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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. IL 287739, filed on Oct. 31, 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 12 is 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 12, the term “optionally”, as used, makes the language “optionally to control one or more multi-sensor analysis units and/or one or more passive RF sensor units to which it is connected,” ambiguous. Said language can be interpreted at least two ways A) optionally to control one or more multi-sensor analysis units and one or more passive RF sensor units to which it is connected and B) optionally to control one or more multi-sensor analysis units or one or more passive RF sensor units to which it is connected. It is at least not clear as to whether there is an additional alternative wherein there is an option to not provide any control as claimed; e.g., not doing either A or B. As such, the metes and bounds of the claims are not fully defined, thus the claim is indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(h) section II.
Examiner’s Comment
Claims 2 – 6, 8 – 10, 12, 14, 31 – 33, 50 – 53, 55 – 58, 60 – 61 and 63 recite the limitation "a system according to …" in the first line. The issue is whether the antecedent issue creates an ambiguity. Some of the dependent claims make clear what particular system, e.g., RF sensor unit, that the dependent claim is directed to. See e.g., claim 7. However, some of the other dependent claims are not as clear. For example, claim 32 does not make clear which particular system, e.g., satellite or receiver, is providing information to the UA. However, this appears the be breadth of scope rather than an ambiguity. Nonetheless, Applicant may still want to consider modifying the limitations “a system according to …” to “the system according to …”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 6, 8 – 9, 31 and 68 are rejected under 35 USC § 102 as being anticipated by McIntosh (US 6232922 B1).
As to claims 1 and 68, McIntosh teaches a system for passive sensing of unmanned aircrafts (UAs) within a target volume using radio frequency (RF) signals transmitted by satellites and/or aerostats, comprising one or more passive RF sensor units (col. 3 ll. 61 – col. 4 ll. 10 describes bistatic system via a transmitting satellite and a passive ground receiver.), wherein each of the one or more passive RF sensor units is configured to:
a. produce one or more concurrent reception beams (Fig. 9); wherein at least one of the one or more concurrent reception beams has a beam direction that matches a present location of an RF- transmitting satellite or aerostat (RTSA) (Fig. 9 shows the aerial vehicle and satellite within the receiver’s field-of-view) and a beam width that matches an angular width of a forward scatter region (col. 11 ll. 57 – 65 “maximum gain” indicates a beamwidth that matches an angular width of a forward scatter region.), and wherein the RTSA is one of a satellite and an aerostat, which transmits RF signals (Fig. 9 shows a satellite transmitting.);
b. receive RTSA resultant signals originating from one or more RTSAs wherein an RTSA resultant signal is a signal transmitted by an RTSA after traversing a medium between the RTSA and the passive RF sensor unit (Fig. 9 wherein air is a medium.); and
c. process the received RTSA resultant signals to perform target detection and/or target location based on the forward scatter effect (col. 11 ll. 57 – 65 cuing of targets including small monostatic RCS targets due to is forward scatter geometry. See also col. 10 ll. 15 – 24.)
As to claim 2, McIntosh discloses a system according to claim 1, wherein each of the one or more concurrent reception beams is adjusted over time to match an RTSA trajectory (col. 12 ll. 1 – 26 electronically scanning and tracking with respect to the RTSA being an aerostat – NOTE: The claim language “an RTSA” does not required that this RTSA be the transmitting RTSA in claim 1, only that it is at least one of a satellite or aerostat, which both transmit radio signals for various reasons such as an aerostat transmitting navigation signals wherein said navigation transmitted signals are not the same as the non-line-of-sight signals (forward scattering). Also note that the illustration of Fig. 9 would meet the scope of this limitation if the satellite is geostationary assuming adjustment meant no adjustment if not needed.)
As to claim 3, McIntosh discloses a system according to claim 2, wherein one or more of the following configurations is employed for at least one of the one or more concurrent reception beams:
a. a reception beam wherein the beam direction matches a present location of a specific RTSA, and additional beam characteristics are tailored for the specific RTSA (Fig. 9);
b. several reception beams designed to obtain monopulse measurements using RTSA resultant signals transmitted by a specific RTSA (col. 12 ll. 4 “monopulse”);
c. several reception beams designed to obtain interfero metric direction- finding measurements using RTSA resultant signals transmitted by a specific RTSA (Fig. 3 “Integration” but McIntosh doesn’t teach interferometeric but the Examiner believes this to be a common technique. See e.g., Tsui (US 5187485 A) Background: “interferometry”);
d. a reception beam wherein the beam characteristics are determined so as to allow concurrent utilization of RTSA resultant signals transmitted by multiple RTSAs; e. several reception beams designed to concurrently obtain monopulse measurements using RTSA resultant signals transmitted by multiple RTSAs; and f. several reception beams designed to concurrently obtain interferometric direction-finding measurements using RTSA resultant signals transmitted by multiple RTSAs (Fig. 8 and 9 shows concurrent measurements it the Examiner believes it be obvious to combine concurrent measurements with the other taught features.).
As to claim 4, McIntosh teaches a system according to claim 2, wherein beam steering is performed mechanically and/or electronically, wherein beam steering determines the beam direction for reception beams (col. 12 “electronically scanned”).
As to claim 5, McIntosh teaches a system according to claim 1, wherein each of the one or more passive RF sensor units comprises:
a. an antenna module, used for receiving RTSA resultant signals (Fig. 3);
b. an RF module, applying analog-to-digital conversion to the signal received by the antenna module; c. a digital module, processing samples generated by the RF module (Fig. 5); and
d. a power supply (Fig. 3 & 5 imply power).
e. a GNSS receiver; f. an accurate clock (Fig. 3 GPS and Oscillator); and
g. a communication module, which may be wired and/or wireless (Although only one feature is claimed, the Examiner believes it be obvious to have the two receivers shown in Fig. 8 communicate with one another and/or another network device.).
As to claim 6, McIntosh discloses a system according to claim 5, wherein the RF module and/or the digital module further perform one or more of the following:
a. phase-shifting (Fig. 3 “I” & “Q” or electronic scanning col. 12 ll. 2);
b. true-time-delay application (col. 4 ll. 5 “direct line”);
c. gain control (Table 1 “gain antenna (dB) Adjustment”);
d. down-conversion; e. band-pass filtering; f. low-pass filtering (Fig. 3 shows down-converters which are normally coupled for down-converter to get to intermediate frequency or based wherein Fig. 5 shows digital baseband);
g. matched filtering (Fig. 3 shows correlation which is similar in usage of maximizes SNR as compared to matched filters which use convolution.); and
h. beamforming (col. 12 ll. 2 electronic scanning).
As to claim 8, McIntosh discloses a system according to claim 1, wherein each of the one or more passive RF sensor units is either stationary or mobile (col. 3 ll. 5 “receiving station” Fig. 8 or 9 shows receiver that have to be stationary or mobile at a particular instant in time. Also, a feature claiming something stationary or mobile does not necessarily differentiate between structures; e.g., pick up small receiver and carry it.), and
wherein each of the one or more passive RF sensor units is one of: ground-based, shipborne, and airborne (Fig. 8 and 9 show ground based).
As to claim 9, McIntosh discloses a system according to claim 1, wherein each of the one or more passive RF sensor units further performs one or more of the following:
a. target location and/or velocity estimation (Fig. 2);
b. target tracking (Figs. 8a-c);
c. target classification into one of several predefined categories;
d. identification of a target's specific type;
e. prediction and/or detection of events associated with UA safety and/or security (McIntosh: tracking Figs. 8a – 8c. Relevant passage of the specification is paragraph 12 that provides examples of minimal separation between UA’s (safety) and whether UA is entering unauthorized space (security). McIntosh mentions surveillance throughout which is believed to meet the scope of the claimed term “security” as broadly claimed.);
f. gathering information required for target location and/or velocity estimation (Figs. 8a-8c);
g. gathering information required for target classification into one of several predefined categories; and
h. gathering information required for identification of a target's specific type.
As to claim 31, McIntosh teaches a system according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the passive RF sensor units further comprises one or more sensors of another type, wherein each of the one or more sensors of another type is one of: a. a radar (Fig. 1 shows GPS in conjugation with radar and Fig. 13 radar altimeter; b. an RF sensor monitoring the spectrum (At first glance the reader may think this an antecedent issue but RF sensors have dedicated spectrums. Applicant may decide to replace claim language “the spectrum” with “a spectrum.” As such, this would logically follow to be inherent even though it is clear that in McIntosh each sensor is designed for a particular spectrum, bandwidth, etc.); c. an acoustic sensor (Fig. 5); d. a video camera; e. an electro-optical sensor; f. an infrared sensor; and g. an identification friend-or-foe system.
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 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over McIntosh in view of Zwirn (US 20200142047 A1).
As to claim 10, McIntosh teaches a system according to claim 1, wherein each of the one or more multi-sensor analysis units performs one or more of the following: a. target location and/or velocity estimation; b. target tracking; c. target classification into one of several predefined categories; d. identification of a target's specific type; e. prediction and/or detection of events associated with UA safety and/or security; and f. control of one or more passive RF sensor units to which it is connected (McIntosh as cited in claim 9).
McIntosh does not teach a system according to claim 1, wherein the system further comprises one or more multi-sensor analysis units, wherein each of the one or more multi-sensor analysis units receives and processes data from two or more passive RF sensor units.
In same field of endeavor Zwirn, shows a central mapping unit in Fig. 1.
In view of the teachings of Zwirn, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before filing to apply a central mapping unit to take data from multiple receivers, e.g., McIntosh Fig. 9, in order to map out a larger coverage area thereby improving surveillance capability.
As to claim 12, McIntosh in view of Zwirn teaches a system according to claim 10, wherein the system further comprises a central analysis unit, which receives and processes data from one or more multi-sensor analysis units and/or data from one or more passive RF sensor units, to provide UA situational surveillance for the entire target volume (McIntosh Fig. 9) and
optionally to control one or more multi-sensor analysis units and/or one or more passive RF sensor units to which it is connected,
wherein UA situational surveillance includes one or more of the following: a. target detection; b. target tracking; c. target classification; d. target identification; and e. prediction and/or detection of events associated with UA safety and/or security (McIntosh cited in claim 9. Also, Zwirn shows a layered network of units working in collaboration wherein one of ordinary skill would be motivated to do so to limit the work load on any one particular device).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over McIntosh in view of Kube (US 20160240087 A1).
As to claim 32, McIntosh does not teach the system according to claim 1, providing information to and/or receiving information from a UA traffic management system.
In the same field of endeavor, Kube teaches “UAV controller 14a is additionally coupled to communicate with restricted area aggregator 16. Communication between UAV controller 14a and restricted area aggregator 16 may be continuous or transient. In one embodiment, UAV controller 14a communicates via the Internet with restricted area aggregator 16, although other communication means may be utilized. A variety of information may be communicated between UAV controller 14a and restricted area aggregator 16. Restricted area aggregator 16 maintains a geographic database of restricted areas, at least a part of which is communicated to UAV controller 14a to aid in preventing breaches of restricted areas (Para. 11).”
In view of the teachings of Kube, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled before filing to provide information to a traffic management system in order to aid in preventing unauthorized air breaches thereby improving security.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over McIntosh in view of Kube and in further view of Chang (US 20180102832 A1).
As to claim 33, McIntosh does not teach a system according to claim 1, providing real-time UA situational surveillance information to one or more UAs, wherein UA situational surveillance includes one or more of the following: a. target detection; b. target tracking; c. target classification; d. target identification; and e. prediction and/or detection of events associated with UA safety and/or security.
In same field of endeavor, Kube teaches “commands received from UAV controller 14a via communication system 24 are provided to positional/navigation system 22, which compares the commands to current position, orientation, and/or speed of UAV 12a and in response generates commands provided to flight control systems 20 (Para. 17).”
In view of the teachings of Kube, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled before filing to provide information to the UA in order to aid in preventing unauthorized air breaches thereby improving security.
Although one of ordinary skill may expect tracking and surveillance to be real-time, neither reference explicitly mentions the term “real-time.” One of ordinary skill would be motivated to provide real-time data giving the sensitivity and urgency of preventing unauthorized access especially in military air space that may trigger an offensive reaction.
In the same field of endeavor, Chang teaches “Multiple UAVs will be coordinated to form a coherent RF receiving system as a passive Radar receiver via GBBF processing and real time knowledge of the positions/orientations of all receiving elements on various UAV platforms (Para. 22).”
In view of the teachings of Chang, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled before filing to provide real-time position data in order to prevent authorized access in real-time as well as prevent collisions in real-time wherein the motivation to include real-time is due to the nature with respect to sensitivity and urgency of doing so.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 49 – 53, 55 – 58, 60 – 61, 63 and 69 are allowed.
Claim 14 is 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.
The prior art does not teach all the features of claims 14, 49 and 69.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL W JUSTICE whose telephone number is (571)270-7029. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 5:30 M-F.
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 Kelleher can be reached at 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.
/MICHAEL W JUSTICE/Examiner, Art Unit 3648