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
Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities: the word "Cloud" in the phrase "Cloud network" has been capitalized. This is either a grammatical error, or is a trademarked term which is not allowed in patent claims (See MPEP 2173.05(u)). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: there exists a small typographical error, where the phrase “wherein plurality of radars” should be amended to “wherein the plurality of radars”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: there exists a small typographical error, where the phrase “for operation in 24 GHz” should be amended to “for operation at 24 GHz”. Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Instance 310 cited in the specification is not shown in Figure 3.
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.
Claim 5 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. One of the limitations of claim 5 uses the phrase “The system of claim 1, wherein the differentiation techniques comprise … and separating radar in transmissions”. The phrase “separating radar in transmissions” is unclear, and is vague enough as to be unbounded. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 14-16, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Brookner et al. (US 20050231420 A1), hereinafter Brookner.
Regarding claim 1, Brookner discloses,
A system comprising: a plurality of radars (Brookner, Abstract “A mechanism for combining signals of multiple radars”); and at least one processing node comprising one or more processing circuits (Brookner [0014] “In receiver 20a, the down converter 24a-1 and the down converter 24a-2 are connected to a signal processor 27a-1 and a signal processor 27a-2, respectively. In receiver 20b, the down converter 24b-1 and the down converter 24b-2 are connected to a signal processor 27b-1 and a signal processor 27b-2, respectively.”); wherein the plurality of radars is arranged such that coverage areas of the plurality of radars overlap, at least partially (Brookner Fig. 1A, further Brookner [0016] “Referring again to FIG. 1, the rotation of the antennas of the multiple radars are synchronized by a synchronization signal provided by an azimuth servo 37b (in radar 12b) to an azimuth servo 37a (in radar 12a) so that the beams of the radars look in the same direction, to within a fraction of a beamwidth.”); wherein the plurality of radars is configured to utilize differentiation techniques for differentiating each of the plurality of radars (Brookner [0016] “When the carrier frequencies f.sub.1 and f.sub.2 are different, they may differ sufficiently so that they do not interfere with each other and can be separated from each other in the radar receivers, yet are close enough to allow the same phase shift commands for a phased array antenna.”); wherein the plurality of radars is configured to share detection related data obtained or generated by each of the plurality of radars based on detection of objects within the coverage areas (Brookner Fig. 3, further [0018] “In the embodiment illustrated in FIG. 1, the four echoes are combined incoherently in the radar receiver. Other techniques may be used to combine the echo signals as well. One example is shown in FIG. 3. Referring to FIG. 3, the combiner 30 of the receiver is suitably adapted to allow the processed signals having the same carrier frequency, e.g., S.sub.11 and S.sub.12, to be added coherently.”); and wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to process the shared detection related data and information relating to positions of the radars, to detect and/or track one or more objects (Brookner [0025] “Once the target is detected, it is possible to estimate that target's azimuth (or elevation) angle very accurately.”).
Regarding claim 2, Brookner discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processing node comprises one of the plurality of radars (Brookner Fig. 1B, further [0029] “Although the digital signal processor 70, like the units 27, 28 and 30, can be separate from the radars 12a, 12b, this circuitry could reside in one or both of the radars.”).
Regarding claim 5, Brookner discloses,
The system of claim 1, wherein the differentiation techniques comprise one or more of separating radar operation in frequency, separating radar operation in time, separating radar operation in code or modulation, separating radar operation in polarization, and separating radar in transmissions (Brookner [0016] “When the carrier frequencies f.sub.1 and f.sub.2 are different, they may differ sufficiently so that they do not interfere with each other and can be separated from each other in the radar receivers, yet are close enough to allow the same phase shift commands for a phased array antenna.”).
Regarding claim 6, Brookner discloses,
The system of claim 1, wherein the shared detection related data comprise data relating to one or more of range, position, and time (Brookner [0013] “The antennas 16a, 16b collect echo signals received from the target, and the echo signals (which may be combined into monopulse receive signals) are processed by respective receivers 20a, 20b to detect the presence of the target and determine its location in range and in angle.”).
Regarding claim 14, Brookner discloses,
The system of claim 1, wherein one or more radars of the plurality of radars are configured to use antenna steering (Brookner [0013] “In the illustrated embodiment, the antennas 16a, 16b are rotating antennas”).
Regarding claim 15, Brookner discloses,
The system of claim 14, wherein the antenna steering comprises use of one or more electrically steerable antennas (Brookner [0030] “Also, although the radars 12a, 12b are described as rotating antennas, the technique described herein also applies to radars that use non-rotating phased arrays.”).
Regarding claim 16, Brookner discloses,
The system of claim 15, wherein the one or more electrically steerable antennas comprise at least one phased array antenna (Brookner [0030] “Also, although the radars 12a, 12b are described as rotating antennas, the technique described herein also applies to radars that use non-rotating phased arrays.”).
Regarding claim 22, Brookner discloses,
The system of claim 1, wherein one or more radars of the plurality of radars are configured to operate time synchronized to within 100ms (Brookner [0021] “This improved sensitivity is realized because of the coherent addition that can result in beams from radars 12a and 12b at the target for f.sub.1=f.sub.2 when the signals from radars 12a and 12b are transmitted simultaneously. An interferometric pattern is produced on transmit. If the phase centers of the two radars are not known to a fraction of a wavelength, then more than one simultaneous transmission of the signals from radars 12a and 12b will be needed with different relative phase shifts between the signals for each transmission to ensure coherent addition at the target (or worded differently, to ensure that the target is near the peak of transmit interferometric peak).” As Brookner uses interferometry methods, the synchronization between radars is required to be within one period, which is orders of magnitude less than milliseconds.).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3-4, 7-8, and 24-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brookner in view of Saitto (US 20220260697 A1), hereinafter Saitto.
Regarding claim 3, Brookner discloses [Note: what is not clearly disclosed is strike-through]:
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processing node comprises
Saitto discloses,
at least one processing node comprises an edge gateway (Saitto [0051] “Alternatively, the processing means 13 can be conveniently arranged separately from the radar transmitter 11. In this case, the processing means 13 are remotely connected, in a wireless and/or wired fashion, to the radar transmitter 11 and to the radar receivers 12 (e.g., via one or more wireless and/or wired networks and/or links, preferably based on Internet Protocol (IP)). Moreover, in this case, the processing means 13 can be conveniently implemented by means of a processing device or system (e.g., a processor, or an FPGA, or a server, or a cloud computing system, etc.)”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Saitto into the invention of Brookner. Both Brookner and Saitto are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose radar systems for the purpose of tracking flying objects in three-dimensional space, for example aircraft or drones. Brookner discloses a multi-radar-based object tracking system; however, fails to disclose the features wherein: one of the processing nodes comprises a network gateway. This feature is disclosed by Saitto, where Saitto discloses the ability to transmit the radar data to a remote computer for processing via a wireless gateway. The combination of Brookner and Saitto would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to process the radar data on a remote computer, rather than locally as described in Brookner.
Regarding claim 4, Brookner discloses [Note: what is not clearly disclosed is strike-through]:
The system of claim 3,
Saitto discloses,
wherein the edge gateway is connected to a Cloud network, and wherein the edge gateway is configured to transfer or offload to the Cloud network at least a portion of the shared detection related data, or information based on the shared detection related data (Saitto [0051] “Alternatively, the processing means 13 can be conveniently arranged separately from the radar transmitter 11. In this case, the processing means 13 are remotely connected, in a wireless and/or wired fashion, to the radar transmitter 11 and to the radar receivers 12 (e.g., via one or more wireless and/or wired networks and/or links, preferably based on Internet Protocol (IP)).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Saitto into the invention of Brookner. Brookner discloses a multi-radar-based object tracking system; however, fails to disclose the features wherein: one of the processing nodes comprises a network gateway, where the gateway offloads computations regarding the radar data to a cloud network. This feature is disclosed by Saitto, where Saitto discloses the ability to transmit the radar ranging data to a remote computer, or a cloud system. The combination of Brookner and Saitto would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to process the radar data on a cloud system, rather than locally as described in Brookner.
Regarding claim 7, Brookner discloses [Note: what Brookner does not clearly disclose is strike-through]:
The system of claim 1,
Saitto discloses,
wherein detecting and/or tracking at least one object of the one or more objects comprises one or more of triangulating a position of the at least one object, identifying the at least one object, and target location extrapolation (Saitto [0094] “Conveniently, the processing means 13 are further configured to perform also: [0095] a Kalman filtering step including applying a predefined Kalman filtering to the computed 3D position and velocity of said one and the same target, thereby obtaining refined 3D position and velocity of said one and the same target.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Saitto into the invention of Brookner. Brookner discloses a multi-radar-based object tracking system; however, fails to disclose the features wherein: the detection or tracking of at least one object comprises the triangulation of the position of the at least one object. This feature is disclosed by Saitto, where Saitto discloses a surveillance system whereby several radars are arranged in a large area to enable three-dimensional triangulation. Additionally, Saitto teaches the use of a Kalman filter which incorporates the idea of target location extrapolation. This improvement would greatly enhance the ability of the invention of Brookner to detect small objects and reduce the effects of false detections, as known to those of ordinary skill in the art. The combination of Brookner and Saitto would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to utilize several radars to triangulate the position of at least one object.
Regarding claim 8, Brookner discloses [Note: what Brookner does not clearly disclose is strike-through]:
The system of claim 1, wherein plurality of radars
Saitto discloses,
comprises at least three radars arranged and/or configured to enable three-dimension (3D) triangulation (Saitto Fig. 1, Fig. 2, further Saitto [0072] “a target position computation step including computing a three-dimensional (3D) position of said one and the same target (conveniently, a 3D position of said one and the same target with respect to the radar transmitter 11) based on).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Saitto into the invention of Brookner. Brookner discloses a multi-radar-based object tracking system; however, fails to disclose the features wherein: the preferred embodiment in Brookner uses two radars, which cannot be used for three-dimensional ranging. This feature is disclosed by Saitto, where Saitto discloses a surveillance system whereby several radars are arranged in a large area to enable three-dimensional triangulation. This improvement would greatly enhance the ability of the invention of Brookner to detect small objects and reduce the effects of false detections. The combination of Brookner and Saitto would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to utilize three or more radars to enable 3D triangulation.
Regarding claim 24, Brookner discloses [Note: what is not clearly disclosed is strike-through]:
The system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of radars comprises
Saitto discloses:
wherein the plurality of radars comprises 3 or more radars arranged to have a region of overlap coverage (Saitto Fig. 9, Fig. 10, further Saitto [0158] “Preferably, for each cell, one or more of the radar receivers 12 of the respective multistatic radar system 10 installed in said cell are configured to operate based on: [0159] the respective predefined transmission time and frequency pattern; and [0160] also one or more predefined transmission time and frequency patterns used by one or more multistatic radar systems 10 installed in one or more neighboring (conveniently, immediately adjacent) cells (whereby said one or more radar receivers 12 actually belong to two or more (partially) overlapped cells).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Saitto into the invention of Brookner. Brookner discloses a multi-radar-based object tracking system; however, fails to disclose the features wherein: the preferred embodiment in Brookner uses two radars with overlapping coverage, but not three. This feature is disclosed by Saitto, where Saitto discloses a surveillance system whereby several radars are arranged in a large area with overlapping coverage to enable three-dimensional triangulation. The exemplary embodiment in this case uses six radars in a hexagonal arrangement. This improvement would greatly enhance the ability of the invention of Brookner to detect small objects and reduce the effects of false detections. The combination of Brookner and Saitto would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to utilize three or more radars with overlapping coverage.
Regarding claim 25, Brookner discloses [Note: what is not clearly disclosed is strike-through]:
The system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of radars comprises 6 or more radars arranged to have a region of overlap coverage.
Regarding claim 25, see cited sections and arguments of claim 24.
Regarding claim 26, Brookner discloses [Note: what is not clearly disclosed is strike-through]:
The system of claim 1, wherein each radar of the plurality of radars
Saitto discloses,
comprises or is coupled to a Kalman filter configured for use in processing signals obtained via the radar (Saitto [0096] “In this respect, it is worth noting that the Kalman filtering step allows increasing target detection accuracy and minimizing false alarm probability.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Saitto into the invention of Brookner. Brookner discloses a multi-radar-based object tracking system; however, fails to disclose the features wherein: Brookner fails to disclose the use of a Kalman filter when processing the radar data. This feature is disclosed by Saitto, where Saitto discloses a surveillance system whereby several radars are used to track objects, and a Kalman filter is used to process the radar data. As taught by Saitto, the use of a Kalman filter is commonly known in the art to improve radar device’s ability to track objects by continuously predicting object trajectories, which is the purpose of the invention of Brookner. The combination of Brookner and Saitto would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to utilize a Kalman filter in a radar-based object tracking system.
Regarding claim 27, Brookner discloses [Note: what is not clearly disclosed is strike-through]:
The system of claim 26,
Saitto discloses:
further comprising a common Kalman filter configured to receive tracking data from the plurality of radars, and to generate one or more outputs to be fed back to each of one or more radars in the plurality of radars (Saitto [0099] “Moreover, in this case, the processing means 13 are preferably programmed/configured to carry out the target tracking step for successive radar signal transmission times and successive reference times.” The Kalman filter is used to track a target, which would be obvious for steering.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Saitto into the invention of Brookner. Brookner discloses a multi-radar-based object tracking system, where the system steers two radar beams to optimally track an object; however, fails to disclose the features wherein: a Kalman filter is used to feed data back to the radars. This feature is disclosed by Saitto, where Saitto that data processed through the Kalman filter is used to inform the object tracking system. As taught by Saitto, the use of a Kalman filter is commonly known in the art to improve radar device’s ability to track objects by continuously predicting object trajectories, and thus could be directly applied to the beam steering for tracking objects in Brookner. The combination of Brookner and Saitto would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to use the output of a Kalman filter to inform the operation of radars.
Regarding claim 28, Brookner discloses [Note: what is not clearly disclosed is strike-through]:
The system of claim 1,
Saitto discloses,
wherein the plurality of radars are physically separated by at least 1 meter (Saitto Fig. 9, here it is assumed that the axes are in meters.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Saitto into the invention of Brookner. Brookner discloses a multi-radar-based object tracking system; however, fails to disclose the features wherein: the radars are separated by at least one meter, as specific distances are not cited in the preferred embodiment. This feature is disclosed by Saitto, where Saitto discloses an object surveillance system for tracking objects on distance scales of kilometers. In order to track objects on this distance scale as described in the instant application, it would be necessary to separate the radar devices by similar distance scales, which are greater than one meter. The combination of Brookner and Saitto would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to utilize radars separated by one meter or more.
Regarding claim 29, Brookner discloses [Note: what is not clearly disclosed is strike-through]:
The system of claim 1,
Saitto discloses,
wherein one or more radars of the plurality of radars are configured for operation in 24 GHz (Saitto [0321] “The radar transmitters and receivers might conveniently operate at around 8 GHz, but no particular problem is envisaged at different operating frequencies.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Saitto into the invention of Brookner. Brookner discloses a multi-radar-based object tracking system; however, fails to disclose the features wherein: the radars are configured to operate at 24 GHz. This feature is disclosed by Saitto, where Saitto discloses the operation of radars at 8 GHz, but allows for other operating frequencies. It is taught in the instant application, and well-known within the art, that the choice of operating frequency is a trade-off between noise and data transmission speeds, and depending on one’s goals an invention could use 8 GHz or 24 GHz. The combination of Brookner and Saitto would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to configure a radar surveillance system to use a 24 GHz frequency.
Regarding claim 30, Brookner discloses [Note: what is not clearly disclosed is strike-through]:
The system of claim 1
Saitto discloses,
wherein one or more radars of the plurality of radars are configured to operate with less than 30 W (Saitto [0310 -0312] “The required power needs are reasonably low: as for the radar transmitter, a radiated power of the order of 5-10 W, and 50 W for the overall required power (including the GNSS receiver and the IP connection); as for the radar receivers, an overall required power of 10 W (including the GNSS receiver and the IP connection).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Saitto into the invention of Brookner. Brookner discloses a multi-radar-based object tracking system; however, fails to disclose the features wherein: the radars are configured to operate with less than 30 W. This feature is disclosed by Saitto, where Saitto discloses a radar configured to operate with a total power of around 20 W (receiver + transmitter powers), which falls within 30 W. As Brookner does not explicitly disclose an operating power, it is reasonable that the invention of Brookner could operate using similar powers to Saitto and the instant application. The combination of Brookner and Saitto would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to operate a radar system with a power under 30 W.
Claim(s) 9-13 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brookner in view of S. R. Doughty, “Development and Performance Evaluation of a Multistatic Radar System”, PhD Thesis (2008), hereinafter Doughty.
Regarding claim 9, Brookner discloses [Note: what is not clearly disclosed is strike-through]:
The system of claim 1, wherein
Doughty discloses,
physically separating the plurality of radars comprises arranging the plurality of radars based on particular location separation criteria (Doughty Fig. 4.1, further Doughty Eq. 3.4:
L
12
e
f
f
R
1
≤
α
λ
l
12
Here,
α
is a constant,
λ
is the operating wavelength,
R
1
is the target-receiver distance,
l
12
is a projection of the target onto a particular plane orthogonal to the bistatic bisector,
L
12
e
f
f
is the “effective bistatic baseline”, i.e. the particular separation distance between radars. In summary Doughty teaches that it is optimal for targets to be detected at orthogonal viewing angles between detectors, thus establishing an optimal separation criterion.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Doughty into the invention of Brookner. Both Brookner and Doughty are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose methods for the precise ranging of objects with multiple radars. Brookner discloses the use of two physically separated radars wherein the radars are physically separated by a distance; however, fails to disclose the features wherein: a particular separation criterion is used between the radar. This feature is disclosed by Doughty, where Doughty discloses a particular separation criteria relating the distance between radars to the operating wavelength and the expected target distance. The combination of Brookner and Doughty would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to optimize the separation of radars for the purpose of detecting small objects using multistatic radar methods.
Regarding claim 10, Brookner discloses [Note: what is not clearly disclosed is strike-through]:
The system of claim 9, wherein the particular location separation criteria
Regarding claim 10, see cited sections and arguments of claim 9.
Regarding claim 11, Brookner discloses [Note: what is not clearly disclosed is strike-through]:
The system of claim 9,
Doughty discloses,
wherein the particular location separation criteria comprises separating at least two radars by at least a separation distance that is more than 1/4 a minimum distance to targets (Doughty Pg. 109 “Here the targets of interest have a distance comparable to that between nodes in the multistatic system, so that vastly different aspects of them are visible by different transmitter-receiver pairs.” Here, the distance scale is 1 times a minimum distance rather than ¼.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Doughty into the invention of Brookner. Brookner discloses the use of two physically separated radars wherein the radars are physically separated by a distance; however, fails to disclose the features wherein: a particular separation criteria is used between the radar. This feature is disclosed by Doughty, where Doughty discloses a particular separation criteria relating the distance between radars to the operating wavelength and the expected target distance. Additionally, Doughty teaches that multistatic radar systems require significantly differing views of targets in order to effectively localize them, and suggests that distance scales between radars on the order of the distance to the target are optimal. This is greater than the distance scale of ¼, and it would be obvious to establish such a criteria. The combination of Brookner and Doughty would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to establish a minimum distance between radar in relation to the distance to a target.
Regarding claim 12, Brookner discloses [Note: what is not clearly disclosed is strike-through]:
The system of claim 1,
Doughty teaches,
wherein physically separating the plurality of radars comprises arranging the plurality radars such angle separation between beams of at least two radars meet particular angle separation criteria. (Doughty pg. 43 “The ‘down-range’ dimension of the bistatic resolution cell 4DR, measured along the bisector of the bistatic angle can be defined in Equation 2.47,
Δ
D
R
=
c
2
σ
c
o
s
(
β
2
)
. From this it can be seen that due to the factor of
c
o
s
β
2
resolution capabilities will be maximal when the factor is 0 - the ‘quasi-monostatic’ case.” Here Doughty clearly teaches that some minimum angle of separation between the antennas of a bistatic geometry in order to be distinct from the monostatic case. This additionally applies to the multistatic case, whereby the intersection of bistatic detection volumes defines the measurement resolution capability as sketched in Doughty Fig. 2.11.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Doughty into the invention of Brookner. Brookner discloses the use of two physically separated radars wherein the radars are physically separated by a distance; however, disclose a particular angular separation criteria. This feature is disclosed by Doughty, where Doughty teaches that a significant angular separation is required between radars in a bistatic / multistatic radar system to differentiate these from a monostatic radar system. Additionally, Doughty teaches that multistatic radar systems require significantly differing views of targets in order to effectively localize them, with an orthogonal (90 degree) difference between viewing axes being optimal. The combination of Brookner and Doughty would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to establish a particular angular separation criteria between radars in an object surveillance system.
Regarding claim 13, Brookner discloses [Note: what is not clearly disclosed is strike-through]:
The system of claim 12,
Doughty discloses,
wherein the particular angle separation criteria comprises having angle separation of more than 2 degrees between the beams of the at least two radars (Doughty Pg. 42 “This comes to different conclusions for a range of target types. Kell’s and Crispin’s MBETs are shown to work well for targets of simple geometry for bistatic angles of at least 30◦. For minimally complex objects, whose RCS is dominated by a combination of specular interactions, this bistatic angle is cut to around 15–20◦. This further diminishes to 5–10◦ for ‘rigorously complex’ targets, whose RCS is derived from specular and non specular components of similar amplitude.” Doughty teaches that it is well known in the art to establish significantly different fields of view to obtain accurate measurements from bistatic or multistatic radar systems.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Doughty into the invention of Brookner. Brookner discloses the use of two physically separated radars wherein the radars are physically separated by a distance; however, fails to disclose a particular angular separation criteria . This feature is disclosed by Doughty, where Doughty teaches that a significant angular separation is required between radars in a bistatic / multistatic radar system to differentiate these from a monostatic radar system. Additionally, Doughty provides particular examples of typical bistatic angles, all of which are greater than two degrees. The combination of Brookner and Doughty would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to establish a required angular separation between radars of greater than two degrees.
Regarding claim 18, Brookner further discloses
The system of claim 12, wherein the one or more radars are configured to switch steering time in 2 s or less (Brookner discloses the use of either mechanically steerable antennas or phase-array antennas, which are well known to those of ordinary skill in the art to have a steering time well below two seconds).
Regarding claim 19, Brookner discloses [Note: what is not clearly disclosed is strike-through]:
The system of claim 18,
Doughty discloses,
wherein the transmit and receive antennas of at least one radar of the one or more radars are on a same circuit board (Doughty Fig. 2, shows that the radar unit contains both a transmitting and receiving antenna. Further, Doughty Pg. 116 “After commands had been uploaded the DDS, when enabled by the FPGA, outputted baseband I and Q channels which, following low-pass image-reject filtering, passed to a Analog Devices AD8346 quadrature modulator. Both the DDS, filter components and quadrature modulator were on the same Printed Circuit Board (PCB) -where particular care was taken to ensure correct impedances were used for the microstrip transmission lines formed on the PCB and that separate power supplies were used to supply both digital and analog components - to avoid coupling of noise caused by digital switching. ” Doughty has a PCB with a transmitting antenna, but not combined with a receiving antenna.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Doughty into the invention of Brookner. Brookner discloses the use of two physically separated radars wherein the radars are used for the purpose of object; however, fails to disclose a radar system where the antennas are disposed on a PCB . This feature is disclosed by Doughty, where Doughty teaches a radar system where a transmitting antenna is printed on a PCB. It would be a simple substitution to also include the receiving antenna on the same PCB, and is presumably not integrated because it is an experimental configuration rather than a commercial product. Radars on PCB’s incorporating both transmitting and receiving antennas (also known as transceivers) are well known to those of ordinary skill in the art, for example in phase array antennas or MIMO patch antennas. The combination of Brookner and Doughty would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to utilize antennas disposed on a PCB for object detection.
Claim(s) 17, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brookner in view of Hong et al. (US 10359512 B1), hereinafter Hong.
Regarding claim 17, Brookner teaches [Note: what is not clearly disclosed is strike-through]:
The system of claim 16, wherein the at least one phased array
Hong discloses,
antenna comprise up to 16 antenna elements (Hong Fig. 1, Fig. 3C. Hong shows an embodiment of a bistatic radar with a phase array antenna comprised of 3 elements, but allows for any number. ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Hong into the invention of Brookner. Both Brookner and Hong are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose the use of phased array antennas in radar systems. Brookner discloses the use of a phase array antenna for beam steering; however, fails to disclose the features wherein: the phase array antenna is comprised of up to 16 antenna elements. This feature is disclosed by Hong, where Hong discloses a radar system combining phase array antennas, where each of the arrays are comprised of three elements. The disclosure allows for more elements, but the exemplary embodiment uses three, which allows for beam steering. As the same beam steering is required in the invention of Brookner, the same design could be readily applied. The combination of Brookner and Hong would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to utilize phased array antennas comprised of less than 16 elements in a radar system.
Regarding claim 20, Brookner teaches [Note: what is not clearly disclosed is strike-through]:
The system of claim 1,
Hong discloses,
one or more radars of the plurality of radars comprise Frequency-Modulated Continuous-Wave (FMCW) radars (Hong [0052 ] “The transmitter 110 preferably transmits a frequency shift keyed (FSK) RADAR signal or a frequency-modified continuous wave (FMCW) RADAR signal,”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Hong into the invention of Brookner. Brookner discloses the use of a plurality of radars; however, fails to specifically disclose the use of FMCW radars. This feature is disclosed by Hong, where Hong discloses a radar system utilizing FMCW radars. The usage of FMCW methods in modern radars is well known, especially in the context of phase array antennas, and enables low power radar devices such as the one required in the instant application. The combination of Brookner and Hong would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to utilize FMCW radars in an object detection system.
Regarding claim 21, Brookner further teaches:
The system of claim 20, wherein one or more radars of the plurality of radars comprise transmit and receive antennas (Brookner Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brookner in view of Yomo et al. (US 20180088221 A1), hereinafter Yomo.
Regarding claim 23, Brookner teaches [Note: what is not clearly disclosed is strike-through]:
The system of claim 22
Yomo discloses,
wherein operating in time synchronized manner comprises one or more of synchronization based on common reference time, synchronization based on time-stamped data, and coordinating in time obtaining of measurements (Yomo [0055] “The frame synchronizer 231 outputs a signal that synchronizes the transmission timings of the radars A 101 and B 102.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Yomo into the invention of Brookner. Both Brookner and Yomo are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose bistatic radar systems where two radars are synchronized to precisely track an object. Brookner discloses the operation of a plurality of synchronized radars; however, fails to disclose the features wherein: a specific method is used to synchronize said radars. This feature is disclosed by Yomo, where Yomo discloses the use of a “frame synchronizer”, which synchronizes radar signals based upon a common clock time. As the invention of Brookner requires some kind of clock or timing mechanism to synchronize signals in a coherent manner, it is likely that it uses a similar mechanism but simply fails to specifically disclose it, thus it would be natural to use the solution of Yomo for this purpose. The combination of Brookner and Yomo would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to utilize a common reference time to synchronize radar measurements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS JAMES HALLORAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8643. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5pm.
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 Keller 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.
/T.J.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/SAMARINA MAKHDOOM/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights