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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 11/22/2023.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/27/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The Examiner considered the claims under 35 USC 101 eligibility. Regarding independent claim 1, and similarly independent claim 20, the Examiner considered whether ‘comparing each of the known radar models to each of the individual pulses’ could reasonably be accomplished as a mental process. Similarly, independent claim 12 recites a step of ‘deinterleaving’. The Examiner concluded that it would not be reasonable to manually adjudicate signals in either system (see also [0032]-[0033]). Therefore, the Examiner concluded that the claims as presented are eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6, 8, 9, 16, 18, and 19 and therefore dependent claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The terms “3-sigma” and “+ or – epsilon” in claims 6 and 16 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “3-sigma” and “+ or – epsilon” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of this examination, the Examiner will interpret claim 6 as ‘The method of deinterleaving pulse sequences according to claim 5, wherein the preselected window comprises a window size’ and claim 16 as ‘The system according to claim 15, wherein the gating further comprises a preselected window around the model RF selected from the group consisting of: a window size. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8, and similarly claim 18 recites “finding a reference pulse matching the model RF” followed by contingent limitations based on finding the reference pulse. It is unclear to the Examiner whether the ‘finding’ limitation is merely a step where the reference pulse may or may not be found, such as a ‘searching’ step, or whether the reference pulse must be found. For the purposes of this examination, the Examiner will interpret “finding a reference pulse matching the model RF” as having a broadest reasonable interpretation that requires a reference pulse to be found. Similarly in the same claims 8 and 18, “finding a pulse succeeding” is recited. For the same or similar reasoning as provided above, the Examiner will interpret “finding a pulse succeeding” as having a broadest reasonable interpretation that requires a pulse succeeding to be found See Also MPEP 2111.04 regarding contingent limitations. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9, and similarly claim 19 recites “finding a pulse sequence matching the radar model” followed by contingent limitations based on finding the reference pulse. It is unclear to the Examiner whether the ‘finding’ limitation is merely a step where the pulse sequence may or may not be found, such as a ‘searching’ step, or whether the pulse sequence must be found. For the purposes of this examination, the Examiner will interpret “finding a pulse sequence matching the radar model” as having a broadest reasonable interpretation that requires a pulse sequence to be found. See Also MPEP 2111.04 regarding contingent limitations. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 11-14, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 108562875 A), hereinafter Zhang, in view of Maier (US 4918455 A), hereinafter Maier.
Regarding claim 1, Zhang, as shown below, discloses a deinterleaving system comprising the following limitations:
A method of deinterleaving pulse sequences in a radar pulse data block of intermingled radar signals measured by an intercept receiver (See at least [0016] “Then, it begins receiving Pulse Description Word (PDW) codes fromthe receiver and clusters the PDWs according to carrier frequency (Rf), azimuth (Doa), and pulse width(Pw). The clustered PDWs are then deinterleaved using arrival time (UTC) to sort out the individual signals.”), each individual pulse in the radar pulse data block defined by a pulse descriptor word (PDW), each PDW having at minimum, a pulse time of arrival (TOA) a pulse width (PW) and a radio frequency (RF), the method comprising (See at least [0019] “the pulse description word PDW includes azimuth Doa, carrier frequency Rf, pulse width Pw, and arrivaltime Toa.”):
providing a model descriptions library of known radar models, wherein each of the known radar models includes a known RF or range of RF and a set of pulse repetition intervals (PRIs) forming a pulse sequence associated with each of the known radar models (See at least [0050] “The parameters of the unknown signal database serial number 1 are: Doa = 10o, Rft is fixed, Rf[0] =9370MHZ, Prit is fixed, Pri[0] = 1200us, Pwt is fixed, Pw[0] = 0.2us;” By example, Zhang discloses profiles of signal database signals having recorded characteristics including a pulse repetition interval.);
providing a polysweep engine configured to receive the radar pulse data block and the known radar models (See at least [0014] “Match the sorting results with the radars in the prior radar signal database.”);
the polysweep engine comparing each of the known radar models to each of the individual pulses to identify one or more pulse sequences matching the known radar models (See at least [0014] “Match the sorting results with the radars in the prior radar signal database. If a match is found with a certain number, assign the radar name corresponding to that number to the sorting result. Then compare it with the signals in the result table.” See also [0045] regarding details of the comparison.);
the polysweep engine extracting the matching pulse sequences or matching pulse groups from the radar pulse data block leaving residue radar signals (See at least [0045] “Match it with the prior radar signal database in order. To perform the association, first compare it with mode 1 of sequence number 1. If the carrier frequency Rf, repetition interval Pritype, pulse width Pw, and pulse width type Pwt are all the same, then the match is considered successful.” Zhang discloses association and matching of a signal wherein if the match fails the process continues searching for a match which may eventually fail, leaving a residue radar signal.);
providing the residue radar signals for further analysis by a subject matter expert or other analysis tool. (See at least [0016] “If the newly sorted result is not found in the prior database, it is automatically stored in the unknown signal database for manual editing later to store it in the known radar database.”)
Zhang does not explicitly disclose the polysweep engine saving each of the matching pulse sequences associated with its associated known radar model. However, Maier, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses:
the polysweep engine saving each of the matching pulse sequences associated with its associated known radar model (See at least Col. 6 Lines 48-50 “Words that are matched with a confirmed emitter are retained at that level”); and
Furthermore, 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 deinterleaving system disclosed by Zhang with the polysweep engine saving system disclosed by Maier. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously match friend or foe for identification, thereby increasing safety (See at least Col. 1 Lines 33-35 “matching groups of incoming signals to models of various known radar sources, for example, friendly aircraft or dangerous missiles” See also Col. 1 Lines 33-67).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Zhang and Maier, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Zhang further discloses
the comparing further comprises: comparing each PRI of the set of PRIs of each of the known radar models with each PRI estimated from the PDWs in the radar pulse data block having matching RF; and for each matching PRI, assembling a matching pulse sequence (See at least [0045] “To perform the association, first compare it with mode 1 of sequence number 1. If thecarrier frequency Rf, repetition interval Pritype, pulse width Pw, and pulse width type Pwt are all thesame, then the match is considered successful. The radar name 3164A is assigned to the sorting result.”).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Zhang and Maier, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Zhang further discloses
the extracting of the matching pulse sequences from the radar pulse data block further comprises: identifying the matching pulse sequences; identifying the matching pulse groups from the identified matching pulse sequences; and adding the identified matching pulse sequences to the identified matching pulse groups (See at least [0045] “Match it with the prior radar signal database in order. To perform the association, first compare it with mode 1 of sequence number 1. If the carrier frequency Rf, repetition interval Pritype, pulse width Pw, and pulse width type Pwt are all the same, then the match is considered successful.”, [0058] “g) Match the sorting results with radars in the prior radar signal database. If a match is found with acertain number, assign the radar name corresponding to that number to the sorting result.”).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Zhang and Maier, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Zhang further discloses
the providing of the residue radar signals for further analysis by a subject matter expert or other analysis tool comprises saving the residue radar signals as a file on a computer readable storage medium (See at least [0016] “database can be saved as a file on a hard drive”, [0031] “If the newly sorted results are not found in the prior radar signal database, they areautomatically stored in the unknown signal database for later manual editing and storage in the priorradar signal database.”).
Regarding claim 12, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Additionally, claim 12 recites the limitation the intercept antenna and receiver receiving the radar pulse data block comprising an interleaved train of intermingled radar pulse signals, which is not taught by Zhang. However, Maier, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the intercept antenna and receiver receiving the radar pulse data block comprising an interleaved train of intermingled radar pulse signals (See at least Col. 2 Lines 30-33 “the digital EW system typically includes an antenna 2 for receiving radar signals from unknown and known sources in the surrounding environment”);
Furthermore, 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 deinterleaving system disclosed by Zhang with the polysweep engine saving and receiver systems disclosed by Maier. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously match friend or foe for identification, thereby increasing safety (See at least Col. 1 Lines 33-35 “matching groups of incoming signals to models of various known radar sources, for example, friendly aircraft or dangerous missiles” See also Col. 1 Lines 33-67). Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1, shown above.
Regarding claim 13, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1, shown above.
Regarding claim 14, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 3. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 3, shown above.
Regarding claim 17, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 7. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 7, shown above.
Regarding claim 20, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1, shown above.
Claims 2, 4-6, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, in view of Maier, in further view of McCarthy (US 20240320558 A1), hereinafter McCarthy.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Zhang and Maier, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Zhang and Maier does not explicitly disclose the model descriptions library of known radar models comprises land, sea, air and space radar models. However, McCarthy, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the model descriptions library of known radar models comprises land, sea, air and space radar models (See at least [0051] “The sensing device 102 may be configured to operate in a variety of environments (e.g., space, air, land, water)”).
Furthermore, 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 deinterleaving system disclosed by Zhang with the polysweep engine saving system disclosed by Maier with the model types disclosed by McCarthy. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve emitter identification accuracy (See at least [0015] “allows for improving the signal recognition, including the deinterleaving techniques, such that the system may yield more accurate emitter identifications and geolocations.”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Zhang and Maier, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Zhang and Maier does not disclose the comparing further comprises gating subsequent candidate matching pulses by model RF. However, McCarthy further discloses
the comparing further comprises gating subsequent candidate matching pulses by model RF (See at least [0071] “the deinterleaving module 215 may calculate a mean absolute deviation (MAD) of feature values within a sliding window that is moved across the received RF signals.”).
Furthermore, 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 deinterleaving system disclosed by Zhang with the polysweep engine saving system disclosed by Maier with the gating system disclosed by McCarthy. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve emitter identification accuracy (See at least [0015] “allows for improving the signal recognition, including the deinterleaving techniques, such that the system may yield more accurate emitter identifications and geolocations.”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Zhang, Maier, and McCarthy as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 4. The combination of Zhang and Maier does not disclose the gating further comprises a preselected window around the model RF. However, McCarthy further discloses
the gating further comprises a preselected window around the model RF (See at least [0071] “the deinterleaving module 215 may calculate a mean absolute deviation (MAD) of feature values within a sliding window that is moved across the received RF signals.”).
Furthermore, 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 deinterleaving system disclosed by Zhang with the polysweep engine saving system disclosed by Maier with the gating system disclosed by McCarthy. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve emitter identification accuracy (See at least [0015] “allows for improving the signal recognition, including the deinterleaving techniques, such that the system may yield more accurate emitter identifications and geolocations.”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Zhang, Maier, and McCarthy as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1, 4, and 5. The combination of Zhang and Maier does not disclose the preselected window comprises either a 3-sigma gate or + or - epsilon. However, McCarthy further discloses
the preselected window comprises either a 3-sigma gate or + or - epsilon (See at least [0071] “the deinterleaving module 215 may calculate a mean absolute deviation (MAD) of feature values within a sliding window that is moved across the received RF signals.”).
Furthermore, 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 deinterleaving system disclosed by Zhang with the polysweep engine saving system disclosed by Maier with the gating system disclosed by McCarthy. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve emitter identification accuracy (See at least [0015] “allows for improving the signal recognition, including the deinterleaving techniques, such that the system may yield more accurate emitter identifications and geolocations.”).
Regarding claim 15, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 4. Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 4, shown above.
Regarding claim 16, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 6. Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 6, shown above.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, in view of Maier, in further view of Djahanshahi (US 20110058535 A1), hereinafter Djahanshahi.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Zhang and Maier, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Zhang does not dot explicitly disclose the saving each of the matching pulse sequences associated with its associated known radar model comprises saving each of the matching pulse sequences associated with its associated known radar model
the saving each of the matching pulse sequences associated with its associated known radar model comprises saving each of the matching pulse sequences associated with its associated known radar model (See at least Col. 6 Lines 48-50 “Words that are matched with a confirmed emitter are retained at that level”)
The combination of Zhang and Maier does not explicitly disclose as a file on a computer readable storage medium. However, Djahanshahi, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
(See at least [0067] “By way of example but not limitation, pulse data can be stored as a record in a database, as arrays in a flat file, as a table in volatile memory, or in some other convenient manner” See also [0033]).
Furthermore, 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 deinterleaving system disclosed by Zhang with the polysweep engine saving system disclosed by Maier with the filing system disclosed by Djahanshahi. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously conveniently store data (See at least [0067] “By way of example but not limitation, pulse data can be stored as a record in a database, as arrays in a flat file, as a table in volatile memory, or in some other convenient manner”).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Allowance of claims 8-9 and 18-19 is indicated because:
None of the prior art of record teach or suggest the subject matter of dependent claims 8 and 18. The prior art of record does not anticipate or render fairly obvious in combination to teach all of the additional limitations of the claimed invention, as best understood within the context of Applicant’s claimed invention as a whole, such as in claim 8 and similarly claim 18, initializing pulse sequence data including pulse sequence, starting pulse number, number of pulses in sequence and number of unique PRIs in sequence; finding a reference pulse matching the model RF; if the reference pulse is found, finding a pulse succeeding the reference pulse that matches the model RF and has a TOA difference matching one of the set of model PRI values; if the succeeding pulse is found, adding the succeeding pulse to the pulse sequence, incrementing the number of unique PRIs in the matching pulse sequence if matching PRI value is first encountered in the pulse sequence, then updating the reference pulse to the last found pulse; if the succeeding pulse is not found, determining if the number of pulses in sequence is greater than or equal to a preselected value, min1, and the number of unique PRIs in sequence is greater than or equal to a preselected value, min2; if yes, then terminating the matching pulse sequence and continuing with next step; and if no, then clearing the pulse sequence and continuing with next step.
Accordingly, claims 8 and 18 are deemed to have allowable subject matter. Claims 9 and 19 would also be considered allowable subject matter by virtue of their dependence on allowable claims.
Claims 8-9 and 18-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang (US 7397415 B1) - A method of classifying radar emitters includes the steps of: (a) receiving pulses from multiple radar emitters; (b) categorizing received pulses based on pulse data descriptors (PDWs); (c) forming clusters of received pulses based on the PDWs; and (d) de-interleaving pulses from the cluster using one of a differential time of arrival (DTOA) histogram technique, a spectrum estimation technique, or a Hough transform technique. Step (a) includes receiving the pulses during a predetermined time interval and storing the received pulses as a snapshot representing the pulses present during the predetermined time interval.
Barry (US 5563806 A) - A passive electronic warfare system must deinterleave trains of pulses from a number of radar transmitters. An adaptive parametric channelizer for acquiring and tracking trains of pulses consists of an input channelizer operating under the control of a resource control processor. Each pulse descriptor word (PDW), a set of digitized signal parameters measured by a specialized receiver of radar pulse signals, is temporarily stored in a first-in-first out (FIFO) buffer memory. PDW data from the FIFO buffer memory is then applied to a set of parameter filter devices. These filters are provided with a range of parameter values, forming windows, by the resource control processor. The filters operate such that when a PDW falls within one of the filter's windows, a match output is asserted and applied to a match list generator which maps asserted matches into a list of filter index numbers. That list is applied to a mapper which transforms filter indices into track buffer indices in order to store a PDW that matches one filter into an associated track buffer of a set of track buffers. The combination of at least one parameter filter linked by the mapper with a track buffer form a track channel. The match list generator supplies data and event interrupts to the resource control processor which causes the parameter window of any track channel to be modified and force track channels to be merged.
Jenkin (US 4721958 A) - Apparatus, which first de-interleaves a signal, that comprises a plurality of interleaved pulse trains, into its constituent pulse trains and then identifies the emitter which transmitted each pulse train, is described herein. Specifically, this apparatus comprises a folded shift register which performs the de-interleaving. The folded shift register comprises a plurality of serially connected identical "active" cells, each of which detects a pulse occurring at a particular group pulse repetition interval (PRI) and, in an embodiment described herein, ascertains the inter-pulse PRI for each detected pulse for use in identifying an emitter. One or more processors analyze the group and inter-pulse PRI data, provided by the folded shift register, in order to identify each emitter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH W GOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-4186. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William J. Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KENNETH W GOOD/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648