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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to Claims 1-20 filed on 26 September 2025. Claims 1 and 11 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are currently presented and examined below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant argues neither Wang nor Stein disclose wherein one or more atmospheric anomalies are indicative of a density and composition of the atmospheric space through which the signals have passed. However, Fleming has been added and teaches an atmospheric turbulence analysis system.
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.
Claims 1, 8- 11 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al., Pub. No. US2024/0201394 A1 in view of Fleming, Pub. No. US2007/0159383 A1, hereinafter referred to as Wang and Fleming, respectively.
As per Claims 1 and 11, A method and system for atmospheric anomaly detection, the system comprising:
a network of ground-based nodes (see at least 0038, “ground stations”);
a plurality of satellites of a constellation (see at least 0033, GNSS constellation),
one or more controllers including one or more processors configured to execute a set of program instructions stored in a memory, the set of program instructions configured to cause the one or more processors to:
direct a transmission of signals between the network and the plurality of satellite, wherein the signals are configured to be aimed along a plurality of paths through an atmospheric space between the network and the plurality of satellites (see at least 0001, 0024, 0033, “satellite communications”) ;
receive and aggregate signal data corresponding to the signals via at least one of the network or the plurality of satellites (see at least 0026, 0031, “gather data characterizing the interfering GNSS signals and send the data to central processing system);
determine signal characteristics based on the signal data and the time synching, wherein the signal characteristics comprise at least one of times of arrival, dispersion, phase velocity, group velocity, or power level differentials (see at least 0025, 0030, 0068, “timing information”, “carrier phase”, “velocity”, “time of interference”);
identify one or more atmospheric anomalies based on the signal characteristics (see at least Figures 8-9, 0064-0065); and
adjust a flight plan based on the one or more atmospheric anomalies characteristics (see at least Figures 8-9, 0064-0065.
Wang fails to explicitly disclose wherein the network and the plurality of satellites are configured to perform a time synching and perform a time synching between the network of ground-based nodes and the plurality of satellites of the constellation.
wherein the one or more atmospheric anomalies are indicative of a density and composition of the atmospheric space through which the signals have passed, and wherein identifying the one or more atmospheric anomalies requires the time synching to enable determination of signal delays and phase variations caused by atmospheric conditions. Wang does disclose time synchronization from the time signals received from each of the satellites (0001). Further, Fleming teaches wherein the network and the plurality of satellites are configured to perform a time synching and perform a time synching between the network of ground-based nodes and the plurality of satellites of the constellation (see at least 0029, 0083-0084, “Proper calibration of these variance values to produce an authentic turbulence metric is the key to an accurate product.”). Furthermore, Fleming teaches wherein the one or more atmospheric anomalies are indicative of a density and composition of the atmospheric space through which the signals have passed, and wherein identifying the one or more atmospheric anomalies requires the time synching to enable determination of signal delays and phase variations caused by atmospheric conditions (see at least 0007, 0029, 0037-0038, 0051, 0082-0084, 0092, “phase data variations”, “Airplanes 105-107 include airplane systems that receive and process satellite signals 121-124 to determine time variance metrics for each of the satellite signals 121-124. Ground systems 108-110 also receive and process satellite signals 121-124 to determine time variance metrics for each of the satellite signals”, “The 3D boxes in the turbulence map would be labeled with none, light, moderate, and severe turbulence. For example, the turbulence map could be color-coded to indicate turbulence in 3D.”, “roper calibration of these variance values to produce an authentic turbulence metric is the key to an accurate product. The averaging times for Y and X must be such that: (1) atmospheric turbulence is captured and (2) insignificant noise is ignored.”)
Thus, Wang discloses a system a satellite system for providing evasive maneuvers, while Fleming teaches time calibration and taking into account signal delays due to turbulence.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wang to include taking into account time delay in signals based on turbulence as taught by Fleming with a reasonable expectation of success because the airplane would receive a continually updated turbulence map for their area. If the turbulence map indicates turbulence in the flight path, the pilot may use the turbulence map to select an alternative flight path that avoids the turbulence (see Fleming 0038).
As per Claims 8 and 17, Wang discloses wherein the signals span multiple radio frequency (RF) bands (see at least 0001, 0024, “HF and VHF”).
As per Claims 9 and 18, Wang fails to explicitly disclose processor to identify regions and associated atmospheric densities of the regions based on the signal characteristics, and wherein the adjusting the flight plan includes adjusting the flight plan to fly through a particular region based on a respective atmospheric density of the particular region being higher than an alternative atmospheric density of an alternative region. However, Wang discloses a region that includes one or more GNSS interference sources 102 radiating interfering signals that affect the operation of a GNSS receiver onboard a vehicle (0025). Further, Wang discloses From block 810, method 800 also proceeds to block 811 and determines whether the aircraft has experienced a heading change, e.g., from inertial or air data sensors onboard the vehicle. If the aircraft has experienced a heading change, then method 800 proceeds to block 814 and determines the source azimuth of the GNSS interference source(s) based on the heading change of the aircraft and the azimuth ambiguities (0061). Furthermore, Wang discloses interference source(s) in the geographical region to analyze the ambiguity of the azimuth (see block 814 of FIG. 8). In the meantime, the original flight path can be adjusted in the geographical location to avoid the locations that correspond to each azimuth ambiguity. Additionally, the azimuth ambiguities may indicate that the GNSS interference source is moving relative to the aircraft, in which case the flight path can be modified to account for the movement of the GNSS interference source (e.g., by traversing in a direction opposite or non-overlapping with respect to the anticipated movement of the GNSS interference source) (0064). Further, Fleming teaches the above limitation (see at least 0061, “Processing system 411 could also determine alternative flight plans that avoid the areas of turbulence and indicate the alternative flight plans along with the turbulence alarm.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wang to include rerouting a flight based on turbulence as taught by Fleming with a reasonable expectation of success because the airplane would receive a continually updated turbulence map for their area. If the turbulence map indicates turbulence in the flight path, the pilot may use the turbulence map to select an alternative flight path that avoids the turbulence (see Fleming 0038).
As per Claims 10 and 19, Wang discloses wherein the adjusting the flight plan is configured to be communicated via a communication interface positioned in an electromagnetically transparent nose radome of an aircraft, wherein the communication interface comprises at least one of: an optical communication interface; or an RF communication interface (see at least Figure 1, 0002, 0023-0024, “aircraft”, “HF, VHF”). Examiner notes that it is inherent that commercial aircraft include electromagnetically transparent nose radome which include communication interfaces.
As per Claim 20, Wang discloses wherein the aircraft comprises aircraft sensors and wherein the controller is further configured to receive aircraft data from the aircraft sensors, and wherein the identifying the one or more atmospheric anomalies is further based on the aircraft data (see at least 0037).
Claims 2-4 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Fleming as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view Omi, WO2022/079278 A2, hereinafter referred to as Omi.
As per Claims 2-4 and 12-14, Wang discloses wherein the plurality of satellites comprise at least two separated antenna elements spanning a distance (see at least 0042).
Wang fails to explicitly disclose wherein a portion of the signal data corresponding to a common signal is configured to be received via the at least two separated antenna elements and corresponding to at least two spatially distinct refracted beams of the common signal, wherein the signal characteristics comprises the distance.
However, Omi teaches wherein a portion of the signal data corresponding to a common signal is configured to be received via the at least two separated antenna elements and corresponding to at least two spatially distinct refracted beams of the common signal, wherein the signal characteristics comprises the distance (see at least 0009, 0024, 0137-0138, “As an example, and illustrated in figure 4a, the UAVs 102a-102n may be used to find the main beam centre 112 by having the control unit 104 direct each of the UAVs 102a-102n and/or control the flight paths of each of the UAVs 102a-102n, based on received RF measurements, to move forward or toward an expected centre of the main beam 112 in a circling or spiralling trajectory flight paths that are estimated to be centred on the expected centre of the main beam from the distance of the defined measurement distance (guaranteeing far field, depending on the frequency and AUT size”).
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Fleming and further in view of Omi as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Tillotson, EP2065711 A2, hereinafter referred to as Tillotson.
As per Claims 5 and 15, Wang fails to disclose wherein the signal characteristics comprise scintillation determined based on the distance. However, Tillotson teaches wherein the signal characteristics comprise scintillation determined based on the distance (see at least 0007, 0024, “FIG. 3 contains plots of two exemplary light intensities observed over time; FIG. 4 contains plots of two exemplary representations of turbulent scintillation over time; and FIG. 5-6 are diagrams showing an exemplary technique for identifying a distance from a light observer to a pocket of turbulence.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wang to include scintillation as a signal characteristic as taught by Tillotson with a reasonable expectation of success because it provides for a system that is capable of effectively identifying various types of turbulence (including close range turbulence and clear air turbulence) without requiring an aircraft to venture into the turbulent airspace (see Tillotson 0003).
Claims 6-7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Fleming as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Caton et. Al., GPS Proxy Model for Real-time UHF Satellite Communications Scintillation Maps from the Scintillation Network Decision Aid (SCINDA)”, hereinafter referred to as Caton.
As per Claim 6, Wang fails to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more atmospheric anomalies comprise a size and a depth. Wang does disclose multiple characteristics of an anomaly (see at least 0025, 0030). Further, Caton teaches disclose wherein the one or more atmospheric anomalies comprise a size and a depth (see Figures 1-2, Scintillation plumes detected by the in-theater UHF sensors are shown in the frame on the left while structures detected on the GPS sensors are shown on the right. The darker (red) features indicate ‘‘severe’’ scintillation areas where the modeled S4 values are greater than 0.6 while the lighter (yellow) areas indicate ‘‘moderate’’ disturbances with S4 values between 0.3 and 0.6.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wang to include size and depth of scintillation as taught by Caton with a reasonable expectation of success because it produces the most accurate and reliable nowcast and forecast scintillation specification products available to UHF SATCOM users (see Caton Abstract).
As per Claims 7 and 16, Wang fails to explicitly disclose wherein the set of program instructions are further configured to cause the one or more processors to aggregate the one or more atmospheric anomalies to extract and generate four-dimensional (4D) atmospheric anomaly data. However, Wang discloses a navigation display that displays the determined source azimuth or azimuth ambiguities of a GNSS interference source. Additionally, the projected or measured movement of the GNSS interference source over time can be indicated on the display (see at least 0039).
Further, Caton teaches aggregate the one or more atmospheric anomalies to extract and generate four-dimensional (4D) atmospheric anomaly data (see at least Figure 1., “3D map of scintillation over time”, Examiner Notes a 3D map over time is equivalent to a 4D data).
Wang discloses displaying ambiguities while Caton teaches scintillation over time.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wang to include scintillation over time as taught by Caton with a reasonable expectation of success because it produces the most accurate and reliable nowcast and forecast scintillation specification products available to UHF SATCOM users (see Caton Abstract).
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 Fadey S Jabr whose telephone number is (571)272-1516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:00am to 4:oopm.
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, Fadey S Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
FADEY S. JABR
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668