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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses implied language; A method for controlling…. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 22, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fink et al (US2012/0001735) in view of Nanzer et al (US2024/0265230).
A passive resonator tag (¶0009, ¶0039 “a passive wireless tag assembly 100 is created by combining a first passive wireless tag configuration 10 and a second passive wireless tag configuration 12”) comprising:
a receive antenna (¶0036 “antennas connected to the IDT receive the transmitted”, ¶0078) to receive radio waves at a first frequency (claim 24 first or second “frequency response circuit”, transmitted or received);
a transmit antenna (¶0036 “antennas that transmit”, ¶0078 ) to emit radio waves at a second frequency (claim 24 first or second “frequency response circuit”, transmitted or received), the second frequency being a harmonic of the first frequency; and
a retroreflective portion (“retro-reflector” 1000/1100/1200/1300/1400).
Fink does not disclose that the second frequency is a harmonic of the first frequency.
Nanzer discloses a resonator tag (Abstract 1st sentence, ¶0030 “the harmonic tag 10 illustrated is a ring resonator circuit 12”) where two frequencies are harmonically related (¶0035 “different harmonic frequencies”, ¶0038 “with the first harmonic at 5 GHz retransmitted…antenna circuit 42…The diode 40 may be a Schottky diode having a response frequency to generate about the second harmonic of the incident 2.5 GHZ”, ¶0041 1st two sentences).
At the time the invention was made to one of ordinary skill in the art it would have been well known to one of ordinary skill to modify the passive resonator tag of Fink with the harmonic relationship between frequencies as disclosed by Nanzer. A motivation for this combination would have been to allow for improved signal performance by reduction of noise. This combination follows example A of the KSR case law rationales for obviousness; combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 27 Nanzer discloses the passive resonator tag (figures 1A & 2A) of claim 22, wherein the passive resonator tag comprises a ground pad connected to a ground plane (“ground plane 32”), wherein the ground pad is conductively connected to the receive antenna and the transmit antenna (figures 1A & 1B at 14, 42 & 54).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fink et al (US2012/0001735) in view of Nanzer et al (US2024/0265230) and further in view of Lery (US2019/0112046).
A system comprising:
the passive resonator tag (¶0009, ¶0039 “a passive wireless tag assembly 100 is created by combining a first passive wireless tag configuration 10 and a second passive wireless tag configuration 12”) comprising:
a receive antenna (¶0036 “antennas connected to the IDT receive the transmitted”, ¶0078) to receive radio waves at a first frequency (claim 24 first or second “frequency response circuit”, transmitted or received);
a transmit antenna (¶0036 “antennas that transmit”, ¶0078 ) to emit radio waves at a second frequency (claim 24 first or second “frequency response circuit”, transmitted or received), the second frequency being a harmonic of the first frequency; and
a retroreflective portion (“retro-reflector” 1000/1100/1200/1300/1400);
an unmanned aerial vehicle, UAV;
a UAV, controller to control the UAV;
a radio receiver to be carried by the UAV, the radio receiver to receive radio waves at the second frequency emitted by the passive resonator tag;
an infrared camera to be carried by the UAV; and
an infrared light source to be carried by the UAV.
Fink does not disclose that the second frequency is a harmonic of the first frequency.
Nanzer discloses a resonator tag (Abstract 1st sentence, ¶0030 “the harmonic tag 10 illustrated is a ring resonator circuit 12”) where two frequencies are harmonically related (¶0035 “different harmonic frequencies”, ¶0038 “with the first harmonic at 5 GHz retransmitted…antenna circuit 42…The diode 40 may be a Schottky diode having a response frequency to generate about the second harmonic of the incident 2.5 GHZ”, ¶0041 1st two sentences).
At the time the invention was made to one of ordinary skill in the art it would have been well known to one of ordinary skill to modify the passive resonator tag of Fink with the harmonic relationship between frequencies as disclosed by Nanzer. A motivation for this combination would have been to allow for improved signal performance by reduction of noise. This combination follows example A of the KSR case law rationales for obviousness; combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Neither Fink nor Nanzer disclose the UAV and its attendant equipment at the end of the claim.
Lery however discloses;
an unmanned aerial vehicle, UAV (¶0094 “unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) 10”);
a UAV, controller to control the UAV (¶0096 “each UAV 10 can include a controller 20 comprising a processor 22 and a memory 24”);
a radio receiver to be carried by the UAV, the radio receiver to receive radio waves (¶0097 “UAV 10 can include… an antenna 40 coupled to a radio transceiver 42” ¶0098 “when used to receive radio signals, antenna 40 can also be considered a sensor…” ¶0111 “Controller 20 can, in turn, output to OCC 56 via antenna 40 and wireless system 18 the stream of video images” Ley therefore, shows radio transceiver/antenna on UAV used for radio communications) at the second frequency emitted by the passive resonator tag (Fink discloses above);
an infrared camera to be carried by the UAV (¶0141); and
an infrared light source to be carried by the UAV (¶0121 “it is also or alternatively envisioned that wireless system 18 and one or more sensors 32 can be utilized for communication using infrared signals… sensors 32 can include infrared detectors 46 for receiving infrared signals from wireless system 18 and one or more of lights 34 can be infrared lights that can be used to output infrared signals to wireless system 18”).
At the time the invention was made to one of ordinary skill in this art it would have been well known use the device of Fink in view of Nanzer with the UAV of Lery. A motivation for this would be to upgrade the UAV of Lery with the ability to track using the passive resonator tag of Fink in view of Nanzer.
Claims 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulkarni et al (US2020/0404357) in view of Parker et al (US2019/0072644).
A method for tracking a passive resonator tag (Abstract 1st sentence, fig. 1 at 160/190/134, ¶0042 “tag 160 can include a passive array 190…resonator”, claim 12), comprising:
obtaining radar (¶0125 “radar cross section (RCS), ¶0134) and infrared signals (¶0024 “infrared signals”, ¶0075 “infrared (IR)”, ¶0080 “sensor devices 165 can include, but are not limited to, a passive infrared sensor”, ¶0082 “passive infrared (PIR) sensor”) from the passive resonator tag; and tracking the passive resonator tag using a combination of the radar and infrared signals.
Kulkarni does not disclose tracking the tag using a combination radar and infrared signals.
Parker discloses tagging a target (¶0021 “When you tag a target, the tracking optic then knows what you want to engage.”) with tracking (¶0076 “FIG. 5, is to track a suspect sUAS”) capabilities using radar and infrared signals (fig. 1A at 43 & 16, ¶0076 “radar 43” & “infrared (IR) sensor 16”, ¶0018 “The three independent sources are the radar system (43), the DF system (14) and the combined EO/IR & LRF system (16).”).
At the time the invention was made to one of ordinary skill in the art it would have been well known to one of ordinary skill to upgrade the passive resonator tag system of Kulkarni with the tracking system of Parker. A motivation for this combination would be to offer a more robust, reliable and accurate tracking solution than using a single sensor type. This combination also follows example A of the KSR case law rationales for obviousness; combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 34 Parker discloses the method of claim 33, comprising: obtaining a coarse location (figures 1 & 1A) of the passive resonator tag using the radar signal; and obtaining a more accurate location of the passive resonator tag using the infrared signal (¶0091 “The LRF 16 for example may be more accurate at closer ranges in lower light conditions, whereas the radar 43 may be more accurate at further ranges when there is no precipitation.”)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23-26, 28-29, 31-32, 35-41 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael C Zarroli whose telephone number is (571)272-2101. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 ET IFP.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at 5712705744. 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 C. ZARROLI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3658B
/MICHAEL C ZARROLI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658 /M.C.Z/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658