DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claim 12 is canceled.
Claims 1-4, 8-11, 13-14 are amended.
Claims 1-11, 13-14 are pending.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
[Claim 1, ln. 4] an EW system cannot comprise a bandwidth and should recite, “wherein the ECM component operates at a first bandwidth;”.
[Claim 8, ln. 11-12] Typographical error, “[[wherein]], wherein the blanking technique includes look-through sequence”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “electronic countermeasure (ECM) component” and “radar warning (RW) component” in Claims 1-5, 8-11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-6, 8-11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson (US 4876545) in view of Sherman (US 20100289688).
Regarding Claim 1, Carlson teaches the following limitations:
An electronic warfare (EW) system, the EW system comprising: (Carlson - [col. 2 ln. 50 – col. 3 ln. 6] In an electronic countermeasures (ECM) system of the type employing a jamming apparatus including a transmitter portion for transmitting jamming signals in order to deceive a foreign transmitter/receiving apparatus and including a warning receiver means operative to receive foreign or threat transmissions to determine the nature of such transmissions and to inform said jamming apparatus of the nature of such threat transmissions, with said warning receiver means capable of operating according to different modes in order to determine the nature of said foreign transmissions, the combination therewith of apparatus for providing selective blanking to said jamming apparatus according to the modes of operation of said receiver means to allow said receiver means and said jamming means to operate without interference between the same, comprising interface means coupled between said jamming apparatus and said receiver means and adapted to exchange information between said jamming apparatus and said receiver means to generate optimum blanking parameter information between said jamming apparatus and said receiver means according to the mode of operation of said receiver means whereby any one of said modes can be accommodated by said ECM system according to said information exchanged.)
an electronic countermeasure (ECM) component to generate a jamming signal, (Carlson - [col. 2 ln. 50 – col. 3 ln. 6])
wherein the ECM component is adapted to be installed on a platform; (Carlson - [col. 3 ln. 43–49] The jammer 10 is indicated as an ASPJ which stands for aircraft self-protection jammer. The RWR or radar warning receiver operates in conjunction with the jammer 10. As seen from FIG. 1, in modern military aircraft selfprotection equipment is normally found in the installation suite and includes the radar warning receiver RWR 20 and the radar jammer 10.)
a first bandwidth at which the ECM component operates; (Carlson – [Fig. 8] Data unit B-3)
a radar warning (RW) component to discriminate characteristics of an incoming first signal from a first emitter, (Carlson - [col. 2 ln. 50 – col. 3 ln. 6])
wherein the RW component is adapted to be installed on the platform and spaced from the ECM component; and (Carlson – [Fig. 2], [col. 4 ln. 49–53] Referring to FIG. 2, there is shown a more detailed block diagram indicating an interface 30 which is positioned between the RWR 20 and the ASPJ or jamming unit 10.)
a processor that executes instructions to integrate a blanking technique for the RW component and the ECM component to interoperate the RW component and the ECM component to cause the RW component to collect data at the same time as the ECM component generates the jamming signal. (Carlson - [col. 2 ln. 50 – col. 3 ln. 6], [col. 4 ln. 58 – col. 5 ln. 12] The RWR 20 includes the analyzer 26 and the control and display module 27. The ASPJ 10 or jammer is shown in greater detail. As one can ascertain from FIG. 2, the ASPJ 10 includes a receiving portion 31 for receiving threat signals and a transmitting portion 32 which is coupled to antenna 12 for transmitting jamming signals. Both the receiver 31 and the transmitter 32 are coupled to a processor 24 which processor performs the above-noted analysis and also contains suitable programs for generating different jamming formats according to the type of threat detected by the system. As indicated above, located between the processor 24 of the ASPJ 10 and the analyzer 26 of the RWR 20 is an interface module designated as module 30. The function of module 30 as will be explained is to operate as an interface between the ASPJ and different RWR's to enable the different RWR's to interface with the ASPJ unit and to provide the proper blanking parameters between the two systems. As seen in FIG. 2, there is an EW MUX bus which essentially is a serial data bus and is used to exchange threat information between the two modules and to set up the blanking mechanism parameters between the ASPJ 10 and the RWR 20. Carlson does not explicitly teach “RW component to collect data at the same time as the ECM component generates the jamming signal”.)
wherein the blanking technique includes look-through sequences, and (Carlson - [col. 8 ln. 41–44] This capability allows a reduction of look-through blanking for those responses identified as priority responses for which the percent of ECM pulses blanked must be kept to an absolute minimum.)
wherein the instructions executed by the processor control and integrate the look-through sequences such that the RW component and the ECM component operate simultaneously to satisfy predetermined collection needs. (Carlson – [col. 4 ln. 58 – col. 5 ln. 12], [col. 5 ln. 68 – col. 6 ln. 5] The ASPJ via its processor utilizes look-through code assignment as shown in FIG. 7 to generate a threat response matrix which is indicated in FIG. 2 by reference numeral 41. The threat response matrix data format is for example shown in detail in FIG. 4. Carlson does not explicitly teach “RW component and the ECM component operate simultaneously”.)
Carlson does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Sherman, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
RW component to collect data at the same time as the ECM component generates the jamming signal (Sherman – [0048] The radio 50 may transmit and receive communication signals in a normal manner as long as the level of any residual jamming signal remains below a determined level. In the case of a "friendly" jammer, a warning signal may be transmitted to identify those times when friendly jamming signals are scheduled to start and to stop, followed by a training sequence to enable the jammer detection stage 100 to estimate the channel condition more accurately. Thus, the radios 50 can synchronize their operation to cancel friendly jamming signals when such signals are present, and suppress their self generated cancellation signals to avoid self saturation when friendly jammers are not operating.)
RW component and the ECM component operate simultaneously (Sherman – [0048])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the blanking intervals of Carlson with the training sequence of Sherman in order to transmit and receive communication signals in a normal manner (Sherman – [0048]).
Regarding Claim 2, Carlson further teaches:
wherein the instructions control the ECM component to generate the jamming signal that jams the first signal and monitors the first signal via the RW component, wherein the instructions further control the ECM such that the ECM component operates without interfering with other EW system components. (Carlson - [col. 2 ln. 50 – col. 3 ln. 6], [col. 4 ln. 58 – col. 5 ln. 12] Carlson does not explicitly teach “operates without interfering with other EW system components”.)
Carlson does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Sherman, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
operates without interfering with other EW system components (Sherman – [0048])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the blanking intervals of Carlson with the training sequence of Sherman in order to transmit and receive communication signals in a normal manner (Sherman – [0048]).
Regarding Claim 3, Carlson further teaches:
wherein the blanking technique includes look-through sequences, and the instructions control and integrate the look-through sequences to minimize a total ECM component blanking timeline, and (Carlson - [col. 8 ln. 41–44])
wherein the blanking techniques are integrated across multiple receivers. (Carlson - [col. 2 ln. 50 – col. 3 ln. 6], [col. 4 ln. 58 – col. 5 ln. 12])
Regarding Claims 4, 11 Carlson further teaches:
wherein the instructions control the RW component to maintain a track on the first emitter without dedicating additional time to perform an additional a look-through sequence. (Carlson - [col. 7 ln. 39–45] For the track threats presort flags (CP tags) are provided to allow the RWR to rapidly identify these signals. The track/non-track indication of the jamming response is made available to the RWR via the jamming assignment messages which are provided by the ASPJ over the EW MUX bus. These messages as indicated are defined in FIG. 8.)
Regarding Claim 5, Carlson further teaches:
further comprising: an adaptive filter for the RW component to filter noise created by the jamming signal. (Carlson - [col. 8 ln. 60–66] These flags indicate to the first RWR jamming interference which requires special processing to filter out. When these priority threats also need to be blanked to allow the second RWR to obtain jam-free data samples or data updates, a different blanking code is selected which blanks all responses and provides at the same time the CP tags as flags for the priority responses. Carlson does not explicitly teach “an adaptive filter”.)
Carlson does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Sherman, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
adaptive filter (Sherman – [0045] The channel model stage 104 produces a jammer cancellation signal in accordance with the jamming signal waveform supplied by the jammer model stage 102, and the channel estimate provided by the jammer detection stage 100. The channel model stage 104 may take the form of, for example, an adaptive filter constructed in a known manner to respond to the channel estimate provided by the jammer detection stage 100, wherein the output of the jammer model stage 102 is applied to an input of the filter. Such an approach to channel estimation and the construction of a filter to mimic the channel is well known. For example, if the channel estimates are in the form of coefficients for an adaptive FIR filter, such a filter can be used to model the impact of the channel on the jamming signal.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the blanking intervals of Carlson with the adaptive filter of Sherman in order to produce a jammer cancellation signal (Sherman – [0045]).
Regarding Claim 6, 13, Carlson further teaches:
wherein the blanking technique includes an adaptive filter. (Carlson - [col. 8 ln. 60–66] Carlson does not explicitly teach “an adaptive filter”.)
Carlson does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Sherman, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
adaptive filter (Sherman – [0045])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the blanking intervals of Carlson with the adaptive filter of Sherman in order to produce a jammer cancellation signal (Sherman – [0045]).
Regarding Claim 8, Carlson teaches the following limitations:
providing an electronic countermeasure (ECM) component of an electronic warfare (EW) system, (Carlson - [col. 2 ln. 50 – col. 3 ln. 6])
wherein the ECM component generates a jamming signal, (Carlson - [col. 2 ln. 50 – col. 3 ln. 6])
wherein the ECM component is adapted to be installed on the platform; (Carlson - [col. 3 ln. 43–49]
providing a radar warning (RW) component of the electronic warfare (EW) system, wherein the RW component discriminates characteristics of an incoming first signal emitted from a first emitter, (Carlson - [col. 2 ln. 50 – col. 3 ln. 6])
wherein the RW component is adapted to be installed on the platform and spaced from the ECM component; and (Carlson – [Fig. 2], [col. 4 ln. 49–53])
providing a processor that executes instructions to integrate a blanking technique for the RW component and the ECM component to interoperate to thereby cause the RW component to collect data at the same time as the ECM component generates the jamming signal, (Carlson - [col. 2 ln. 50 – col. 3 ln. 6], [col. 4 ln. 58 – col. 5 ln. 12])
wherein the blanking technique includes look-through sequences, and wherein the instructions executed by the processor control and integrate the look-through sequences such that the RW component and the ECM component operate simultaneously to satisfy predetermined collection needs, and (Carlson – [col. 4 ln. 58 – col. 5 ln. 12], [col. 5 ln. 68 – col. 6 ln. 5] Carlson does not explicitly teach “RW component and the ECM component operate simultaneously”.)
wherein the instructions cause the jamming signal to be directed toward the incoming first signal. (Carlson - [col. 4 ln. 58 – col. 5 ln. 12], [col. 2 ln. 50 – col. 3 ln. 6] Such devices exist on various military aircraft and, as will be described subsequently, operate to provide jamming signals to enemy radar installations in order to confuse such systems and in order to circumvent the firing of missiles and various other devices which are capable of destroying the aircraft.)
Carlson does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Sherman, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
A method comprising: (Sherman – [0042] Methods of synchronizing with the jamming signal may be the same or similar to known methods used for synchronizing with interfering communications signals.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the blanking intervals of Carlson with the methods of Sherman in order to transmit and receive communication signals in a normal manner (Sherman – [0048]).
RW component to collect data at the same time as the ECM component generates the jamming signal (Sherman – [0048])
RW component and the ECM component operate simultaneously (Sherman – [0048])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the blanking intervals of Carlson with the training sequence of Sherman in order to transmit and receive communication signals in a normal manner (Sherman – [0048]).
Regarding Claim 9, Carlson further teaches:
further comprising: effecting the instructions to control the ECM component to generate the jamming signal that jams the first signal while being tracked by the RW component; and effecting the instructions to control the RW component to monitor the first signal such that scanning by the ECM component does not interfere with the RW component. (Carlson - [col. 2 ln. 50 – col. 3 ln. 6], [col. 4 ln. 58 – col. 5 ln. 12])
Regarding Claim 10, Carlson further teaches:
further comprising: effecting the instructions to control and to integrate look-through sequences of the blanking technique to enable the RW component and ECM component to satisfy a collection need and minimize a total ECM component blanking timeline. (Carlson - [col. 2 ln. 50 – col. 3 ln. 6], [col. 4 ln. 58 – col. 5 ln. 12], [col. 8 ln. 41–44])
wherein the blanking techniques are integrated across multiple receivers. (Carlson - [col. 2 ln. 50 – col. 3 ln. 6], [col. 4 ln. 58 – col. 5 ln. 12])
Claims 7, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson (US 4876545) in view of Sherman (US 20100289688), and further in view of Senio (US 6476755).
Regarding Claim 7, 14, Carlson does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Senio, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein the blanking technique includes time division multiplexing. (Senio – [Abstract] The time division multiplexing alternately enables the communications receiver and a jamming transmitter at a frequency higher than the Nyquist rate of the threat signal being received to effectively continuously receive enemy transmissions while preventing reception of the jamming signals from the associated jammer transmitter.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the blanking intervals of Carlson with the time division multiplexing of Senio in order to continuously receive enemy transmissions while preventing reception of the jamming signals from the associated jammer transmitter (Senio – [Abstract]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 1-2, filed 04/29/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 2-3, filed 04/29/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the combination of Carlson and Sherman does not teach “Carlson does not teach that RW and ECM collections are controlled by the ECM function and further does not teach or suggest the integration of blanking techniques to satisfy predetermined collection requirements as now specified”. The examiner disagrees, Carlson clearly teaches a blanking technique as described by “look-through code assignment as shown in FIG. 7 to generate a threat response matrix” now cited in the current office action.
Applicant argues, see page 3, that “Sherman does not disclose an RW component whose collection timing is controlled by an ECM function based on instructions to perform look-through sequences in a manner that allows simultaneous operation between components”. The examiner points out that it is the combination of Carlson and Sherman that teaches the limitation in question and when considering Carlson [col. 4 ln. 58 – col. 5 ln. 12], [col. 5 ln. 68 – col. 6 ln. 5] and Sherman – [0048] together as a whole, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modified Carlson as described in the current office action.
Applicant's remaining arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims is understandable and distinguishable from other inventions.
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 BRANDON JAMES HENSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 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, Resha H. Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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.
/BRANDON JAMES HENSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights