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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 6-10, 13, 15-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 4, add the word “a” before the word “correlation” so that the limitation reads “a correlation interferometer direction finding (CIDF) process”
In Claim 6, an “O” should be added before the first term in the equation (see specification [0039])
In Claim 7, add the word “a” before the word “correlation” so that the limitation reads “a correlation interferometer direction finding (CIDF) process”
In Claim 8, the word “post-process” should be “post-processing”
In Claim 9, the word “report” should be “reporting”
In Claim 10, add the word “a” before the words “direction finding” so that the limitation reads “a direction finding (DF) system”
In Claim 13, add the word “a” before the word “correlation” so that the limitation reads “a correlation interferometer direction finding (CIDF) process”
-In Claim 15, an “O” should be added before the first term in the equation (see specification [0039])
In Claim 16, add the word “a” before the word “correlation” so that the limitation reads “a correlation interferometer direction finding (CIDF) process”
In Claim 17, the word “post-process” should be “post-processing”
In Claim 18, the word “report” should be “reporting”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14, and 15 is/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.
Regarding Claim 2, the claim recites the limitation “down-sample a first set of data relative to the set of calibration data … and a set of signal measurements …” It is unclear if the “first set of data” is being down-sampled, or if the “set of calibration data” and/or the “set of signal measurements” are being down-sampled. Based on the specification ([0033]), the limitation is interpreted as meaning the set of calibration data is down-sampled to generate a first set of down-sampled/compressed data. This rejection also applies to the corresponding limitation(s) in Claim 11.
Regarding Claim 5, it is unclear how the scaling instruction can be “based on” a complexity equation. Complexity equations estimate an algorithm’s computational cost as the input size grows. They do not determine the actual computation performed. Based on the specification ([0046]), the claimed equation describes the complexity of the matrix operations and the CIDF pre-filtering steps in the direction finding process, and not the scaling instruction. Additionally, the claim recites the “set of calibration data having the second sampling size” being represented by both the variables “K” and “n” and the variable “S.” However, the specification states that “S” represents the number of columns selected from the pre-filtering CIDF step. For examination purposes, Claim 5 is interpreted as meaning the matrix operations and the pre-filtering CIDF steps of the direction finding process have a complexity given by the claimed equation. This rejection also applies to the corresponding limitation(s) in Claim 14.
Regarding Claim 5, the claim recites the limitation “the calibration data” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, and it is unclear if this limitation refers to the “set of calibration data.” This rejection also applies to the corresponding limitation(s) in Claim 14.
Regarding Claim 6, it is unclear how the scaling instruction can be “based on” a complexity equation. Complexity equations estimate an algorithm’s computational cost as the input size grows. They do not determine the actual computation performed. Based on the specification ([0039]), the claimed equation appears to describe the complexity of certain matrix operations prior to scaling and CIDF pre-filtering. For examination purposes, Claim 6 is interpreted as meaning the matrix operations of the direction finding process would have a complexity given by the claimed equation if the scaling and CIDF pre-filtering were not performed. This rejection also applies to the corresponding limitation(s) in Claim 15.
Regarding Claim 6, the claim recites the limitation “the calibration data” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, and it is unclear if this limitation refers to the “set of calibration data.” This rejection also applies to the corresponding limitation(s) in Claim 15.
Regarding Claim 10, the claim recites the limitation “the plurality of emitters” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 10, the claim recites the limitation “the direction finding antenna” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C.
102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the
statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a
new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection,
would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness
rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the
claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the
differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the
claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which
the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in
which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 8-13, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimball (US 8,373,596) in view of Yan (Yan et al., “Low-Complexity DOA Estimation Based on Compressed MUSIC and Its Performance Analysis,” 2013)
Regarding Claim 1, Kimball teaches:
A method for detecting a plurality of emitters inside of a beamwidth of a direction finding antenna … ([cols. 1-2]), comprising:
installing a computer program product having instructions on a least one non-transitory machine readable medium and executable by a processor of a direction finding (DF) system that, when executed by the processor, causes a process to be carried out for detecting the plurality of emitters inside of a beamwidth of the direction finding antenna ([col. 2, lines 49-53]: “a non-transitory processor-readable medium encoded with instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to execute a process for detecting and locating an RF emitter in a search area.”; [col. 5]: “devices 50”), the instructions of the computer program product comprising:
access a set of calibration data of known emitters with a first sampling size ([col. 9, lines 17-25]: “calibration table 315”; “known emitter source and location”);
access a set of signal measurements of each emitter of the plurality of emitters identified inside of the beamwidth ([col. 10, lines 7-8]: “record signals of interest from potential target emitters”; [col. 12, lines 31-32]: “measured array vectors”);
…
process each emitter signal emitted by each emitter of plurality of emitters relative to the set of signal measurements and the set of calibration data … ([col. 12, lines 32-36]: “Using the calibration table 315 … containing testing array vectors … the measured array vectors are each correlated to testing array vectors”);
receiving data corresponding to a radiofrequency signal obtained from the beamwidth of the direction finding antenna upon loading the computer program product ([col. 10, lines 7-8]: “record signals of interest from potential target emitters”; [col. 12, lines 42-43]: “the DF/geolocation module 311 receives data captured by the receiver”); and
detecting the plurality of emitters inside of the beamwidth … upon execution of the computer program product ([col. 1, line 45]: “detecting and locating an RF emitter”; [col. 12, lines 46-48]: “The DF/geolocation module 311 computes the geolocation electromagnetic observables”).
Kimball does not explicitly teach – but Yan teaches:
detecting a plurality of emitters in a single snapshot (Yan [pg. 1916]: “Assume L uncorrelated narrowband plane waves with unknown DOAs … simultaneously incident on an array of M sensors”);
scaling the set of calibration data from the first sampling size to a second sampling size that is less than the first sampling size by a multiscale ratio (Yan [p. 1917]: “divide the total angular field-of-view into β small sectors”; [p. 1920]: “Note that the dimensions of Gnew are M×(M−βL)”); and
processing each emitter signal emitted by each emitter of the plurality of emitters relative to the set of signal measurements and the set of calibration data with the second sampling size (Yan [p. 1920]: “Note that the dimensions of Gnew are M×(M−βL) and C-MUSIC involves a limited search over only one small angular sector with J/β spectral points”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kimball to detect a plurality of emitters in a single snapshot by scaling the calibration data from a first sampling size to a second sampling size by a multiscale ratio and processing each emitter signal relative to the signal measurements and scaled calibration data, as taught by Yan. Both references teach RF direction finding using antenna array measurements and calibration reference data represented as matrices and vectors, and modifying Kimball with the teachings of Yan would predictably reduce the computational burden of Kimball’s matrix processing.
Regarding Claim 10, Kimball teaches:
A computer program product having instructions on a least one non-transitory machine readable medium and executable by a processor of direction finding (DF) system that, when executed by the processor, causes a process to be carried out for detecting the plurality of emitters inside of a beamwidth of the direction finding antenna ([col. 2, lines 49-53]: “a non-transitory processor-readable medium encoded with instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to execute a process for detecting and locating an RF emitter in a search area.”; [col. 5]: “devices 50”), the instructions of the computer program product comprising:
access a set of calibration data of known emitters with a first sampling size ([col. 9, lines 17-25]: “calibration table 315”; “known emitter source and location”);
access a set of signal measurements of each emitter of the plurality of emitters identified inside of the beamwidth ([col. 10, lines 7-8]: “record signals of interest from potential target emitters”; [col. 12, lines 31-32]: “measured array vectors”);
…
process each emitter signal emitted by each emitter of plurality of emitters relative to the set of signal measurements and the set of calibration data … ([col. 12, lines 32-36]: “Using the calibration table 315 … containing testing array vectors … the measured array vectors are each correlated to testing array vectors”).
Kimball does not explicitly teach – but Yan teaches:
scaling the set of calibration data from the first sampling size to a second sampling size that is less than the first sampling size by a multiscale ratio (Yan [p. 1917]: “divide the total angular field-of-view into β small sectors”; [p. 1920]: “Note that the dimensions of Gnew are M×(M−βL)”); and
processing each emitter signal emitted by each emitter of the plurality of emitters relative to the set of signal measurements and the set of calibration data with the second sampling size (Yan [p. 1920]: “Note that the dimensions of Gnew are M×(M−βL) and C-MUSIC involves a limited search over only one small angular sector with J/β spectral points”).
The rationale to modify Kimball with the teachings of Yan persists from Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 19, Kimball teaches:
A system, comprising:
an antenna operable to emit a beamwidth to intercept output signals emitted by a plurality of emitters in a search area ([col. 2, line 55]: “array of antenna elements”);
a processor operable with the antenna for receiving the output signals ([col. 2, line 51]: “a processor”);
at least one non-transitory machine readable medium operable to be accessed by the processor ([col. 2, line 50]: “non-transitory processor-readable medium”); and
a computer program product having instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory machine readable medium, wherein when the computer program product is executed by the processor, a process is carried out by the processor for detecting a plurality of emitters inside of the beamwidth of the direction finding antenna … ([col. 2, lines 49-53]: “a non-transitory processor-readable medium encoded with instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to execute a process for detecting and locating an RF emitter in a search area.”).
Kimball does not explicitly teach detecting a plurality of emitters in a single snapshot.
However, Yan teaches a similar RF direction finding method that detects a plurality of emitters in a single snapshot (Yan [pg. 1916]: “Assume L uncorrelated narrowband plane waves with unknown DOAs … simultaneously incident on an array of M sensors”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kimball with the teachings of Yan to enable detection of a plurality of emitters in a single snapshot. Both references teach RF direction finding using antenna array measurements and calibration reference data represented as matrices and vectors, and modifying Kimball with the teachings of Yan would predictably reduce the computational burden of Kimball’s matrix processing and enable detection of a plurality of emitters.
Regarding Claims 2 and 11, Kimball does not explicitly teach – but Yan teaches: wherein the instruction to scale the set of calibration data from the first sampling size to the second sampling size further comprises: down-sample a first set of data relative to the set of calibration data of emitters loaded into the computer program product and the set of signal measurements detected inside of the beamwidth (Yan [p. 1920]: “Note that the dimensions of Gnew are M×(M−βL)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kimball and down-sample a first set of data relative to the set of calibration data and the set of signal measurements, as taught by Yan. Both references teach RF direction finding using antenna array measurements and calibration reference data represented as matrices and vectors, and modifying Kimball with the teachings of Yan would predictably reduce the computational burden of Kimball’s matrix processing.
Regarding Claims 3 and 12, Kimball does not explicitly teach – but Yan teaches: wherein the instruction to scale the set of calibration data from the first sampling size to the second sampling size further comprises: up-sample the first set of data to a second set of data, wherein the second set of data is a subset of the first set of data (Yan [p. 1922]: “one of the candidate DOAs can be found by searching the C-MUSIC spectrum over only one sector instead of the total angular field-of-view, and the other candidate DOAs can be computed by (17) immediately. Then, the true L=2 DOAs can be selected among the βL=6 candidate DOAs”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kimball and up-sample the first set of data to a second set of data, wherein the second set of data is a subset of the first set of data, as taught by Yan. Both references teach RF direction finding using antenna array measurements and calibration reference data represented as matrices and vectors, and modifying Kimball with the teachings of Yan would predictably reduce the computational burden of Kimball’s matrix processing.
Regarding Claims 4 and 13, Kimball does not explicitly teach: wherein the instruction to up-sample is accomplished with correlation interferometer direction finding (CIDF) process.
However, in that Kimball teaches that correlation interferometer direction finding can be used to generate a refined set of data for direction finding ([col. 15, lines 25-40]), and Yan teaches up-sampling the first set of data (Yan [p. 1922]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the up-sampling using CIDF processing. CIDF is well-known in the art and is beneficial for enabling accurate direction finding.
Regarding Claims 8 and 17, Kimball teaches: the method further comprising:
post-process the plurality of emitters with a corresponding direction of antenna for each emitter of the plurality of emitters ([col. 1, line 61]: “direction finding and/or geolocating the target signal”; [col. 11]: “DF/geolocation module 311”); and
report the plurality of emitters with the corresponding direction of antenna of each emitter of the plurality of emitters ([cols, 1, 11]; [col. 14, lines 20-21]: “a Geolocation Results window and a Bearing Plot window.”).
Regarding Claims 9 and 18, Kimball does not explicitly teach – but Yan teaches: the method further comprising:
finding one or more emitters having multiple coherent signals ([col. 5, lines 31-32]: “system 10 can detect and locate devices 50 regardless of the environment (multipath or not)”).
Regarding Claim 20, Kimball teaches: wherein the instructions of the computer program product comprise:
access a set of calibration data of known emitters with a first sampling size ([col. 9, lines 17-25]: “calibration table 315”; “known emitter source and location”);
access a set of signal measurements of each emitter of the plurality of emitters identified inside of the beamwidth ([col. 10, lines 7-8]: “record signals of interest from potential target emitters”; [col. 12, lines 31-32]: “measured array vectors”);
…
process each emitter signal emitted by each emitter of plurality of emitters relative to the set of signal measurements and the set of calibration data … ([col. 12, lines 32-36]: “Using the calibration table 315 … containing testing array vectors … the measured array vectors are each correlated to testing array vectors”).
Kimball does not explicitly teach – but Yan teaches:
scaling the set of calibration data from the first sampling size to a second sampling size that is less than the first sampling size by a multiscale ratio (Yan [p. 1917]: “divide the total angular field-of-view into β small sectors”; [p. 1920]: “Note that the dimensions of Gnew are M×(M−βL)”); and
processing each emitter signal emitted by each emitter of the plurality of emitters relative to the set of signal measurements and the set of calibration data with the second sampling size (Yan [p. 1920]: “Note that the dimensions of Gnew are M×(M−βL) and C-MUSIC involves a limited search over only one small angular sector with J/β spectral points”).
The rationale to modify Kimball with the teachings of Yan persists from Claim 1.
Potentially Allowable Subjected Matter
Claims 5 and 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 6-7 and 15-16 would also be allowable by virtue of dependence on Claims 5 and 14, respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH Y. ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-0170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-4PM.
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.
/NOAH YI MIN ZHU/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights