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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Great Britian (GB) on 10/19/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the GB 2315105.3 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 5, “a signal from an aerial vehicle” should read “a signal received from an aerial vehicle”
In claim 1, line 7, “a position relative to the aerials” should read “a position of the aerial vehicle relative to the aerials”
In Claim 3, line 1, "directional sip sensor" should read "directional sensor"
In claim 18, lines 3 to 4, “a signal from an aerial vehicle” should read “a signal received from an aerial vehicle”
In claim 18, line 7, “a position relative to the aerials” should read “a position of the aerial vehicle relative to the aerials”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. The claim recites a method for radiofrequency signal analysis to evaluate location transmissions from aerial vehicles. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim requires no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all claims elements, both individually and in combination, are directed to the manipulation of data by a general purpose computer and/or performing by a person. Thus, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216(2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217-18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices {Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas {Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594-95 (1978)); and mental processes {Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” {Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” {id. at 184 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267-68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour {Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Supreme Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 192 (“We view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract... is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, . . . and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent- eligible application.” , 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].”” Id. ((alteration in the original) quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requiring] generic computer implementation” fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of § 101. USPTO’s January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“Memorandum”). Under Step 2A of that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e.,
mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a
fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well- understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously
known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Analysis
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim 18 recites a method. Thus, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One – Recitation of Judicial Exception
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, we evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. For abstract ideas, Prong One represents a change as compared to prior guidance because we here determine whether the claim recites mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes.
As set forth above, claim 18 recites a judicial exception since the claims set forth a plurality of mental process as defined at least by the claimed steps of:
determine for a signal from an aerial vehicle a differential of a signal parameter between two or more of aerials of the directional sensor;
operate on the differential of the signal parameter to determine a position relative to the aerials by means of a correlation or covariance;
compare the determined position relative to the aerials with a reported position of the aerial vehicle;
determine a difference between the reported and determined positions and compare the difference to equivalence criteria; and
The steps of “determine” may be performed by evaluating and grouping the data received which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion.
The step of “operate” may be performed by calculating the data to achieve the results may be practically performed in the human mind using evaluation.
The step of “compare” may be performed by evaluating the results which may be practically performed in the human mind using evaluation, judgment, and opinion.
Therefore, such steps of “determine”, “operate” and “compare” encompass processes that can be performed mentally; thus, fall within “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Since the claim recites an abstract idea, the analysis proceeds to Prong Two to determine whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two – Practical Application
If a claim recites a judicial exception, in Prong Two, we next determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not directed to the judicial exception. This evaluation requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not directed to the judicial exception.
The only additional element of claim 18 is “report a spoofing attempt upon determining that the difference does not match the equivalence criteria”. Such elements, at a high-level of generality, merely recite data transfer by the directional sensor. As such, such steps are insignificant extra--solution activity to the judicial exception. Further, all claim elements recite the method as being performed by a processor of the directional sensor. The processor is recited at a high level of generality. The processor is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving data and perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Step 2B – Inventive Concept
For Step 2B of the analysis, it is determined whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field.
As stated above, claim 18 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Since this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim requires no more than data gathering steps that collect necessary data for estimating, analyzing, and evaluating and requires no more than a generic computer to perform operations and generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities.
The courts have considered the following examples to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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, 3-7, 12, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibbons et al. (US PG Pub. 20210011109) in view of Lin et al. (CN 109541564 machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Gibbons discloses a directional sensor (Abstract, A directional receiver system may include a receiver, a plurality of receive antenna elements, and a circuit.) for receiving and evaluating location signals from aerial vehicles relative to the directional sensor, the directional sensor comprising:
aerials (Fig. 1, antenna elements 10, 20, [0016] FIG. 1 shows a representative embodiment of the present invention comprising a pair of antenna elements 10, 20,); and a
processor (Fig. 3a receiver/processor circuit 110, [0019] FIG. 3a is a block diagram of an embodiment of the receiver/processor circuit 110 of the present invention, illustrating a sequence of transformations that may be applied by receiver/processor circuit 110) configured to:
a) determine for a signal from an aerial vehicle a differential of a signal parameter between two or more of the aerials ([0018] FIG. 3 also shows the time difference of arrival (TDOA) 160 of two copies of signal 150 passing through the cable 130, into receiver processor circuit 110, which will process the received signal and measure the TDOA 160 of the two copies of signal 150.); and
b) operate on the differential of the signal parameter ([0020] The resulting TOA estimates 220 are passed to the AOA Estimator 235, which may combine the TOA estimates 220 with knowledge of the antenna geometry and various delays 225 to produce the estimated AOA 240 for each signal of interest.) to determine a position relative to the aerials by means of a correlation or covariance ([0047] For example, three antenna elements affixed rigidly to an aircraft may support AOA with respect to the plane of the three antenna elements… Finally, if global positioning system (GPS) information is available…, the data can be registered to the GPS grid.). Gibbons fails to teach explicitly that the processor is configured to: c) compare the determined position relative to the aerials with a reported position of the aerial vehicle; d) determine a difference between the reported and determined positions and compare the difference to equivalence criteria; and e) report a spoofing attempt upon determining that the difference does not match the equivalence criteria.
However, Lin teaches a technique for Automatic Dependent Surveillance–Broadcast (ADS-B) interference detection where the processor is configured to: c) compare the determined position relative to the aerials with a reported position of the aerial vehicle; d) determine a difference between the reported and determined positions and compare the difference to equivalence criteria; and e) report a spoofing attempt upon determining that the difference does not match the equivalence criteria ([0039] The ADS-B ground station receiver analyzes the received signal to obtain the aircraft latitude and longitude data contained in the signal. Then, it is determined whether the deviation between the parsed ADS-B information and the theoretically parsed ADS-B information from the ADS-B receiver is within the set deviation range. If it is within the set deviation range, proceed to the next step; otherwise, the ADS-B ground station receiver generates an alarm message.).
Gibbons and Lin are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of Radar based aerial vehicle locating technology. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate configuring the processor of the directional sensor to: c) compare the determined position relative to the aerials with a reported position of the aerial vehicle; d) determine a difference between the reported and determined positions and compare the difference to equivalence criteria; and e) report a spoofing attempt upon determining that the difference does not match the equivalence criteria of Lin with the directional sensor of Gibbons to yield a predictable result of a mean to validate the location self-reporting of vehicles to detect spoofing as noted by Lin ([0008] to determine whether the ADS-B ground station receiver can resolve and identify spoofing interference signals, and thus test the ADS-B ground station receiver's ability to resist spoofing interference.).
Regarding claim 3, Gibbons as modified by Lin teaches the directional sensor of claim 1. Gibbons further teaches wherein the correlation of the differential of the signal parameter determines one or more of: a) a distance of the aerial vehicle from the aerials ([0046] For example, a plurality of directional receivers placed separately at accurately known locations may be configured to observe their respective AOAs to a particular transmitter, and use the resulting geometry to localize the transmitter at the best estimate of the intersection of the set of AOAs from the positions of the receivers.); b) a geographic location of the aerial vehicle; c) a height of the aerial vehicle from the aerials; and d) a location in three dimensions of the aerial vehicle from the aerials ([0047] Finally, if global positioning system (GPS) information is available, or INS is accurate, or AOAs from accurately known locations are available, the data can be registered to the GPS grid.).
Regarding claim 4, Gibbons as modified by Lin teaches the directional sensor of claim 1. Gibbons does not explicitly teach wherein comparing the difference to the equivalent criteria provides one or more of: a) a difference in magnitude of one or more parameters; b) a first differential rate of change of the one or more parameters; and c) a second differential of the one or more parameters.
However, Lin teaches wherein comparing the difference to the equivalent criteria provides one or more of: a) a difference in magnitude of one or more parameters; b) a first differential rate of change of the one or more parameters; and c) a second differential of the one or more parameters ([0039] The ADS-B ground station receiver analyzes the received signal to obtain the aircraft latitude and longitude data contained in the signal. Then, it is determined whether the deviation between the parsed ADS-B information and the theoretically parsed ADS-B information from the ADS-B receiver is within the set deviation range.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gibbons in view of Lin to incorporate comparing the difference to the equivalent criteria of: a) a difference in magnitude of one or more parameters as taught by Lin to gain the advantage of having a defined means for determining spoofing through comparing a difference in magnitude to a criteria with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 5, Gibbons as modified by Lin teaches the directional sensor of claim 4. Gibbons does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more parameters include distance.
However, Lin teaches wherein the one or more parameters include distance ([0020] at the same time obtain the RSSI value (Received Signal Strength Indication) of the signal in different directions. Then, the RSSI values are compared to determine the validity of the aircraft latitude and longitude data contained in the signal). It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gibbons in view of Lin with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – Radar based aerial vehicle locating technology. The combination would improve the accuracy of the spoofing detection.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Gibbons as modified by Lin teaches the directional sensor of claims 4 and 5. Gibbons further teaches wherein the one or more parameters include angle ([0020] The resulting TOA estimates 220 are passed to the AOA Estimator 235, which may combine the TOA estimates 220 with knowledge of the antenna geometry and various delays 225 to produce the estimated AOA 240 for each signal of interest.).
Regarding claim 12, Gibbons as modified by Lin teaches the directional sensor of claim 1. Gibbons further teaches wherein the aerials comprise four aerials mounted in a rectangular array ([0049] Another example of a way to obtain unambiguous three dimensional AOA measurements is to use an array of four receive antenna elements, with two antenna elements combined to feed each of two receiver processor circuits 110, wherein the axes of the two antenna arrays share a center point and are orthogonal.).
Regarding claim 14, Gibbons as modified by Lin teaches the directional sensor of claim 1. Gibbons further teaches the directional sensor system comprising a GPS sensor, wherein the aerials are in a known and fixed proximity to the GPS sensor, and the GPS sensor is in communication with the processor for providing a location of the aerials to the processor ([0094] Internal to the receiver, the AOA may be calculated relative to the plane defined by the receive antenna elements and transformed to the axes of the aircraft. To use these values for navigation purposes, or to assist in localizing the transmitter, the aircraft system can use information from flight instruments and/or external aids such as GPS to convert the angles with respect to the plane of the receive antenna elements into the angles with respect to the frame of reference within which the aircraft is operating, for example the GPS Earth centered—Earth fixed (ECEF) frame of reference.).
Regarding claim 18, Gibbons discloses a method for receiving and evaluating location signals from aerial vehicles relative to a directional sensor, the method comprising:
a) using a processor of the directional sensor to determine for a signal from an aerial vehicle a differential of a signal parameter between two or more of aerials of the directional sensor ([0018] FIG. 3 also shows the time difference of arrival (TDOA) 160 of two copies of signal 150 passing through the cable 130, into receiver processor circuit 110, which will process the received signal and measure the TDOA 160 of the two copies of signal 150.) and
b) using the processor of the directional sensor to operate on the differential of the signal parameter ([0020] The resulting TOA estimates 220 are passed to the AOA Estimator 235, which may combine the TOA estimates 220 with knowledge of the antenna geometry and various delays 225 to produce the estimated AOA 240 for each signal of interest.) to determine a position relative to the aerials by means of a correlation or covariance ([0047] For example, three antenna elements affixed rigidly to an aircraft may support AOA with respect to the plane of the three antenna elements… Finally, if global positioning system (GPS) information is available…, the data can be registered to the GPS grid.). Gibbons fails to teach explicitly c) using the processor of the directional sensor to compare the determined position relative to the aerials with a reported position of the aerial vehicle; d) using the processor of the directional sensor to determine a difference between the reported and determined positions and compare the difference to equivalence criteria; and e) using the processor of the directional sensor to report a spoofing attempt upon determining that the difference does not match the equivalence criteria.
However, Lin teaches a technique for Automatic Dependent Surveillance–Broadcast (ADS-B) interference detection c) using the processor of the directional sensor to compare the determined position relative to the aerials with a reported position of the aerial vehicle; d) using the processor of the directional sensor to determine a difference between the reported and determined positions and compare the difference to equivalence criteria; and e) using the processor of the directional sensor to report a spoofing attempt upon determining that the difference does not match the equivalence criteria ([0039] The ADS-B ground station receiver analyzes the received signal to obtain the aircraft latitude and longitude data contained in the signal. Then, it is determined whether the deviation between the parsed ADS-B information and the theoretically parsed ADS-B information from the ADS-B receiver is within the set deviation range. If it is within the set deviation range, proceed to the next step; otherwise, the ADS-B ground station receiver generates an alarm message.).
Gibbons and Lin are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of Radar based aerial vehicle locating technology. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate configuring the processor of the directional sensor to: c) compare the determined position relative to the aerials with a reported position of the aerial vehicle; d) determine a difference between the reported and determined positions and compare the difference to equivalence criteria; and e) report a spoofing attempt upon determining that the difference does not match the equivalence criteria of Lin with the directional sensor of Gibbons to yield a predictable result of a mean to validate the location self-reporting of vehicles to detect spoofing as noted by Lin ([0008] to determine whether the ADS-B ground station receiver can resolve and identify spoofing interference signals, and thus test the ADS-B ground station receiver's ability to resist spoofing interference.)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibbons as modified by Lin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Murphy (US PG Pub. 20160349372).
Regarding claim 2, Gibbons as modified by Lin teaches the directional sensor of claim 1. Gibbons further teaches wherein the differential of the signal parameter is selected from one or more of: b) time of arrival of the signal at the directional sensor ([0020] TOA Estimator 215, which may apply algorithms to make precision estimates of time of arrival with respect to the local clock for each signal of interest 210.). Gibbons does not teach where the differential of the signal parameter is selected from either the a) reception signal strength or c) phase angle of the signal.
Lin teaches where the differential of the signal parameter is selected from the a) reception signal strength ([0020] decode the same signal from different directions using an ADS-B ground station receiver to obtain the aircraft latitude and longitude data contained in the signal, and at the same time obtain the RSSI value (Received Signal Strength Indication) of the signal in different directions. Then, the RSSI values are compared to determine the validity of the aircraft latitude and longitude data contained in the signal). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate where the differential of the signal parameter is selected from the reception signal strength of Lin with the directional sensor of Gibbons as modified by Lin to yield a predictable result of an additional means of validating the reported aircraft position and thus improved ability to detect spoofing.
Additionally, Murphy teaches a system for ADS-B authentication (Abstract; The present disclosure is directed to a receiver for Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) verification of a target aircraft… A comparator compares the expected bearing to the measured bearing and verifies the ADS-B flight tracking information of the target aircraft and outputs an indication of authenticity based on the verification.) where the differential of the signal parameter is the c) phase angle of the signal ([0029] The sampled ‘copies’ of the primary signal 133 from the other antenna elements are processed in parallel with the expected AOA signal calculation and are used to measure at an AOA measuring unit 136 a relative angle of arrival (AOA) of the signal of interest...The measured AOA signal “θm” can then be determined from the relative phase of the signal on each antenna element and based on knowledge of the geometry of the antenna elements.).
Gibbons, Lin and Murphy are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of Radar based aerial vehicle locating technology. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the differential of the signal parameter is the c) phase angle of the signal of Murphy with the directional sensor of Gibbons as modified by Lin to yield a predictable result of an additional means of validating the reported aircraft position and thus improved ability to detect spoofing.
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibbons as modified by Lin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Borchardt (US Pat. 9810760).
Regarding claim 8, Gibbons as modified by Lin teaches the directional sensor of claim 1. Gibbons as modified by Lin does not explicitly teach that the directional sensor further comprising a signal attenuation means, in addition to air space, between two or more of the aerials.
However, Borchardt teaches a system for computing the angle of arrival of signals (Abstract; A system that is configured for computing the angle of arrival of a radio signal) comprising a signal attenuation means, in addition to air space, between two or more of the aerials (Fig. 1, cylindrical sheath 102; Page 8, col. 4, lines 17-19, The antennas of the sensor elements are coupled to the cylindrical sheath 102, such that the cylindrical sheath 102 acts as a ground plane.).
Gibbons, Lin and Borchardt are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of Multi-element antenna radar technology. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the signal attenuation means of Borchardt with the directional sensor of Gibbons as modified by Lin to yield a predictable result of improved isolation between the antennas and thus improved signal reception.
Regarding claims 9, 10 and 11. Gibbons as modified by Lin and further in view of Borchardt teaches the directional sensor of claim 8. Gibbons as modified by Lin does not teach the signal attenuation means is a metal ground plane, the signal attenuation means is a ferrite sheet or a conductive plastics sheet, or the signal attenuation means provides no line of sight between adjacent aerials.
However, Borchardt teaches the signal attenuation means is a metal ground plane (Page 7, col. 2, lines 1-3; The ground plane may be composed of any suitable conductive material, such as a metal foil, a metal mesh, or the like.), the signal attenuation means is a ferrite sheet or a conductive plastics sheet (Page 11, col. 10 , lines 57-58; the conductive material being one of a metal mesh, a metal foil, or a conductive plastic.), and also the signal attenuation means provides no line of sight between adjacent aerials (Fig. 1, a cylindrical obstacle 104). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gibbons as modified by Lin in view of Borchardt to incorporate the signal attenuation means is a metal ground plane, the signal attenuation means is a ferrite sheet or a conductive plastics sheet, or the signal attenuation means provides no line of sight between adjacent aerials as taught by Borchardt to gain the advantage of improved isolation between the antennas and thus improved signal reception; with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibbons as modified by Lin as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Wang et al., (X. Wang, J. Li, W. Chen, M. Zhang, J. Chen and A. Zhang, "The Effect of Mutual Coupling on the Performance of GNSS Antenna Arrays," in IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 20480-20487, 2020)
Regarding claim 13, Gibbons as modified by Lin teaches the directional sensor of claim 12. Gibbons as modified by Lin does not teach that it comprises a cruciform signal attenuation means between the aerials.
PNG
media_image1.png
578
856
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wang Figure 1
However, Wang teaches an antenna array with a cruciform signal attenuation means between the aerials (Fig. 1).
Gibbons, Lin and Wang are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of Radiofrequency antenna technology. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the cruciform signal attenuation means between the aerials of Wang with the directional sensor of Gibbons as modified by Lin to yield a predictable result of isolation between the antennas in a rectangular array.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibbons as modified by Lin as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Zhang et al., (US PG Pub. 20130076579).
Regarding claims 15-17, Gibbons as modified by Lin teaches the directional sensor of claim 14. Gibbons as modified by Lin does not teach wherein the GPS sensor is located between two or more of the aerials, further comprising a signal attenuation means, in addition to air space, between two or more of the aerials, and the signal attenuation means comprises an aperture for reception of radio signals by the GPS sensor, and wherein the aperture is perpendicular to vertical faces of the signal attenuation means.
However, Zhang teaches an antenna system wherein the GPS sensor (Fig. 16A-16C, third antenna 1605) is located between two or more of the aerials (Fig. 16A-16C, first and second antennas 501, 503), further comprising a signal attenuation means (Fig. 16A-16C, parasitic element 502), in addition to air space, between two or more of the aerials ([0013] In some embodiments, the multi-band wireless communications terminal may further include a third antenna on the parasitic element between the first and second antennas.[0014] In some embodiments, the third antenna may include a Global Positioning System (GPS) antenna.), and the signal attenuation means comprises an aperture for reception of radio signals by the GPS sensor ([0092] For example, the third antenna 1605 may be a notch/slot antenna on/in the parasitic element 502), and wherein the aperture is perpendicular to vertical faces of the signal attenuation means ([0093] FIG. 16A illustrates that the dielectric block 1204 may include a hollow portion (e.g., the dielectric block 1204 may have a box lid/top shape), and that the parasitic element 502 and the third antenna 1605 may be on the hollow portion of the dielectric block 1204, as well as on a vertical/perimeter edge portion of the dielectric block 1204 and a horizontal portion opposite the hollow portion.).
Gibbons, Lin and Zhang are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of Radiofrequency antenna technology. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the antenna system integration with the GPS sensor and signal attenuation means of Zhang with the directional sensor of Gibbons as modified by Lin to yield a predictable result of integrating the GPS sensor with the antenna array without degrading performance as noted by Zhang ([0004] For example, although wireless terminals may include multiple antennas, mutual coupling between different antennas may degrade performance.).
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 10969458 discloses a system and method to determine the direction of origin within 360 degrees around an antenna array for an emitted signal with a high degree of accuracy, even when the array is installed in a corrupted or “unclean” environment. Further, the provided system and method can provide a more accurate indication of direction despite polarization of the detected signal. Finally, the provided system and method can provide accurate results from phase measurements, amplitude measurements, or both phase and amplitude measurements, from an emitted signal where a phase network can be used to tailor the amplitude and phase variations versus spatial angle to best match the receiver measurement accuracies.
US 20200116813 discloses a device and method for determining an angle of arrival of a received RF signal, the device comprising (a) a first antenna and a second antenna arranged with a predetermined distance between them on an antenna axis, the first antenna having a larger gain than the second antenna for directions corresponding to one side of the antenna axis, the second antenna having a larger gain than the first antenna for directions corresponding to the other side of the antenna axis, (b) receiver circuitry coupled to the first antenna and to the second antenna, the receiver circuitry being configured to determine a first phase and a first signal strength of a signal received by the first antenna and to determine a second phase and a second signal strength of a signal received by the second antenna, and (c) angle determining circuitry configured to determine the angle of arrival based on the first phase, the second phase, the first signal strength, and the second signal strength.
US 20160018509 discloses a RF emitter sensing device comprising an antenna circuit and an estimator configured to output, for one or more incoming signals-of-interest (SoI), either or both of an estimated range to the emitter of each SoI, and estimates for one or more angles corresponding to the 3D angle-of-arrival (AoA) of each SoI, wherein: the antenna circuit has a plurality of ports that each output an output signal containing the one or more SoI, the antenna circuit including one or more multi-port antennas, each multi-port antenna having two or more ports, each multi-port antenna being configured to pick up a combination of one or more E-field signals and one or more H-field signals from each SoI, in a common volume of space.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN BS ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4145. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Jack Keith can be reached at (571)272-6878. 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.
/JBSA/Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights