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 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 1-8, 14, 17 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "an airborne object" in line 17. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the "an airborne object" in line 17 relates to the “airborne objects” mentioned in line 1. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as "an airborne object in the airborne objects". Appropriate clarification is required.
Claims 2-8 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1 because each of dependent claims 2-8 is unclear, at least, in that it depends on unclear independent claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the limitations: 1) “the one or more airborne objects” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “one or more airborne objects” is not mentioned. And it is not clear whether “the one or more airborne objects” in line 2 relates to the “airborne objects” mentioned in claim 1 line 1. Also it is not clear how “the one or more airborne objects” in line 2 corresponds to the “a position” in line 1. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “the airborne object”. 2) “the received one or more reflection signals” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “received one or more reflection signals” is not mentioned. And it is not clear whether “the received one or more reflection signals” in line 2 relates to the “a plurality of reflection signals” mentioned in claim 1 line 17. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “the received plurality of reflection signals”. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claim 14 recites the limitations: 1) “the one or more airborne objects” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “one or more airborne objects” is not mentioned. And it is not clear how “the one or more airborne objects” in line 2 corresponds to the “a position” in line 1. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “the airborne object”. 2) “the received one or more reflection signals” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “received one or more reflection signals” is not mentioned. And it is not clear whether “the received one or more reflection signals” in line 2 relates to the “a plurality of reflection signals” mentioned in claim 9 line 4. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “the received plurality of reflection signals”. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "an airborne object" in line 9. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the "an airborne object" in line 9 relates to the “airborne objects” mentioned in line 2. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as "an airborne object in the airborne objects". Appropriate clarification 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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halbert et al. (US 10,620,304, hereafter Halbert) in view of Goodson et al. (US 2013/0106645, hereafter Goodson).
Regarding claim 1, Halbert (‘304) discloses that A system for detecting and tracking airborne objects {Fig.4 (Target Detection); Fig.5 (trackT1, trackT2); Fig.11; col.2 lines 38-39 (a radar system for providing information relating to a three-dimensional field of surveillance (FoS); col.5 lines 7-8 (The at least one processor may be configured for extracting target information relating to a detected target), 28-32 (surveillance function for monitoring pilot compliance with one or more behavioural criterion; an overhead airspace monitoring surveillance function; a surveillance function for the detection, tracking and/or analysis of low, small and/or slow targets)}, the system comprising:
a plurality of transmitters, wherein each transmitter of the plurality of transmitters is operated to transmit a deterministic signal { Fig.11 (TX1, TX2 see below); col.2 lines 40-45 (the radar system comprising: at least one radar transmitter operable to persistently illuminate said FoS, with a sequence of pulses at a pulse repetition frequency (PRF);};
PNG
media_image1.png
582
762
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a plurality of receivers, wherein each receiver of the plurality of receivers is configured to receive reflective signals transmitted at least one transmitter of the plurality of transmitters { Fig.11 (RX1, RX2 see below)};
PNG
media_image2.png
582
762
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a memory { Abstract line 7 (memory)}; and
one or more processors { Col.2 line 51(at least one processor )}, wherein each processor of the one or more processors is communicatively coupled to each transmitter of the plurality of transmitters, and coupled to each receiver of the plurality of receivers { Col.2 lines 51-53 (at least one processor configured to: process each radar return signal received within a first time period of predetermined length to acquire respective signal information); col.31 lines 3-4 (The radar receiver 1400 comprises a signal processing module 1440); col.33 lines 16-18 (The radar transmitter is provided with a control module 1550 configured for controlling the signals transmitted via the transmitter array 1510); Examiner’s note: “control module” for “each processor of the one or mor e processors is communicatively coupled to each transmitter of the plurality of transmitters”};
wherein the { Col.8 lines 23-27 (computer program products such as computer readable storage media having instructions stored thereon which are operable to program a programmable processor to carry out a method, above)} to:
receive a plurality of reflection signals received at each receiver of the plurality of receivers { Fig.11 (RX1, RX2); Fig.20};
fuse the plurality of reflection signals { Fig.7; col.18 lines 19-24 (The continuity of persistent interrogation provides the ability to investigate surveillance data with the necessary sensitivity and continuity using the stored, persistent, high-resolution surveillance data and hence provides the capability for multiple combined surveillance functions as illustrated in FIG. 7.)};
detect an airborne object based on the fused plurality of reflected signals {Fig.4(b)(target detection); Fig.7; Col.17 lines 5-8 (The acquired signal information is stored, wholly or in part, in a computer memory, and made available for signal analysis, target detection); Examiner’s note: Fig.7 for “airborne object”};
determine a position of the airborne object based on the fused plurality of reflected signals { Col.11 lines 27-30 (all targets in the field of view (that is, targets that are detectable by and not hidden from the radar) will necessarily be represented in position and motion within the stored volume of data); Col.20 lines 1 (Such a system can be configured to monitor), 9-11 (the motion of an aircraft within the FoS is represented by a state vector containing terms describing position, velocity, acceleration, jerk, yank, etc.)}; and
track the airborne object based on the fused plurality of reflected signals { Fig.5 (trackT1, trackT2); Col.17 lines 5-8 (The acquired signal information is stored, wholly or in part, in a computer memory, and made available for signal analysis, target detection, tracking), 15 (track a very large number of targets)}.
However, Halbert (‘304) does not explicitly disclose (see word with underline) “the memory stores one or more programs that when executed by the one or more processors”. In the same field of endeavor, Goodson (‘645) discloses that
the memory stores one or more programs that when executed by the one or more processors {Fig.2 items 224 (processor module), 226 (memory); [0044] lines 5-6 (a processor module 224, and a memory module 226.); [0066] lines 7-9 The memory module 226 may also store, a computer program that is executed by the processor module 224)};
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Halbert (‘304) with the teachings of Goodson (‘645) {use a memory to store a computer program that is executed by a processor } to use a memory to store a computer program that is executed by a processor. Doing so would provide a combination of computing devices (e.g., a combination of a digital signal processor, a microprocessor, a plurality of microprocessors) so as to implement functionality as hardware, firmware, or software in a suitable manner depends upon each particular application and design constraints imposed on the overall system, as recognized by Goodson (‘645) {[0061] lines 1-4 (A processor may also be implemented as a combination of computing devices, e.g., a combination of a digital signal processor and a microprocessor, a plurality of microprocessors,); [0068] lines 1-6 (functionality is implemented as hardware, firmware, or software depends upon the particular application and design constraints imposed on the overall system. implement such functionality in a Suitable manner for each particular application)}).
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Halbert (‘304) and Goodson (‘645) discloses that in the system, fusing the plurality of reflection signals includes
combining the received plurality of reflections received at multiple receivers of the plurality of receives to determine the position of the airborne object {see Halbert (‘304) Fig.7; col.18 lines 19-24 (The continuity of persistent interrogation provides the ability to investigate surveillance data with the necessary sensitivity and continuity using the stored, persistent, high-resolution surveillance data and hence provides the capability for multiple combined surveillance functions as illustrated in FIG. 7.); Col.22 lines 54 (determine information about the target), 56-57 (positional information suitable for identifying the three dimensional position of the target)}.
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Halbert (‘304) and Goodson (‘645) discloses that in the system,
the plurality of receiver and the plurality of transmitters are part of one or more radar systems { see Halbert (‘304) Fig.10; col.22 lines 29-30 (four radar transmitters TX22-2, TX23-l, TX32-2, and TX33-l), 32-33 (four radar receivers RX21-2, RX22-2, RX31-1 and RX32-2) }.
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Halbert (‘304) and Goodson (‘645) discloses that in the system,
a first transmitter of the plurality of transmitters transmits a first signal, and wherein a second transmitter of the plurality of transmitters transmits a second signal, different from the first signal { see Halbert (‘304) Fig.11 (TX1, TX2); col.2 lines 40-45 (the radar system comprising: at least one radar transmitter operable to persistently illuminate said FoS, with a sequence of pulses at a pulse repetition frequency (PRF);); Examiner’s note: TX1 and Tx2 are two different signals because TX1 and Tx2 are from different TX at different locations}.
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claims 1 and 4, Halbert (‘304) does not explicitly disclose “the first signal is transmitter at first carrier frequency, and wherein the second signal is transmitted at a second carrier frequency, different from the first carrier frequency”. In the same field of endeavor, Goodson (‘645) discloses that in the system,
the first signal is transmitter at first carrier frequency, and wherein the second signal is transmitted at a second carrier frequency, different from the first carrier frequency {[0111] lines 4-6 (at least one second transmitter comprising a different frequency source (radio frequency source) than the at least one transmitter,)}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Halbert (‘304) with the teachings of Goodson (‘645) {use a memory to store a computer program that is executed by a processor and use two transmitters operate at different frequencies } to use a memory to store a computer program that is executed by a processor and use two transmitters operate at different frequencies. Doing so would provide a combination of computing devices (e.g., a combination of a digital signal processor, a microprocessor, a plurality of microprocessors) to refine estimated object location so as to implement functionality as hardware, firmware, or software in a suitable manner depends upon each particular application and design constraints imposed on the overall system to avoid collision with the other piloted and unmanned aircraft, as recognized by Goodson (‘645) {[0002] lines 9-10 (avoiding collision with the other piloted and unmanned aircraft.); [0061] lines 1-4 (A processor may also be implemented as a combination of computing devices, e.g., a combination of a digital signal processor and a microprocessor, a plurality of microprocessors,); [0068] lines 1-6 (functionality is implemented as hardware, firmware, or software depends upon the particular application and design constraints imposed on the overall system. implement such functionality in a Suitable manner for each particular application); [0112] lines 1-2( refining the estimated object location)}.
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Halbert (‘304) and Goodson (‘645) discloses that in the system, determining a position of the one or more airborne objects based on the received one or more reflection signals comprises
determining a location and elevation of the one or more airborne objects {see Halbert (‘304) col.22 lines 54 (determine information about the target), 56-62 (positional information suitable for identifying the three dimensional position of the target (e.g. range, azimuth and elevation) and movement information identifying how the target is moving within the radar cell 1012 relative to the radar receiver RX (e.g. heading and velocity) using high-precision unambiguous Doppler. )}.
Regarding claim 7, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Halbert (‘304) and Goodson (‘645) discloses that in the system, determining a position of the airborne object comprises
determining a velocity of the airborne object { see Halbert (‘304) col.22 lines 54 (determine information about the target), 56-62 (positional information suitable for identifying the three dimensional position of the target (e.g. range, azimuth and elevation) and movement information identifying how the target is moving within the radar cell 1012 relative to the radar receiver RX (e.g. heading and velocity) using high-precision unambiguous Doppler. )}.
Regarding claim 8, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Halbert (‘304) and Goodson (‘645) discloses that in the system,
each transmitter of the plurality of transmitters and each receiver of the plurality of receivers are synchronized using one or more global positioning system (GPS) signals { see Halbert (‘304) col.49 lines 5-9 (Whilst the described radar cell uses cross-nodal transmissions (that is, transmissions directly from a transmitter to each receiver) to synchronize the network directly and precisely, it will be appreciated that Global Positioning System (GPS) ( or GNSS) timing)}.
Regarding claim 9, as modified above, Halbert (‘304) discloses that A method { Col.1 line 2 (method)} for detecting and tracking an airborne object, the method comprising:
receiving a plurality of reflection signals at each receiver of a plurality of receivers, wherein the plurality of reflection signals are reflected from one or more signals transmitted from a plurality of transmitters, and wherein each transmitter of the plurality of transmitters is operated to transmit a deterministic signal;
fusing the plurality of reflection signals;
detecting an airborne object based on the fused plurality of reflected signals;
determining a position of the airborne object based on the fused plurality of reflected signals; and
tracking the airborne object based on the fused plurality of reflected signals.
{The claim limitations above are the same or substantially the same scope as the corresponding claim limitations in claim 1. Therefore the claim limitations above are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 1. See the rejections of claim 1}.
Regarding claims 10-16, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claims 2-8, respectively. Accordingly, claims 10-16 are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claims 2-8, respectively, shown above.
Regarding claim 17, as modified above, Halbert (‘304) discloses that A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing one or more programs for detecting and tracking airborne objects, for execution by one or more processors of an electronic device that when executed by the device { Fig.4 (Target Detection); Fig.5 (trackT1, trackT2); Fig.11; col.2 lines 38-39 (a radar system for providing information relating to a three-dimensional field of surveillance (FoS)); col.5 lines 7-8 (The at least one processor may be configured for extracting target information relating to a detected target), 28-32 (surveillance function for monitoring pilot compliance with one or more behavioural criterion; an overhead airspace monitoring surveillance function; a surveillance function for the detection, tracking and/or analysis of low, small and/or slow targets); col.8 lines 23-26 (computer program products such as computer readable storage media having instructions stored thereon which are operable to program a programmable processor to carry out a method) }, cause the device to:
receive a plurality of reflection signals at each receiver of a plurality of receivers, wherein the plurality of reflection signals are reflected from one or more signals transmitted from a plurality of transmitters, and wherein each transmitter of the plurality of transmitters is operated to transmit a deterministic signal;
fuse the plurality of reflection signals;
detect an airborne object based on the fused plurality of reflected signals;
determine a position of the airborne object based on the fused plurality of reflected signals; and
track the airborne object based on the fused plurality of reflected signals.
{The claim limitations above are the same or substantially the same scope as the corresponding claim limitations in claim 1. Therefore the claim limitations above are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 1. See the rejections of claim 1}.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 4499468 discloses that “a first transmitter of the plurality of transmitters transmits a first signal, and wherein a second transmitter of the plurality of transmitters transmits a second signal, different from the first signal” { Fig.2 a (transmitter freq.1), c (transmitter, freq.2) }, which further support the rejection of claims 4 and 12.
US 4499468 also discloses that “the first signal is transmitter at first carrier frequency, and wherein the second signal is transmitted at a second carrier frequency, different from the first carrier frequency” { Fig.2 a (transmitter freq.1), c (transmitter, freq.2)} , which further support the rejection of claims 5 and 13.
US 20220260697 discloses that “each transmitter of the plurality of transmitters and each receiver of the plurality of receivers are synchronized using one or more global positioning system (GPS) signals” { [0053] lines 1-5 (The radar transmitter 11 and the radar receivers 12 include , each , a respective Global Navigation Satellite System ( GNSS ) receiver 15 configured to receive GNSS signals from one or more GNSSs ( such as the Global Positioning System ( GPS )); [0347] lines 9-12 (belonging to one and the same cell ) . On the other hand , the use of the common GNSS - based time reference allows minimizing the cost of keeping the radar system synchronism .) }, which further support the rejection of claims 8 and 16.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONGHONG LI whose telephone number is (571)272-5946. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571)270-5144. 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.
/YONGHONG LI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights