with respect to aircraft 100.” (Woodell et al. ‘449 Col. 5, lines 19-24). The combination of Woodell et al. ‘427, Crisholm and Woodell et al. ‘449 would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to “provide a procedure for the absolute calibration of air-borne weather radars in terms of radar cross-section on a frequent basis…” (Crisholm Col. 4, lines 23-26) and accurately detect the location of the object relative to the aircraft in order to avoid collision.
Regarding claim 14 (Original), the same cited section and rationale as corresponding system claim 4 is applied.
Regarding claim 15 (Currently Amended), the same cited section and rationale as corresponding system claim 5 is applied.
Regarding claim 17 (Original), the same cited section and rationale as corresponding system claim 7 is applied.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAOMI M WOLFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-3929. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 4:30 pm EST.
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 Desai can be reached at (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.
NAOMI M. WOLFORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/N.M.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 3648
21 MAY 2026
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights