DETAILED ACTION
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 93/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Applicant agues under step 2A prong one that the steps of receiving, generating, and filtering cannot be practically performed in the human mind. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) states, “The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation.” A mental process involving a physical aid such as means to collect data or a physical hardware processor does not prevent the claim from being directed to a judicial exception. In regards to the steps of “receiving, generating, and filtering,” it is noted that the Examiner only indicated filtering as directed to a judicial exception. As was set forth in the previous action, the limitation“ receiving a radar signal by a receiver to generate a first return vector having four elements representing four channels of a full-polarimetric radar reading” as recited by independent claim 14 recites extra solution activity that is merely nominal to the claim. The Examiner maintains the 101 rejection.
The Applicant purports that the ”combination of the unconventional receiver and the corresponding unconventional filter improves signal detection performance in a radar system, which is an improvement to a technological field, not mere data reporting,” suggesting that the judicial exception is integrated into the practical application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. MEPE 2106.05(a) states, “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements.” As indicated in the previous filled 101 rejection, the claimed step of filtering recites a mathematical calculation is therefore directed to a judicial exception. The limitation is directed to a judicial exception and cannot provide an improvement to integrate the judicial exception into the practical application. The examiner maintains the 101 rejection.
The Applicant argues under step 2B that the, “the claim recited receiver receives unconventional 'four-channels of a full-polarimetric radar reading’ and uses an unconventional 'four-dimensional polarization filter’ to suppress interference, thereby the claim adds specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field. See Memorandum” suggesting that the claims amount to significantly more. The Examiner disagrees. It is initially noted that step 2B focuses on “additional elements” and does not consider whether a limitation reciting a judicial exception is “well-understood, routine, conventional.” As was indicated in the previous filled 101 rejection, the claimed step of filtering is directed to a judicial exception and is not further considered as an “additional element. “As demonstrated by the art rejection below” 'four-channels of a full-polarimetric radar reading’ is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality. The simple statement that the above limitation is not “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” is not sufficient to demonstrate an inventive concept. The Examiner maintains the art rejection.
With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 based on Sibecas, the Applicant states that the prior art does not disclose each and every element of the claims as Sibecas does not teach in the same field of endeavor of radar technology. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2131.05 states, “ A reference may be [...] from an entirely different field of endeavor than that of the claimed invention, yet the reference is still anticipatory if it explicitly or inherently discloses every limitation recited in the claims.” Field of endeavor does not by itself govern whether art qualifies as anticipatory under 35 U.S.C. 102. Further, MPEP 2111.02(II) states, “If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.” Although the independent claims preambles recite “for detecting targets with radar signals,” the body of each claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention. The claims recite a structurally complete invention in the claim body, and the use of “for detecting targets with radar signals” of the preamble is not a claim limitation; the claim body limitations of “a receiver configured to receive… a four-dimensional polarization filter…” does not necessitate the intended use of “detecting targets,” the Examiner again respectfully points to MPEP 2111.02(II). The preamble as recited by independent claims 1, 9, and 11 merely states that the intended use of the invention is to detect targets with radar signals. Besides the preamble statement of intended use, the claims do not explicitly disclose a step of target acquisition or detection. Without an explicit detection step, the term “radar” simply limits a system to generally transmitting a radio frequency signal and collecting its reflection. Receiving and filtering out interference echo signals which is disclosed in paragraph [0142] of Sibecas. Without a detection step, both the instant application and Sibecas pertain to transmitting, receiving, and processing polarized radio frequency signals. It is additionally noted that paragraph [0043] Sibecas discloses the use of similar systems in traditional radar. The Examiner maintains that although Sibecas does not explicitly disclose “detecting targets with radar signals,” Sibecas teaches each and every limitation as presently recited by the claims.
The Applicant argues that Sibecas fails to disclose, “ a receiver configured to receive the radar signals and generate a first return vector having four elements representing four channels of a full-polarimetric radar reading from the received radar signals” as recited by independent claim 1. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraphs [0040] and [0042] of the Applicant’s specification clarifies that the four channels associated with full-polarimetric radar include “HH - for horizontal transmit and horizontal receive, VV - for vertical transmit and vertical receive, HV - for horizontal transmit and vertical receive, and VH - for vertical transmit and horizontal receive. “ Sibecas discloses, “Polarization mapper 366 supplies a horizontal polarization mapped signal to transmitter 370 and a vertical polarization mapped signal to transmitter 374” on paragraph [0145] and “The combined polarization state multipath processor receiver can further include one or more antennas such as a horizontally polarized antenna coupled to a first receiver front end coupled to a first plurality of correlators and a vertically polarized antenna coupled to a second front end receiver front end coupled to a second plurality of correlators” on paragraph [0010]. The above citations demonstrate that of Sibecas transmits and receives both vertical and horizontal polarizations. Paragraph [0012] of Sibecas furthers discloses “a demapper that generates a most likely transmitted set of data by selecting, for each pair comprising a received reference polarization component R'P(s) and the corresponding received associated polarization component A'P(s), a most likely transmitted polarization state (P'.sub.j) from a constellation of polarization states (P').” The Examiner maintains that Sibecas discloses generating return vectors having four elements representing four channels of a full-polarimetric radar reading from the received radar signals.
The Applicant additionally argues that Sibecas fails to disclose, “a four-dimensional polarization filter applied to the first return vector” as recited by independent claim 1. In support of the above argument the applicant points to figure 6 Sibecas. The Applicant argues that as the polarization filter 485 only has two inputs (FIG.6, Parts.R’P(s)&A’P(s)) it must be a two dimensional polarization filter. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph [0012] of Sibecas states, “ the demapper can include a polarimetric filter that generates an estimate of a desired signal using a dot product of a filter vector and the received reference polarization component R'P(s) and a dot product of the filter vector and the corresponding received associated polarization component A'P(s).” As discussed in greater detail above, the demapper that generates a most likely transmitted signal using the corresponding received associated polarization component A'P(s). Sibecas’s polarization filter is included within the aforementioned demapper and includes both received and transmitted polarizations. The Examiner maintains the art rejection.
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 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
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 Banklnt’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)).
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim 14 (and its dependents) recites method for detecting targets. The claim therefore recites a process.
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.
Claim 14 recites,
filtering the first return vector by a four-dimensional polarization filter to filter out interference echo signals, the filtering including arranging the first return vector in a column of four elements according to polarimetric positions of respective channels, taking an inner product of a selected vector with the column.
This limitation describes a mathematical process in the form of structuring an array and computing an inner product. Therefore, this limitation describes a mathematical calculation, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
deriving a projection coefficient by dividing the inner product by a magnitude of the selected vector
This limitation describes a mathematical process in the form of deriving a projection coefficient. Therefore, this limitation describes a mathematical calculation, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
producing an output by subtracting a product of the projection coefficient and the selected vector from the column.
This limitation describes a mathematical process in the form of calculating a final output of a polarization filter. Therefore, this limitation describes a mathematical calculation, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Claim 17 recites,
wherein the column is indexed by either time or range
This limitation describes a mathematical process in the form of structuring a four dimensional array to be indexed by time or range. Therefore, this limitation describes a mathematical calculation, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
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.
Claim 14 also recites,
receiving a radar signal by a receiver to generate a first return vector having four elements representing four channels of a full-polarimetric radar reading from the received radar signals
Obtaining a first return vector is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 15 also recites,
the selected vector is estimated from an undesired interference signal.
This limitation merely describes data, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 16 also recites,
the interference signal is identified from a second return vector different from the first return vector.
This limitation merely describes data, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
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.
Step 2B — Inventive Concept
For Step 2B of the analysis, we determine whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field. See Memorandum.
Claim 14 also recites,
receiving a radar signal by a receiver to generate a first return vector having four elements representing four channels of a full-polarimetric radar reading from the received radar signals
Obtaining a first return vector is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 15 also recites,
the selected vector is estimated from an undesired interference signal.
This limitation merely describes data, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 16 also recites,
the interference signal is identified from a second return vector different from the first return vector.
This limitation merely describes data, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 18 further recites,
wherein the four channels include a HH channel for horizontal transmit and horizontal receive, a VV channel for vertical transmit and vertical receive, a HV channel for horizontal transmit and vertical receive and a VH channel for vertical transmit and horizontal receive
It is within the ordinary capacity of transmit and receive antennas to be either horizontally or vertically polarized (see specification, [0026]). Merely performing the above step on a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks or merely adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 19 further recites,
transmitting orthogonally-polarized incident radar signals by a transmitter.
It is within the ordinary capacity of transmit antennas to transmit orthogonally-polarized incident radar signals (see specification, [0026]). Merely performing the above step on a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks or merely adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 20 further recites,
examining, by a matched filter, the received radar signal against the transmitted radar signals to generate the first return vector.
Merely performing the above step on a computer in its ordinary capacity for tasks or merely adding a general-purpose computer or computer components, i.e. a matched filter, after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sibecas(US20070047678A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sibecas discloses
An apparatus for detecting targets with radar signals, the apparatus comprising: a receiver configured to receive (“ at least one receiver front end coupled to the at least one antenna”[0007]) the radar signals (“polarization has been mostly of interest in radar” [0043]) and generate a first return vector having four elements representing four channels of a full-polarimetric radar reading from the received radar signals(“The polarimetric filter 485 comprises a polarization vector generator 484” [0070] & “Polarization mapper 366 supplies a horizontal polarization mapped signal to transmitter 370 and a vertical polarization mapped signal to transmitter 374” [0145]); and a four-dimensional polarization filter applied to the first return vector (“polarimetric filter 485” [0070] & FIG.6, Parts. 480, 470 & 484), the four-dimensional polarization filter configured to arrange the first return vector in a column of four elements according to polarimetric components associated with of respective transmit/receive channels (“ it is possible to assign a greater number of modulation states within a state time to implement a data rate increase, or to provide channelization” [0091] & “ the demapper can include a polarimetric filter that generates an estimate of a desired signal using a dot product of a filter vector and the received reference polarization component R'P(s) and a dot product of the filter vector and the corresponding received associated polarization component A'P(s).” [0012]), take an inner product of a selected vector with the column (“ a polarimetric filter that generates an estimate of a desired signal using a dot product of a filter vector and the received reference polarization component R'P(s)” [0012]), derive a projection coefficient by dividing the inner product by a magnitude of the selected vector (“the plurality of adaptive polarimetric filters can consist of dot product vector operators with time variable coefficients 714”[0163]), and produce an output by subtracting a product of the projection coefficient and the selected vector from the column (“ The polarization filter uses this information to correct the received signals for channel imperfections after applying the cancellation vector.” [0107]).
Regarding claim 2, Sibecas discloses
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the selected vector is estimated from an interference signal or clutters that impact detection performance (“ the polarimetric filter 612 which serves the function of correcting channel impairments and interference” [0147]).
Regarding claim 3, Sibecas discloses
The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the interference signal is identified from a second return vector different from the first return vector (“the MU can determine a composite interfering state by vector addition of the interfering polarization states of the undesired signals” [0110]).
Regarding claim 4, Sibecas discloses
The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the interference signal is identified as undesired signal (“ the polarization vector generator 484 can determine the polarization states of user devices of undesirable signals,” [0070]).
Regarding claim 5, Sibecas discloses
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the column is indexed by either time or equivalently range (“The pilot structure of FIG. 14 shows polarization pilots distributed in both time and frequency and may be suitable for high-mobility applications wherein the polarization dynamics of the channel change rapidly with time” [0119]).
Regarding claim 6, Sibecas discloses
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the four channels include a HH channel for horizontal transmit and horizontal receive, a VV channel for vertical transmit and vertical receive, a HV channel for horizontal transmit and vertical receive and a VH channel for vertical transmit and horizontal receive (“Equation 5 gives the value of the receiver generated vector […] the h and v subscript are used to differentiate between the horizontal and the vertical components respectively” [0179] & EQU.5).
Regarding claim 7, Sibecas discloses
The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a transmitter configured to transmit orthogonally-polarized incident radar signals (“The samples generated by the complex modulators are coupled to conventional digital-to-analog converter/filters 424, 429, which generate the RP(t) and AP(t) signals that are amplified and transmitted by the orthogonal antennas 440, 445” [0065]).
Regarding claim 8, Sibecas discloses
The apparatus of claim 7, wherein the receiver includes a matched filter configured to examine the received radar signal against the transmitted radar signals to generate the first return vector (“The digitized outputs of A/D converters 310 and 312 are processed in matched filters 316 and 318” [0141]).
Regarding claim 9, Sibecas discloses
A system for detecting targets, the system comprising: a transmitter configured to transmit orthogonally-polarized incident radar signals (“The samples generated by the complex modulators are coupled to conventional digital-to-analog converter/filters 424, 429, which generate the RP(t) and AP(t) signals that are amplified and transmitted by the orthogonal antennas 440, 445” [0065]) a receiver configured to receive radar signals (“ at least one receiver front end coupled to the at least one antenna”[0007]) and generate a first return vector having four elements representing four channels of a full-polarimetric radar readings from the received radar signals (“The polarimetric filter 485 comprises a polarization vector generator 484” [0070] & “Polarization mapper 366 supplies a horizontal polarization mapped signal to transmitter 370 and a vertical polarization mapped signal to transmitter 374” [0145]); and a four-dimensional polarization filter applied to the first return vector, the four-dimensional polarization filter configured to arrange the first return vector in a column of four elements according to polarimetric positions of respective channels (“ it is possible to assign a greater number of modulation states within a state time to implement a data rate increase, or to provide channelization” [0091] & “ the demapper can include a polarimetric filter that generates an estimate of a desired signal using a dot product of a filter vector and the received reference polarization component R'P(s) and a dot product of the filter vector and the corresponding received associated polarization component A'P(s).” [0012]), take an inner product of a selected vector with the column (“ a polarimetric filter that generates an estimate of a desired signal using a dot product of a filter vector and the received reference polarization component R'P(s)” [0012]), derive a projection coefficient by dividing the inner product by a magnitude of the selected vector (“the plurality of adaptive polarimetric filters can consist of dot product vector operators with time variable
coefficients 714”[0163]), and produce an output by subtracting a product of the projection coefficient and the selected vector from the column (“ The polarization filter uses this information to correct the received signals for channel imperfections after applying the cancellation vector.” [0107]).
Regarding claim 10, Sibecas discloses
The system of claim 9, wherein the selected vector is estimated from an undesired interference signal (“ the polarimetric filter 612 which serves the function of correcting channel impairments and interference” [0147]) identified from a second return vector different from the first return vector (“the MU can determine a composite interfering state by vector addition of the interfering polarization states of the undesired signals” [0110]).
Regarding claim 11, Sibecas discloses
The system of claim 9, wherein the column is indexed by either time or range (“The pilot structure of FIG. 14 shows polarization pilots distributed in both time and frequency and may be suitable for high-mobility applications wherein the polarization dynamics of the channel change rapidly with time” [0119]).
Regarding claim 12, Sibecas discloses
The system of claim 9, wherein the four channels include a HH channel for horizontal transmit and horizontal receive, a VV channel for vertical transmit and vertical receive, a HV channel for horizontal transmit and vertical receive and a VH channel for vertical transmit and horizontal receive (“Equation 5 gives the value of the receiver generated vector […] the h and v subscript are used to differentiate between the horizontal and the vertical components respectively” [0179] & EQU.5).
Regarding claim 13, Sibecas discloses
The system of claim 9, wherein the receiver includes a matched filter configured to examine the received radar signal against the transmitted radar signals to generate the first return vector (“The digitized outputs of A/D converters 310 and 312 are processed in matched filters 316 and 318” [0141]).
Regarding claim 14, Sibecas discloses
A method for detecting targets with radar signals, the method comprising:
receiving the radar signals by a receiver (“ at least one receiver front end coupled to the at least one antenna”[0007]) to generate a first return vector having four elements representing four channels of a full-polarimetric radar reading from the received radar signals(“The polarimetric filter 485 comprises a polarization vector generator 484” [0070] & “Polarization mapper 366 supplies a horizontal polarization mapped signal to transmitter 370 and a vertical polarization mapped signal to transmitter 374” [0145]); and filtering the first return vector by a four-dimensional polarization filter to filter out interference echo signals (“polarimetric filter 485” [0070] & FIG.6, Parts. 480, 470 & 484 & “ the demapper can include a polarimetric filter that generates an estimate of a desired signal using a dot product of a filter vector and the received reference polarization component R'P(s) and a dot product of the filter vector and the corresponding received associated polarization component A'P(s).” [0012]), the filtering including arranging the first return vector in a column of four elements according to polarimetric positions of respective channels(“ it is possible to assign a greater number of modulation states within a state time to implement a data rate increase, or to provide channelization” [0091), taking an inner product of a selected vector with the column (“ a polarimetric filter that generates an estimate of a desired signal using a dot product of a filter vector and the received reference polarization component R'P(s)” [0012]), deriving a projection coefficient by dividing the inner product by a magnitude of the selected vector (“the plurality of adaptive polarimetric filters can consist of dot product vector operators with time variable coefficients 714”[0163]), and producing an output by subtracting a product of the projection coefficient and the selected vector from the column (“ The polarization filter uses this information to correct the received signals for channel imperfections after applying the cancellation vector.” [0107]).
Regarding claim 15, Sibecas discloses
The method of claim 14, wherein the selected vector is estimated from an undesired interference signal (“ the polarimetric filter 612 which serves the function of correcting channel impairments and interference” [0147]).
Regarding claim 16, Sibecas discloses
The method of claim 15, wherein the interference signal is identified from a second return vector different from the first return vector (“the MU can determine a composite interfering state by vector addition of the interfering polarization states of the undesired signals” [0110]).
Regarding claim 17, Sibecas discloses
The method of claim 14, wherein the column is indexed by either time or range (“The pilot structure of FIG. 14 shows polarization pilots distributed in both time and frequency and may be suitable for high-mobility applications wherein the polarization dynamics of the channel change rapidly with time” [0119]).
Regarding claim 18, Sibecas discloses
The method of claim 14, wherein the four channels include a HH channel for horizontal transmit and horizontal receive, a VV channel for vertical transmit and vertical receive, a HV channel for horizontal transmit and vertical receive and a VH channel for vertical transmit and horizontal receive (“Equation 5 gives the value of the receiver generated vector […] the h and v subscript are used to differentiate between the horizontal and the vertical components respectively” [0179] & EQU.5).
Regarding claim 19, Sibecas discloses
The method of claim 14, further comprising transmitting orthogonally-polarized incident radar signals by a transmitter (“The samples generated by the complex modulators are coupled to conventional digital-to-analog converter/filters 424, 429, which generate the RP(t) and AP(t) signals that are amplified and transmitted by the orthogonal antennas 440, 445” [0065]).
Regarding claim 20, Sibecas discloses
The method of claim 19, further comprising examining, by a matched filter, the received radar signal against the transmitted radar signals to generate the first return vector (“The digitized outputs of A/D converters 310 and 312 are processed in matched filters 316 and 318” [0141]).
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s Disclosure.
Stagliano(US7439899) is considered analogous art to the instant application as it discloses in [Col.4, ll.37-39] “The characteristics of the arbitrary waveform allow all of the polarimetric data to be retrieved”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CLAYTON PAUL RIDDER whose telephone number is (571)272-2771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday ET.
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 on (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.
/C.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights