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 .
Examiner’s Note
For applicant’s benefit, portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) See MPEP 2123.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 8, 14, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vacanti (US 2017/0242118 A1 “VACANTI”), in view of Frisken et al. (US 2003/0198404 A1 “FRISKEN”).
Regarding claim 1, VACANTI discloses (Examiner’s note: What VACANTI does not disclose is ) a method for more accurately determining a distance from a body to a surface of another entity, the method comprising:
receiving a reflected signal, wherein the reflected signal is a portion of a transmitted signal reflected from the surface (FMCW radar signal 210 and a target-reflected signal 220 [0018])
using the reflected signal and a signal representative of the transmitted signal, generating a beat signal (the output from IF-output 123 of the receiver mixer 120 is an intermediate frequency (IF) signal 245 that has a frequency equal to the frequency difference Δf [0022])
transforming the beat signal from a time domain to a frequency domain comprising bins each of which has a complex value and represents a unique range of distances (a set of FFT bins is periodically generated across the frequency range [0027]); (the plurality of FFT bins 500 and 501 are indicative of a respective plurality of approximate distances [0025])
selecting, from leading edge bins of the bins, a primary leading edge bin which is a single bin representing a portion of the surface which is closest to the body, wherein the leading edge bins represent at least a portion of the surface (using a peak amplitude response or a center-of-mass/centroid approach to this distributed set of altitude detections creates a bias away from the correct distance (e.g., altitude) which is the leading edge of the entire mass of distributed detections. The leading edge always represents the closest object below an aircraft [0013]); (implement a leading-edge-tracking algorithm [0013])
determining an interpolated distance between the surface and the body by interpolating within the primary leading edge bin using a magnitude of the complex value or the complex value of each of: the primary leading edge bin and at least each bin adjacent to the primary leading edge bin (an interpolated-bin-number algorithm since it interpolates a bin number based on a determined power ratio between the leading edge tracked bin and the remaining bins in the selected subset of bins [0018]); (a subset of bins 510 is selected from the set of FFT bins 500 by implementing the leading-edge-tracking algorithm 41. The at least one processor 32 executes the leading-edge-tracking algorithm 41. The bins 520-523 in the selected subset 510 of bins 520-523 are adjacent to each other [0028])
In a same or similar field of endeavor, FRISKEN teaches that the projected distance 303 is interpolated 310 from the projected range image 302. The associated gradient magnitude 502 is interpolated 510 from the gradient magnitude correction image 501. The projected distance is corrected 520 with the gradient magnitude 502 to determine the corrected projected distance 503 [0073].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of VACANTI to include the teachings of FRISKEN, because doing so would improve accuracy of the detection, as recognized by FRISKEN.
Regarding claim 6, VACANTI/ FRISKEN discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising transmitting to the surface the transmitted signal which is a frequency modulated (FM) continuous wave (CW) or a pulsed linear FM signal (FMCW radar signal 210 and a target-reflected signal 220 [VACANTI 0018], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, VACANTI discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing at least one processor to execute a process (the storage medium 45 is a memory in the at least one processor 32 [0019]) for more accurately determining a distance from a body to a surface of another entity, the process comprising:
transforming a beat signal from a time domain to a frequency domain comprising bins each of which has a complex value and represents a unique range of distances (a set of FFT bins is periodically generated across the frequency range [0027]); (the plurality of FFT bins 500 and 501 are indicative of a respective plurality of approximate distances [0025]), wherein the beat signal is generated using a reflected signal and a signal representative of a transmitted signal, wherein the reflected signal is a portion of the transmitted signal reflected from the surface (the output from IF-output 123 of the receiver mixer 120 is an intermediate frequency (IF) signal 245 that has a frequency equal to the frequency difference Δf [0022]); (FMCW radar signal 210 and a target-reflected signal 220 [0018])
selecting, from leading edge bins of the bins, a primary leading edge bin which is a single bin representing a portion of the surface which is closest to the body, wherein the leading edge bins represent at least a portion of the surface (using a peak amplitude response or a center-of-mass/centroid approach to this distributed set of altitude detections creates a bias away from the correct distance (e.g., altitude) which is the leading edge of the entire mass of distributed detections. The leading edge always represents the closest object below an aircraft [0013]); (implement a leading-edge-tracking algorithm [0013])
determining an interpolated distance between the surface and the body by interpolating within the primary leading edge bin using a magnitude of the complex value or the complex value of each of: the primary leading edge bin and at least each bin adjacent to the primary leading edge bin (an interpolated-bin-number algorithm since it interpolates a bin number based on a determined power ratio between the leading edge tracked bin and the remaining bins in the selected subset of bins [0018]); (a subset of bins 510 is selected from the set of FFT bins 500 by implementing the leading-edge-tracking algorithm 41. The at least one processor 32 executes the leading-edge-tracking algorithm 41. The bins 520-523 in the selected subset 510 of bins 520-523 are adjacent to each other [0028])
In a same or similar field of endeavor, FRISKEN teaches that the projected distance 303 is interpolated 310 from the projected range image 302. The associated gradient magnitude 502 is interpolated 510 from the gradient magnitude correction image 501. The projected distance is corrected 520 with the gradient magnitude 502 to determine the corrected projected distance 503 [0073].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of VACANTI to include the teachings of FRISKEN, because doing so would improve accuracy of the detection, as recognized by FRISKEN.
Regarding claim 14, VACANTI discloses an apparatus for more accurately determining a distance from a body to a surface of another entity, the apparatus comprising:
a transmitter configured to emit a transmitted signal (FMCW radar signal 210 and a target-reflected signal 220 [0018]); (a transmitter 100 [0018])
a mixer circuit electrically coupled to the transmitter (the output from IF-output 123 of the receiver mixer 120 is an intermediate frequency (IF) signal 245 that has a frequency equal to the frequency difference Δf [0022])
at least one antenna electrically coupled to the transmitter and the mixer circuit (FMCW radar signal 210 and a target-reflected signal 220 [0018]); (the receiver mixer 120 includes an antenna-input 121 and a local-oscillator-input 122 [0020])
wherein the at least one antenna is configured to electromagnetically radiate the transmitted signal and receive a reflected signal, wherein the reflected signal is a portion of the transmitted signal reflected from the surface (FMCW radar signal 210 and a target-reflected signal 220 [0018])
wherein the mixer circuit is configured to generate a beat signal using the reflected signal and a signal representative of the transmitted signal (the output from IF-output 123 of the receiver mixer 120 is an intermediate frequency (IF) signal 245 that has a frequency equal to the frequency difference Δf [0022])
and processing circuitry electrically coupled to the mixer circuit (the storage medium 45 is a memory in the at least one processor 32 [0019]) and configured to:
transform the beat signal from a time domain to a frequency domain comprising bins each of which has a complex value and represents a unique range of distances (a set of FFT bins is periodically generated across the frequency range [0027]); (the plurality of FFT bins 500 and 501 are indicative of a respective plurality of approximate distances [0025])
select, from leading edge bins of the bins, a primary leading edge bin which is a single bin representing a portion of the surface which is closest to the body, wherein the leading edge bins represent at least a portion of the surface (using a peak amplitude response or a center-of-mass/centroid approach to this distributed set of altitude detections creates a bias away from the correct distance (e.g., altitude) which is the leading edge of the entire mass of distributed detections. The leading edge always represents the closest object below an aircraft [0013]); (implement a leading-edge-tracking algorithm [0013])
determine an interpolated distance between the surface and the body by interpolating within the primary leading edge bin using a magnitude of the complex value or the complex value of each of: the primary leading edge bin and at least each bin adjacent to the primary leading edge bin (an interpolated-bin-number algorithm since it interpolates a bin number based on a determined power ratio between the leading edge tracked bin and the remaining bins in the selected subset of bins [0018]); (a subset of bins 510 is selected from the set of FFT bins 500 by implementing the leading-edge-tracking algorithm 41. The at least one processor 32 executes the leading-edge-tracking algorithm 41. The bins 520-523 in the selected subset 510 of bins 520-523 are adjacent to each other [0028])
In a same or similar field of endeavor, FRISKEN teaches that the projected distance 303 is interpolated 310 from the projected range image 302. The associated gradient magnitude 502 is interpolated 510 from the gradient magnitude correction image 501. The projected distance is corrected 520 with the gradient magnitude 502 to determine the corrected projected distance 503 [0073].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of VACANTI to include the teachings of FRISKEN, because doing so would improve accuracy of the detection, as recognized by FRISKEN.
Regarding claim 19, VACANTI/ FRISKEN discloses the apparatus of claim 14, wherein the transmitted signal is a frequency modulated (FM) continuous wave (CW) or a pulsed linear FM signal (FMCW radar signal 210 and a target-reflected signal 220 [VACANTI 0018], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 14).
Claim(s) 2, 9, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VACANTI, in view of FRISKEN, and in view of Frick et al. (US 2019/0041510 A1 “FRICK”).
Regarding claim 2, VACANTI/ FRISKEN discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the leading edge bins are at least two bins which are closest to the surface (the leading edge always represents the closest object below an aircraft [VACANTI 0013], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1)
In a same or similar field of endeavor, FRICK teaches that determine a set of bins corresponding to a unique range gate but different modulation periods, e.g. a bin column, corresponding to the range to the surface 107, e.g. the set, or bin column, closest to the vehicle 101 using one of the aforementioned range detection techniques [0061]. Furthermore, FRICK teaches that the threshold detected bin column index number for threshold detected bin column representative of a range closest to the vehicle 101 [0062].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of VACANTI to include the teachings of FRICK, because doing so would improve accuracy/ sensitivity of measurements and system detection, as recognized by FRICK.
Regarding claim 9, VACANTI/ FRISKEN discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8, wherein the leading edge bins are at least two bins which are closest to the surface (the leading edge always represents the closest object below an aircraft [VACANTI 0013], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1) and
In a same or similar field of endeavor, FRICK teaches that determine a set of bins corresponding to a unique range gate but different modulation periods, e.g. a bin column, corresponding to the range to the surface 107, e.g. the set, or bin column, closest to the vehicle 101 using one of the aforementioned range detection techniques [0061]. Furthermore, FRICK teaches that the threshold detected bin column index number for threshold detected bin column representative of a range closest to the vehicle 101 [0062].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of VACANTI to include the teachings of FRICK, because doing so would improve accuracy/ sensitivity of measurements and system detection, as recognized by FRICK.
Regarding claim 15, VACANTI/ FRISKEN discloses the apparatus of claim 14, wherein the leading edge bins are at least two bins which are closest to the surface (the leading edge always represents the closest object below an aircraft [VACANTI 0013], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1)
In a same or similar field of endeavor, FRICK teaches that determine a set of bins corresponding to a unique range gate but different modulation periods, e.g. a bin column, corresponding to the range to the surface 107, e.g. the set, or bin column, closest to the vehicle 101 using one of the aforementioned range detection techniques [0061]. Furthermore, FRICK teaches that the threshold detected bin column index number for threshold detected bin column representative of a range closest to the vehicle 101 [0062].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of VACANTI to include the teachings of FRICK, because doing so would improve accuracy/ sensitivity of measurements and system detection, as recognized by FRICK.
Claim(s) 3, 10, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VACANTI, in view of FRISKEN, and in view of Wintermantel (US 2023/0314556 A1 “WINTERMANTEL”).
Regarding claim 3, VACANTI/ FRISKEN discloses the method of claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, WINTERMANTEL teaches that in order to determine the distance and Doppler gate of an object, the exact position of the power peak is obtained by interpolation; a power peak not only has levels at one gate, but also at one adjacent gate at least, so that the actual, generally non-integer position can be determined from the form of the power peak, e.g., by parabolic interpolation [0071].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of VACANTI to include the teachings of WINTERMANTEL, because doing so would enable high distance resolution and accuracy, as recognized by WINTERMANTEL.
Regarding claim 10, VACANTI/ FRISKEN discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, WINTERMANTEL teaches that in order to determine the distance and Doppler gate of an object, the exact position of the power peak is obtained by interpolation; a power peak not only has levels at one gate, but also at one adjacent gate at least, so that the actual, generally non-integer position can be determined from the form of the power peak, e.g., by parabolic interpolation [0071].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of VACANTI to include the teachings of WINTERMANTEL, because doing so would enable high distance resolution and accuracy, as recognized by WINTERMANTEL.
Regarding claim 16, VACANTI/ FRISKEN discloses the apparatus of claim 14,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, WINTERMANTEL teaches that in order to determine the distance and Doppler gate of an object, the exact position of the power peak is obtained by interpolation; a power peak not only has levels at one gate, but also at one adjacent gate at least, so that the actual, generally non-integer position can be determined from the form of the power peak, e.g., by parabolic interpolation [0071].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of VACANTI to include the teachings of WINTERMANTEL, because doing so would enable high distance resolution and accuracy, as recognized by WINTERMANTEL.
Claim(s) 4, 11, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VACANTI, in view of FRISKEN, and in view of Greenwood et al. (US 2008/0169972 A1 “GREENWOOD”).
Regarding claim 4, VACANTI/ FRISKEN discloses the method of claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, GREENWOOD teaches that executing a piecewise linear fit for each line segment length in the list comprises generating the plurality of line segment coefficients according to y=mx+b, where m is a slope of the line segment, x is the signal strength data, b is a y-intercept of the line segment, and y is the altitude error data [claim 4].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of VACANTI to include the teachings of GREENWOOD, because doing so would improve detection accuracy, as recognized by GREENWOOD.
Regarding claim 11, VACANTI/ FRISKEN discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, GREENWOOD teaches that executing a piecewise linear fit for each line segment length in the list comprises generating the plurality of line segment coefficients according to y=mx+b, where m is a slope of the line segment, x is the signal strength data, b is a y-intercept of the line segment, and y is the altitude error data [claim 4].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of VACANTI to include the teachings of GREENWOOD, because doing so would improve detection accuracy, as recognized by GREENWOOD.
Regarding claim 17, VACANTI/ FRISKEN discloses the apparatus of claim 14,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, GREENWOOD teaches that executing a piecewise linear fit for each line segment length in the list comprises generating the plurality of line segment coefficients according to y=mx+b, where m is a slope of the line segment, x is the signal strength data, b is a y-intercept of the line segment, and y is the altitude error data [claim 4].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of VACANTI to include the teachings of GREENWOOD, because doing so would improve detection accuracy, as recognized by GREENWOOD.
Claim(s) 5, 12, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VACANTI, in view of FRISKEN, and in view of Hager et al. (US 2006/0017609 A1 “HAGER”).
Regarding claim 5, VACANTI/ FRISKEN discloses the method of claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, HAGER teaches that zero altitude calibration command 142 is derived from one or more of logic (not shown) input to altitude processor 78 which senses one or more of wheels down (e.g., landing gear 22 in position for landing) [0018]. Additionally, when zero calibration command 142 is received, a zero altitude adjustment 168 of five feet from zero calibration memory 160 is subtracted from uncompensated altitude 154 [0022].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of VACANTI to include the teachings of HAGER, because doing so would improve detection accuracy at low altitude levels, as recognized by HAGER.
Regarding claim 12, VACANTI/ FRISKEN discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, HAGER teaches that zero altitude calibration command 142 is derived from one or more of logic (not shown) input to altitude processor 78 which senses one or more of wheels down (e.g., landing gear 22 in position for landing) [0018]. Additionally, when zero calibration command 142 is received, a zero altitude adjustment 168 of five feet from zero calibration memory 160 is subtracted from uncompensated altitude 154 [0022].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of VACANTI to include the teachings of HAGER, because doing so would improve detection accuracy at low altitude levels, as recognized by HAGER.
Regarding claim 18, VACANTI/ FRISKEN discloses the apparatus of claim 14,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, HAGER teaches that zero altitude calibration command 142 is derived from one or more of logic (not shown) input to altitude processor 78 which senses one or more of wheels down (e.g., landing gear 22 in position for landing) [0018]. Additionally, when zero calibration command 142 is received, a zero altitude adjustment 168 of five feet from zero calibration memory 160 is subtracted from uncompensated altitude 154 [0022].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of VACANTI to include the teachings of HAGER, because doing so would improve detection accuracy at low altitude levels, as recognized by HAGER.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 7, 13, and 20 is/are 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
VACANTI discloses a method of improving height measurement resolution for a radar system. The method includes periodically generating, at a FFT processor, a set of FFT bins across a frequency range based on a periodic ramping of a FMCW radar signal from a first frequency to a second frequency; selecting a subset of bins from at least one set of FFT bins by implementing a leading-edge-tracking algorithm by at least one processor; implementing a second algorithm on the selected subset of bins to determine a power ratio between the leading edge tracked bin and the remaining bins in the selected subset of bins to determine an interpolated bin number within the selected subset of bins; and determining an approximate distance to the target based on the interpolated bin number within the selected subset of bins. The sets of FFT bins are indicative of a respective plurality of distances.
Furthermore, FRISKEN discloses a method determines a distance from a 3D point to a 3D surface from a 2D projected range image. A projected distance and a cliff distance from the 3D point to the 3D surface are determined using the projected range image. The projected distance and the cliff distance are then combined to determine the distance from the 3D point to the 3D surface.
Further still, GREENWOOD discloses a method for compensating for range gate slide with respect to received returns within a radar altimeter. The method includes adjusting the amount of overlap between a range gate pulse and a radar return signal until an altitude output by the radar altimeter is within a desired tolerance, and incrementally increasing an amount of attenuation within the receiver circuit of the radar altimeter until the radar altimeter breaks track with the radar return signal. the method also includes recording a signal strength and altitude output at each increment of attenuation, determining an altitude error for each altitude output, and fitting the signal strength data against the altitude error using a plurality of variable length line segments.
However, Applicant’s claim also encompasses an invention that the prior art does not disclose, teach, or otherwise render obvious. Neither VACANTI, FRISKEN, nor GREENWOOD anticipates or renders fairly obvious, alone, or in combination, to teach all the additional limitations as cited in claim 7, within the context of Applicant' s claimed invention as a whole, that is, “wherein using the interpolated distance, the at least one interpolation correction value is determined using an interpolation correction function; wherein the interpolation correction function is obtained by taking a difference between (i) a function representing interpolated data over one or more ranges of bins and (ii) a linear bin relationship” as recited in claim 7 and as similarly recited in claim(s) 13 and 20.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAILEY R LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4910. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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.
/Hailey R Le/Examiner, Art Unit 3648 June 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights