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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/22/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 01/22/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 102 rejections of independent claims 1, 11, and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voles (GB 2095496 A) in view of Basim et al. (US 3023407 A).
Regarding claim 1, Voles discloses
A system configured to be installed in a vehicle, the system comprising (see Fig. 1; pg. 1, lines 58-60, “Figure 1 is a schematic representation of the configuration of aerial beams in an airborne Doppler navigation radar system”):
radar transmitter circuitry configured to output radar signals via at least one transmit antenna (see Fig. 8, Doppler circuits 27 and transmit antenna 26; pg. 1, lines 41-45, radar is able to transmit radar signals);
radar receiver circuitry configured to receive reflected radar signals via at least one receive antenna (see Fig. 8, Doppler circuits 27; pg. 3, lines 63-67, “instead of having a single [antenna] array common to both transmission and reception as in Figs. 6 to 8, separate transmit and receive arrays could be used”; pg. 1, lines 41-45, radar is able to receive radar signals);
processing circuitry configured to (see Fig. 8, signal processor 29):
determine a velocity estimation of the vehicle based on reflected radar signals of at least three radar beams (see Fig. 1, four beams produced by the radar; pg. 1, lines 98-103, “By using three (or more) non-coplanar beams as shown in Fig. 1, the speed and direction of the aircraft, i.e. the velocity vector 2, relative to the frame of reference of the antenna arrangement producing the b3eams can be determined”), wherein each radar beam has a pointing direction defined at least in part by a first angle (see Fig. 1, angle α; pg. 1, lines 115-116, “the Doppler measurement is a form of average over a range of depression angles”), wherein the first angle is relative to a direction of travel of the vehicle in a vertical direction (see Fig. 1, alpha angle in vertical direction),
determine a performance target for the velocity estimation of the vehicle (see pg. 1, lines 26-28, “the derivation of velocity by measuring the mean Doppler frequency being prone to error”; pg. 2, lines 84-87, “All four channels 24 are coupled to a common signal processor which produces an indication of the velocity vector of the aircraft in known manner”);
adjust the first angle (see pg. 3, lines 37-42, “By making the phase shift variable it is possible to vary the elevational angle …Thus variation of the phase shift could be controlled by altitude sensors on the aircraft 3 (Fig. 1)”; Fig. 7B, altitude sensors).
Basim discloses
wherein each radar beam has a pointing direction defined at least in part by a first angle and a second angle relative to the vehicle… wherein the second angle is relative to the direction of travel of the vehicle in a horizontal direction (see Fig. 2; col. 1, lines 25-30, calibration constant C, transmitted microwave beam has a horizontal angle component γ);
adjust the first angle and the second angle for each radar beam based on a plurality of factors, the factors comprising one or more of: the performance target, the velocity estimation and attitude of the vehicle and a height above terrain and attitude of the vehicle (see Fig. 3, varying backscatter intensities depending on beam angle; col. 3, lines 62-65, “ Experiments on the relative magnitudes of signal return in decibels at various beam angles are summarized in the graphs of FIG. 3”; col. 2, lines 1-15, “This aberration can be nullified by an instrumental adjustment which changes the ratio between the received Doppler frequency and the instruments output speed indications, or the calibration constant of the instrument. The present invention takes advantage of the variations in reflection intensity at 0° and 28° and overland and water. A signal received at 0° incident and back-scatter angle is compared in strength with that of a signal received at about 28° incident and back-scatter angle. The difference between over-land and over-water operation in this comparison may be as much as 35 db. This difference is caused to operate a signal indicating the nature of the terrain beneath the aircraft and also to operate a switch in the navigating instrument changing its calibration constant.”; angle can vary)
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 Basim into the invention of Voles. Both Voles and Basim are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose at least three radar beams emitted from an aircraft that can help determine aircraft speed. Voles discloses a radar system that can transmit and receive signals, determining a velocity estimation based on three or more signals and their reflections, a first vertical angle component of the beams, determining a performance target for the velocity estimation, and adjusting an elevation angle based on at least one of a plurality of factors; however, Voles fails to disclose a second angle with a horizontal component and adjusting that angle. This feature is disclosed by Basim where the horizontal angle component of the beam is included in the calibration constant which can be adjusted. The combination of Voles and Basim would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to emit adjustable signals to accommodate for different terrain, improving signal reflection detection over a variety of terrains (see Basim col. 2, lines 5-21).
Regarding claim 2, Voles further discloses
The system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is farther configured to update a waveform configuration for each radar beam based at least on the performance target for the velocity estimation (see pg. 3, lines 37-40, “By making the phase shift variable it is possible to vary the elevational angle within the elevational beam width”).
Regarding claim 3, Voles further discloses
The system of claim 2, wherein the waveform configuration causes the processing circuitry controlling the radar transmitter circuitry to adjust output signal characteristics comprising one or more of: frequency, chirp type and characteristics, radar beam direction (see pg. 3, lines 37-40, “By making the phase shift variable it is possible to vary the elevational angle within the elevational beam width”, by adjusting beam angle the radar beam direction is adjusted) and/or beamwidth, and dwell parameters.
Regarding claim 4, Voles further discloses
The system of claim 2, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the performance target for the velocity estimation based at least in part on the waveform configuration (see pg. 1, lines 25-40, waveform configuration such as beamwidth can affect the accuracy of velocity measurement).
Regarding claim 5, Voles further discloses
The system of claim 1,
wherein the vehicle is an airborne vehicle (see Fig. 1, aircraft 3),
wherein the performance target for the velocity estimation is based on an operational scenario for the airborne vehicle (see pg. 1, lines 25-40, a scenario such as flying over sea instead of land can affect the accuracy of velocity measurement), and
wherein the operational scenario comprises a phase of flight, a location of the airborne vehicle relative to terrain, and status of other navigation systems available to the airborne vehicle (see pg. 1, lines 25-40, a scenario such as flying over sea instead of land can affect the accuracy of velocity measurement).
Regarding claim 6, Voles further discloses
The system of claim 1,
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to adjust a radar configuration based on the plurality of factors,
where to adjust the radar configuration comprises to adjust the first angle and the second angle of each radar beam (see pg. 3, lines 37-42, “By making the phase shift variable it is possible to vary the elevational angle …Thus variation of the phase shift could be controlled by altitude sensors on the aircraft 3 (Fig. 1)”; Fig. 7B, altitude sensors).
Regarding claims 10-14, the same cited sections and rationale for claims 1-3 and 5-6 are applied. The only difference between claims 1-6 and claims 10-14 is that claims 1-6 refer to a system while claims 10-14 refer to a method. The examiner considers Voles pg. 1, lines 50-52 (“In an embodiment of the invention, means are provided for varying the said elevational angle”) to show that the radar system performs the radar method of claims 10-14.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voles (GB 2095496 A) in view of Basim et al. (US 3023407 A) and further in view of Winstead et al. (US 10006991 B2).
Regarding claim 18, the same cited sections and rationale from claim 1 are applied. Winstead discloses
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed, cause processing circuitry of a computing device to (see cols. 8-9, lines 66-2, the invention “includes a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon executable by a processor to perform a method for estimating velocity of an aircraft”):
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 Winstead into the inventions of Voles and Basim. Voles, Basim, and Winstead are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they all disclose radar systems for estimating the velocity of an aircraft carrying the radar system. Voles and Basim disclose the limitations of claim 1; however, Voles and Basim fail to disclose a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. This feature is disclosed by Winstead where the invention includes a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with executable instructions. The combination of Voles, Basim, and Winstead would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to implement the radar velocity estimation method and system onto various existing aircrafts, reducing the production costs of manufacturing all new aircrafts to accommodate the method and system.
Regarding claim 19, the same cited sections and rationale from claim 2 are applied.
Regarding claim 20, the same cited sections and rationale from claim 3 are applied.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 and 15-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Allowance of claims 7 and 15 is indicated because none of the prior art of record teach or suggest the subject matter of these dependent claims. The prior art of record does not anticipate or render fairly obvious in combination to teach all the additional limitations of the claimed invention, as best understood within the context of Applicant’s claimed invention as a whole. Accordingly, claims 7 and 15 are deemed to have allowable subject matter. Claims 8-9 and 16-17 would also be considered allowable subject matter by virtue of their dependence on allowable claims.
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
US 20240159907 A1 (Hiller); A method, apparatus, and system detect a speed of a vehicle. Laser beams are emitted into an atmosphere from the vehicle. The laser beams are emitted in different directions from the vehicle. Sets of backscatter light are generated in response to transmitting the laser beams into the atmosphere from the vehicle. The sets of backscatter light have frequency shifts relative to the frequency of the laser beams. A set of beat frequencies from interfering the sets of backscatter light with each other is measure. The speed of the vehicle is determined using the set of beat frequencies; see paragraph 0102, laser beam angles with x and y components
US 3259898 A (Hendrik); An airborne Doppler radar system wherein the centroid of the spectrum of frequencies reflected back remains constant regardless of changes in the reflective characteristics of the terrain beneath an aircraft, comprising: a) means for propagating an elliptical beam of electromagnetic energy downwardly from the aircraft to illuminate an area on the terrain, such area: (1) lying between the ground track of the aircraft and a first line perpendicular thereto; (2) being symmetric about a second line lying between a third line perpendicular to the horizontal projection of the longitudinal axis of the beam and a fourth line passing through the center of such area and defining points from which returns of a single frequency are reflected; and, (3) having a length to width ratio, where the length is measured along the second line and the width is measured along a fifth line perpendicular to the second line, between the limits of 2:1 and 10:1; and, (b) means for processing the electromagnetic energy reflected back to the aircraft from such area to derive a signal indicative of the ground speed of the aircraft; see Figs. 4 and 5 for three elliptical beams, col. 4, lines 25-68 angle components can be known
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISABELLA A EDRADA whose telephone number is (571)272-4859. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9am-5pm 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, William Kelleher can be reached at (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.
/ISABELLA A EDRADA/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights