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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 11/25/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-6, 9, and 12-13 remain pending in this application. Claims 1-6, 9, and 12-13 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled or are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/25/2025 regarding prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. All prior art rejections are overcome in consideration of amendments, however additional prior art rejections are presented below.
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 of this title, 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 1-6, 9, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodell (US 7973698 B1), hereinafter Woodell, in view of Wang (US 20200117881 A1), hereinafter Wang.
Regarding claim 1, Woodell, as shown below, discloses an electronic system comprising the following limitations:
a transmission antenna configured to transmit a transmission wave (See at least Fig. 3A, Col. 4 Lines 13-16 “Transceiver 304 includes a receive circuit configured to receive data from the antenna 301 and to provide the data to processor 306. Transceiver 304 also transmits signals via the antenna 301.”);
a reception antenna configured to receive a reflected wave that is the transmission wave having been reflected (See at least Fig. 3A, Col. 4 Lines 13-16 “Transceiver 304 includes a receive circuit configured to receive data from the antenna 301 and to provide the data to processor 306. Transceiver 304 also transmits signals via the antenna 301.”); and
a controller configured to detect a reflection of the transmission wave, based on a transmission signal transmitted as the transmission wave and a reception signal received as the reflected wave (See at least Fig. 3B, Item 326, Cols. 4-5 Lines 66-3 “Controller 326 can generate and output data related to radar returns to flight displays 20. For example, controller 326 can output terrain images and/or weather images to flight displays 20 based on returns received from the radar system 320.”), determine a threshold of a power of the reflected wave based on a height of the electronic device (See at least Col. 8 Lines 62-67 “the ground clutter/weather separation threshold is an expected difference in power between two or more radar beams for distinguishing ground clutter from weather. The ground clutter/weather threshold may be calculated based on aircraft altitude, terrain height,”),
Woodell does not explicitly disclose determine that an object is detected at a distance from the electronic device if the power of the reflected wave exceeds the threshold and determine that no object is detected at the distance from the electronic device if the power of the reflected wave does not exceed the threshold, wherein the controller is configured to determine the threshold to be a first value if the electronic device is in a first position, and determine the threshold to be a second value larger than the first value if the electronic device is in a second position at an altitude lower than the first position. However, Wang, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses:
determine that an object is detected at a distance from the electronic device if the power of the reflected wave exceeds the threshold and determine that no object is detected at the distance from the electronic device if the power of the reflected wave does not exceed the threshold (See at least Fig. 3, [0026] “As illustratively depicted in FIG. 3, when the amplitude of the test signal is lower than the signal threshold, the test signal is determined to include only noises and interferences. When the amplitude of the test signal is greater than the signal threshold, the test signal is determined to include target reflection signal from the target object, and a target report is generated.”, [0055] “A comparison between the signal strength and the signal threshold helps determine as to whether the test signal includes the target reflection signal from the target object”),
wherein the controller is configured to determine the threshold to be a first value if the electronic device is in a first position, and determine the threshold to be a second value larger than the first value if the electronic device is in a second position at an altitude lower than the first position. (See at least [0070] “when the flight altitude of the unmanned aerial vehicle is greater than the preset altitude, the false-alarm rate P.sub.FA increases, and the signal threshold S decreases.” [0071] “When the flight altitude of the unmanned aerial vehicle is smaller than the preset altitude, the false-alarm rate P.sub.FA decreases, and the signal threshold S increases.”)
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 electronic system disclosed by Woodell with the threshold system disclosed by Wang. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously increase detection accuracy (See at least [0060] “Accordingly, detection accuracy of the target object can be increased”).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Woodell and Wang, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Woodell does not disclose the controller is configured to determine the threshold based on the height of the electronic device from a ground surface. However, Wang further discloses
the controller is configured to determine the threshold based on the height of the electronic device from a ground surface (See at least [0068] “The processor 13 adjusts the false-alarm rate according to the flight altitude of the unmanned aerial vehicle 10 relative to the ground surface.”, [0071] “When the flight altitude of the unmanned aerial vehicle is smaller than the preset altitude, the false-alarm rate P.sub.FA decreases, and the signal threshold S increases.”).
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 electronic system disclosed by Woodell with the threshold system disclosed by Wang. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously increase detection accuracy (See at least [0060] “Accordingly, detection accuracy of the target object can be increased”).
Regarding claim 3, The combination of Woodell and Wang, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Woodell additionally discloses
the controller determine the threshold based on a position of the electronic device in a vertical direction (See at least Col. 8 Lines 62-67 “the ground clutter/weather separation threshold is an expected difference in power between two or more radar beams for distinguishing ground clutter from weather. The ground clutter/weather threshold may be calculated based on aircraft altitude, terrain height,”)
Regarding claim 4, The combination of Woodell and Wang, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Woodell additionally discloses
the controller is configured to acquire sensing information based on at least one of the transmission signal or the reception signal at the height of the electronic device, and determine the threshold based on the sensing information (See at least Col. 8 Lines 62-67 “the ground clutter/weather separation threshold is an expected difference in power between two or more radar beams for distinguishing ground clutter from weather. The ground clutter/weather threshold may be calculated based on aircraft altitude, terrain height,”)
Regarding claim 5, The combination of Woodell and Wang, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 4. Woodell additionally discloses
the controller is configured to determine the threshold based on an average of the sensing information in a predetermined height section of the electronic device (See at least Col. 11 Lines 7-13 “If the radar returns are primarily from ground, then the power difference between the upper and lower beams is calculated (step 552). Subsequently, a ground clutter/weather threshold is computed based on assumed conditions (step 554). In step 556, the actual change in power from step 552 is compared to the expected change in power from step 554.”)
Regarding claim 6, The combination of Woodell and Wang, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1, 4, and 5. Woodell additionally discloses
the controller is configured to update the average of the sensing information in the predetermined height section of the electronic device based on the sensing information. (See at least Col. 10 Lines 13-18 “Step 558 computes a corrected change in expected power based on the comparison from step 556. The corrected change in expected power from step 558 is then used as the new ground clutter/weather threshold and applied to ground and weather returns (step 560)”)
Regarding claim 9, The combination of Woodell and Wang, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 4. Woodell additionally discloses
the sensing information includes information related to a noise level during object detection at the height of the electronic device (See at least Col. 8 Lines 62-67 “the ground clutter/weather separation threshold is an expected difference in power between two or more radar beams for distinguishing ground clutter from weather. The ground clutter/weather threshold may be calculated based on aircraft altitude, terrain height,” The Examiner notes that noise is equivalent to ground clutter)
Regarding claim 12, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. 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.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights