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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-46 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/24/2025 has been considered by the examiner and an initialed copy of the IDS is hereby attached.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20 recites, “the first receiver and the second receiver are configured to receive the first signal and the second signal having a frequency of between 2 and 20 MHz”, where a “wherein” should be recited at the beginning of this limitation.
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.
Claims 19 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19 recites, “wherein the first receiver and the second receiver are configured to receive the first signal and the second signal having a frequency of less than 200 MHz.”. This limitation is contradictory as claim 18 (onto which claim 19 is dependent) recites, “wherein the first receiver and the second receiver are configured to receive the first signal and the second signal having a frequency of less than 6 MHz.”. As claim 18 recites that the frequency is less than 6 MHz, claim 19 cannot claim the frequency to be greater than 6 MHz.
Claim 20 recites, “the first receiver and the second receiver are configured to receive the first signal and the second signal having a frequency of between 2 and 20 MHz.”. This limitation is contradictory as claim 18 (onto which claim 20 is dependent) recites, “wherein the first receiver and the second receiver are configured to receive the first signal and the second signal having a frequency of less than 6 MHz.”. As claim 18 recites that the frequency is less than 6 MHz, claim 20 cannot claim the frequency to be greater than 6 MHz.
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.
(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) 1-3,6,8-9,15,22-23,26-27,32,34-37,39,41-43 and 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Neufeldt et al. (US 20200150214 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Neufeldt discloses
A system for locating a target (see paragraph 0051, A system for determining the position of an aircraft is generally denoted with reference numeral 10 in FIG. 1. The aircraft itself is denoted with reference numeral 12. In FIGS. 1 to 4, the system 10 uses the principles of multilateration, as will be explained below.), the system (see system 10 of Fig. 1) comprising:
a first receiver configured for receiving a first signal from the target (see Fig. 1, first receiver 20a receives a first signal 22 from target 12 (aircraft), further see paragraph 0054, “The receivers 20a-d do not only receive the signals 22 but also receive the above mentioned identifier.”);
a second receiver configured for receiving a second signal from the target (see Fig. 1, second receiver 20b receives a second signal 22 from target 12 (aircraft), further see paragraph 0054, “The receivers 20a-d do not only receive the signals 22 but also receive the above mentioned identifier.”), the second receiver time-synchronized with the first receiver (see paragraphs 0054-0055, “the receivers 20a-d each having time measuring devices 24a-d with which a respective time of arrival (TOA) of the signal 22 can be determined in a synchronized time system. The receivers 20a-d do not only receive the signals 22 but also receive the above mentioned identifier. The receiver 20a receives the signal 22 at a time of arrival TOA1, the receiver 20b receives the signal 22 at a time of arrival TOA2, and so on…The term “synchronized time system” means that the time measuring devices 24a-d all indicate the same time. This means e.g. that the receivers 20a-d of the multilateration system 10 would determine an identical value of time of arrival TOA if the signal was received at all receivers 20a-d exactly at the same point of time, that is if the respective distances between the emitter 14 and the receivers 20a-d were absolutely identical.”, where all the receivers are “time synchronized” in the multilateration system); and
a programmable processor configured to determine a range to the target based on arrival times of the first signal at the first receiver and the second signal at the second receiver (see paragraph 0030, “While in literature multilateration and bistatic technologies may be mentioned as being one and the same or at least may be combined, such as “bistatic multilateration” using two transmitter-receiver-pairs, each pair generating an isorange contour (an ellipse) for each target it detects, in the context of the present invention the term “multilateration” is used for a technology determining a position (or range) of a target based on differences of the times of arrival of the same signal at different receivers. In contrast hereto, in the context of the present invention the term “bistatic range determination” is used for a technology determining a position (or range) of a target based on travel times of a signal emitted by an emitter and received at different receivers.”, where determining a position of a target using “multilateration” and “bistatic range determination” is indeed determining a “range” to the target based on the arrival times of the signals at the various receivers. Note: the TDOA of the signals at each receiver are used to compute the multilateration position (i.e. range) of the target, further see paragraphs 0067-0068 for support).
Regarding claim 2, Neufeldt further discloses
The system of claim 1, wherein the first receiver and the second receiver are time synchronized directly with each other (see paragraph 0017, “The receivers not only receive the signals but also receive the identifier. The term “synchronized time system” means that all receivers of the multilateration system would determine an identical time value of arrival if the signal was received at all receivers exactly at the same point of time.”, further see paragraphs 0055-0056).
Regarding claim 3, Neufeldt further discloses
The system of claim 1, wherein the first receiver and the second receiver are time synchronized with an external clock (see paragraph 0055-0056, “The term “synchronized time system” means that the time measuring devices 24a-d all indicate the same time. This means e.g. that the receivers 20a-d of the multilateration system 10 would determine an identical value of time of arrival TOA if the signal was received at all receivers 20a-d exactly at the same point of time, that is if the respective distances between the emitter 14 and the receivers 20a-d were absolutely identical. Therefore, each of the receivers 20a-d may have a clock as a time measuring device 24a-d, and a clock error may be determined and removed in real-time as is well known for example from GPS systems…Additionally or alternatively time stamping based on a central or master clock at one central location (centralized timing system) may be applied. Also possible is the application of a distributed timing system using a synchronization of the distributed receiver based clocks to a reference time.”).
Regarding claim 6, Neufeldt further discloses
The system of claim 1, further comprising a transmitter configured to emit a third signal that causes generation of the first signal and the second signal (see paragraph 0080, “FIG. 5 shows a ground based stationary secondary surveillance radar station 34a which emits a first signal 48 to the aircraft 12. The aircraft is equipped with a non-shown transponder comprising a receiver and an emitter, both not being shown in FIG. 5. The receiver on board the aircraft receives the first signal 48, which triggers the emitter on board the aircraft to send a second signal 22. The sent signal 22 is non-directional and therefore received both at space based receivers 20a and 20b on board respective satellites 26a and 26b. A travel time of the first signal 48 from the secondary surveillance radar 34a to the aircraft 12 is denoted with ρ.sub.T, whereas a travel time of the second signal 22 from the aircraft 12 to the receiver 20b on board satellite 26b is denoted with ρ.sub.R.”).
Regarding claim 8, Neufeldt further discloses
The system of claim 6, wherein the transmitter is configured to generate the third signal to have a transmitter beamform (see paragraph 0080, “FIG. 5 shows a ground based stationary secondary surveillance radar station 34a which emits a first signal 48 to the aircraft 12. The aircraft is equipped with a non-shown transponder comprising a receiver and an emitter, both not being shown in FIG. 5. The receiver on board the aircraft receives the first signal 48, which triggers the emitter on board the aircraft to send a second signal 22. The sent signal 22 is non-directional and therefore received both at space based receivers 20a and 20b on board respective satellites 26a and 26b.”, where a signal having a “transmitter beamform” is simply any transmitted signal under BRI).
Regarding claim 9, Neufeldt further discloses
The system of claim 8, the processor further configured to limit the range of the target to be based on a location within the transmitter beamform (see paragraph 0080, “FIG. 5 shows a ground based stationary secondary surveillance radar station 34a which emits a first signal 48 to the aircraft 12. The aircraft is equipped with a non-shown transponder comprising a receiver and an emitter, both not being shown in FIG. 5. The receiver on board the aircraft receives the first signal 48, which triggers the emitter on board the aircraft to send a second signal 22. The sent signal 22 is non-directional and therefore received both at space based receivers 20a and 20b on board respective satellites 26a and 26b.”, where the target aircraft must be within a “limited range” of the transmitted beam to receive the signal and trigger the transmission of signal 22).
Regarding claim 15, Neufeldt further discloses
The system of claim 1, wherein the first receiver or the second receiver are further configured to transmit outgoing signals to another system (see Fig. 1, where satellite receivers 26a and 26b each transmit outgoing signals 30a and 30b, further see paragraph 0064, “The satellites 26a and 26b each comprise an emitter 28a and 28b for emitting a signal 30a and 30b, respectively, to a respective ground receiving station 32a and 32B.”).
Regarding claim 22, Neufeldt further discloses
The system of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of transmitters to generate signals that have a distinguishing characteristic that allows them to be distinguished at a receiver, the processor further configured to determine the range further based on the distinguishing characteristic (see paragraphs 0052-0053, “The exemplary multilateration system 10 of FIG. 1 comprises an emitter 14 arranged on board the aircraft 12 for emitting a signal. Such an emitter 14 may be realized by a standard aircraft radar transponder operating with SSR mode A/C, mode S or mode S with extended squitter signals, all such signals comprising also an identifier allowing to clearly identify the emitter and the aircraft, respectively. When operating with SSR mode C, mode S or mode S with extended squitter signals, the emitter 14 may also emit a value of the barometric altitude ALT(BARO) measured with a barometric altitude measuring device such as an altimeter 16…”, where the multilateration result (i.e. range determination” is based on the coded signals).
Regarding claim 23, Neufeldt further discloses
The system of claim 22, wherein the distinguishing characteristic is a difference in one or more of a phase, a frequency, an amplitude, a polarization, time of transmission, or spatial location of transmission (see paragraphs 0052-0053, “The exemplary multilateration system 10 of FIG. 1 comprises an emitter 14 arranged on board the aircraft 12 for emitting a signal. Such an emitter 14 may be realized by a standard aircraft radar transponder operating with SSR mode A/C, mode S or mode S with extended squitter signals, all such signals comprising also an identifier allowing to clearly identify the emitter and the aircraft, respectively. When operating with SSR mode C, mode S or mode S with extended squitter signals, the emitter 14 may also emit a value of the barometric altitude ALT(BARO) measured with a barometric altitude measuring device such as an altimeter 16…” where to send coded signals/signals with identifiers, you must adjust at least one of a phase, a frequency or an amplitude of the signal).
Regarding claim 26, Neufeldt further discloses
The system of claim 1, wherein the target is moving (see Fig. 1, where target 12 is a moving aircraft).
Regarding claim 27, Neufeldt further discloses
The system of claim 26, wherein the target is an aircraft (see Fig. 1, where target 12 is a moving aircraft).
Regarding claim 32, Neufeldt further discloses
The system of claim 31, wherein the first signal and the second signal are RF signals (see Fig. 1 where each of signals 22 are radio frequency signals).
Regarding claim 34, the same cited section and rationale as claims 1 and 6.
Regarding claims 35 and 41, the same cited section and rationale as claim 1 is applied.
Regarding claims 36 and 42, the same cited section and rationale as claim 6 is applied.
Regarding claims 37 and 43, the same cited section and rationale as claims 8 and 9 are applied.
Regarding claims 39 and 45, the same cited section and rationale as claim 22 is applied.
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.
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) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neufeldt et al. (US 20200150214 A1) in view of Sinclair et al. (US 20180294946 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Neufeldt discloses [Note: what Neufeldt fails to disclose is strike-through]
The system of claim 1,
Sinclair discloses,
wherein the first receiver and the second receiver are time synchronized to within 10 nanoseconds (see paragraph 0164, “To synchronize the clocks, their time offset must be measured. Although we synchronize a microwave clock, the measurement of the time offset to femtosecond precision is done optically through O-TWTFT. O-TWTFT relies on the reciprocity of a single-transverse-mode spatial link to cancel out turbulence and platform-induced variations in the path length and extracts the underlying clock time offsets. There are three basic subsystems: a comb-based two-way time-frequency transfer, a “coarser” two-way time-frequency transfer via a pseudo-random binary sequence (PRBS) imposed on an optical cw carrier, and a two-way optical communication channel for exchange of timing information. The coarser two-way transfer is necessary to resolve the 5-ns ambiguity of the 200-MHz comb pulses and to provide a coarse path delay measurement. The comb-based time transfer uses a linear optical sampling approach to detect the pulse arrival times with femtosecond-level resolution.”, where femtosecond precision is less than 10 nanoseconds).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Sinclair into the invention of Neufeldt. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose time synchronization receivers in a distributed network. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to synchronize the clocks of the receivers to obtain high resolution range data.
Regarding claim 5, Neufeldt discloses [Note: what Neufeldt fails to disclose is strike-through]
The system of claim 4,
Sinclair discloses,
wherein the first receiver and the second receiver are time synchronized to within 10 picoseconds (see paragraph 0164, “To synchronize the clocks, their time offset must be measured. Although we synchronize a microwave clock, the measurement of the time offset to femtosecond precision is done optically through O-TWTFT. O-TWTFT relies on the reciprocity of a single-transverse-mode spatial link to cancel out turbulence and platform-induced variations in the path length and extracts the underlying clock time offsets. There are three basic subsystems: a comb-based two-way time-frequency transfer, a “coarser” two-way time-frequency transfer via a pseudo-random binary sequence (PRBS) imposed on an optical cw carrier, and a two-way optical communication channel for exchange of timing information. The coarser two-way transfer is necessary to resolve the 5-ns ambiguity of the 200-MHz comb pulses and to provide a coarse path delay measurement. The comb-based time transfer uses a linear optical sampling approach to detect the pulse arrival times with femtosecond-level resolution.”, where femtosecond precision is less than 10 picoseconds).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Sinclair into the invention of Neufeldt. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose time synchronization receivers in a distributed network. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to synchronize the clocks of the receivers to obtain high resolution range data.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neufeldt et al. (US 20200150214 A1) in view of Perl (US 7420501 B2).
Regarding claim 7, Neufeldt discloses [Note: what Neufeldt fails to disclose is strike-through]
The system of claim 6,
Perl discloses,
wherein the transmitter is configured to generate the third signal omni-directionally (see Col. 5, lines 52-57, “The SMR 1 includes a directional antenna 2, a radar transceiver 3 and a radar target processor 4. The beacon sensor 5 includes an omni-directional antenna 6, a beacon transceiver 7 and a target processor 8. The omni-directional antenna 6 is located near the target area, for example, the airport surface movement area.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Perl into the invention of Neufeldt. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a trigger signal (i.e. interrogation signal) transmitted in a multilateration aircraft system. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to cover a wide field of view for the trigger signal to allow for a more efficient system.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neufeldt et al. (US 20200150214 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Neufeldt further discloses
The system of claim 6, further comprising a second transmitter configured to emit a fourth signal that causes generation of the first signal and the second signal in response to transmission of the fourth signal, the processor further configured to toggle between the transmitter and the second transmitter to generate the first signal and the second signal (see paragraph 0027, “According to a further preferred embodiment at least one of the receivers is capable to interrogate the radar transponder of the aircraft. This means that for example a message may be sent by a satellite to the aircraft transponder in order to trigger a reply message.”, further see paragraph 0078, “In a non-shown embodiment at least one of the receivers (on ground and/or in space) is capable to interrogate the radar transponder of the aircraft. This means that for example a message may be sent by a satellite to the aircraft transponder in order to trigger a reply message.”, where “at least one of the receivers on the ground” indicates that both receivers on the ground can also interrogate the transponder with trigger signals (i.e. a third and fourth signal emitted)).
It would have been obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the system of Neufeldt to toggle between the trigger signals transmitted by the two ground receivers. When transmitting the two trigger signals, there are only two options where either both transmit the trigger signals at the same time or they transmit at different times (i.e. toggle). Furthermore, MPEP § 2141 provides that an invention may render a claimed limitation obvious when it would be “obvious to try” to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. In such an instance it would be obvious to try to toggle between the two trigger signals transmitted by the two ground receivers to conserve power by the system and to cover a wider field of view.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neufeldt et al. (US 20200150214 A1) in view of BERGGREN et al. (US 20220229145 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Neufeldt discloses [Note: what Neufeldt fails to disclose is strike-through]
The system of claim 6, further comprising a second transmitter configured to emit a fourth signal that causes generation of the first signal and the second signal in response to transmission of the fourth signal (see paragraph 0027, “According to a further preferred embodiment at least one of the receivers is capable to interrogate the radar transponder of the aircraft. This means that for example a message may be sent by a satellite to the aircraft transponder in order to trigger a reply message.”, further see paragraph 0078, “In a non-shown embodiment at least one of the receivers (on ground and/or in space) is capable to interrogate the radar transponder of the aircraft. This means that for example a message may be sent by a satellite to the aircraft transponder in order to trigger a reply message.”, where “at least one of the receivers on the ground” indicates that both receivers on the ground can also interrogate the transponder with trigger signals (i.e. a third and fourth signal emitted)),
BERGGREN discloses,
wherein the transmitter and the second transmitter are offset in frequency to provide a first frequency bandwidth and a second frequency bandwidth that provides a total frequency bandwidth larger than the first frequency bandwidth and the second frequency bandwidth, and wherein the first receiver or the second receiver is configured to receive the total frequency bandwidth (see paragraph 0015, “A network node of a network includes control circuitry, the control circuitry being configured to: determine a configuration of one or more bandwidth parts for positioning signals to be transmitted by one or more access nodes of the network; and to provide the configuration of the one or more bandwidth parts to one or more wireless communication devices; and to trigger transmission of the positioning signals on the one or more bandwidth parts in accordance with the configuration.”, where frequency division multiplexing is used to transmit the trigger signals at frequency offsets while also performing bandwidth partitioning, see Fig. 12).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by BERGGREN into the invention of Neufeldt. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a system to determine the position of a target using a plurality of receivers. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to conserve power by the system and to cover a wider field of view.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Neufeldt and BERGGREN discloses [Note: what Neufeldt fails to disclose is strike-through]
The system of claim 11,
BERGGREN discloses,
wherein the third signal and the fourth signal are generated phase coherently or pulse coherently (see paragraph 0015, “A network node of a network includes control circuitry, the control circuitry being configured to: determine a configuration of one or more bandwidth parts for positioning signals to be transmitted by one or more access nodes of the network; and to provide the configuration of the one or more bandwidth parts to one or more wireless communication devices; and to trigger transmission of the positioning signals on the one or more bandwidth parts in accordance with the configuration.”, where frequency division multiplexing is used to transmit the trigger signals at frequency offsets while also performing bandwidth partitioning and frequency division multiplexing “pulse coherently”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by BERGGREN into the invention of Neufeldt. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a system to determine the position of a target using a plurality of receivers. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to conserve power by the system and to cover a wider field of view.
Claim(s) 13-14,21 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neufeldt et al. (US 20200150214 A1) in view of Smits (US 20190302264 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Neufeldt discloses [Note: what Neufeldt fails to disclose is strike-through]
The system of claim 1,
Smits discloses,
wherein the first receiver or the second receiver have a linear array of antenna elements (see paragraph 0051, “Photon receiver 120 is described in more detail below. Briefly, however, photon receiver 120 may include one or more photon-sensitive, or photon-detecting, arrays of pixels. An array of pixels detects continuous or pulsed light beams reflected from target 130. The array of pixels may be a one dimensional-array or a two-dimensional array.”, where a plurality of photon receivers are used in Fig. 11).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Smits into the invention of Neufeldt. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a system to determine the position of an aircraft using a plurality of receivers. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to utilize two dimensional antenna arrays for the receivers to provide higher gain and precise target tracking.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Neufeldt and Smits discloses [Note: what Neufeldt fails to disclose is strike-through]
The system of claim 13,
Smits discloses,
wherein the first receiver has a first linear array in a vertical direction and the second receiver has a second linear array in a vertical direction (see paragraph 0051, “Photon receiver 120 is described in more detail below. Briefly, however, photon receiver 120 may include one or more photon-sensitive, or photon-detecting, arrays of pixels. An array of pixels detects continuous or pulsed light beams reflected from target 130. The array of pixels may be a one dimensional-array or a two-dimensional array.”, where a plurality of photon receivers are used in Fig. 11).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Smits into the invention of Neufeldt. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a system to determine the position of an aircraft using a plurality of receivers. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to utilize two dimensional antenna arrays for the receivers to provide higher gain and precise target tracking.
Regarding claim 21, Neufeldt discloses [Note: what Neufeldt fails to disclose is strike-through]
The system of claim 1,
Smits discloses,
wherein the system is configured to determine the range to within 10m utilizing at least two receivers configured to receive a signal of less than 20 MHz (see paragraph 0181, “Although not shown in FIG. 11, at least one of first or second receivers 1120/1140 may be approximately co-located with transmitter 1110, i.e. point A≈point B or point A≈point B′. In one exemplary embodiment point A and point B are approximately co-located and d′≈1 meter (m), i.e. second receiver 1140 is offset from first receiver 1120 and transmitter 1110 by about 1 m. Each of first and second receivers 1120/1140 includes an SPAD array of pixels with 20,000 pixels of resolution in the scanning direction (along the {circumflex over (x)} axis). System 1100 is operative to determine C.sub.z in real or near-real time via triangulation based on the initial incoming photons detected from first and second incoming light beams 1170/1180”, where the signals transmitted and received are received at the KHz frequency which is les than Mhz).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Smits into the invention of Neufeldt. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a system to determine the position of an aircraft using a plurality of receivers. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to utilize two dimensional antenna arrays for the receivers to provide higher gain and precise target tracking.
Regarding claim 33, Neufeldt discloses [Note: what Neufeldt fails to disclose is strike-through]
The system of claim 31,
Smits discloses,
wherein the first signal and the second signal are laser beams (see paragraph 0084, “Photon transmitter 310 includes a photon source 312. Photon source 312 may be a coherent photon source, such as a laser. Photon source 312 may emit a predetermined wavelength, or a extremely narrow range of wavelengths centered about the predetermined wavelength. The wavelength, or range or wavelengths, emitted by photon source 312 may include virtually any wavelength of the electromagnetic (EM) spectrum.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Smits into the invention of Neufeldt. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a system to determine the position of an aircraft using a plurality of receivers. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to utilize two dimensional antenna arrays for the receivers to provide higher gain and precise target tracking.
Claim(s) 16,18-20,24-25,28,38 and 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neufeldt et al. (US 20200150214 A1) in view of HALBERT et al. (US 20170285158 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Neufeldt discloses [Note: what Neufeldt fails to disclose is strike-through]
The system of claim 1, wherein the first receiver has a first location and the second receiver has a second location (see Fig. 1, where the two satellite receivers 26a and 26b are in different locations), and the range has a range accuracy based on the time synchronization between the first receiver and the second receiver (see paragraph 0034, “According to a further preferred embodiment the system comprises a ground based test emitter or transceiver having a known and usually stationary position and being usable for verifying a clock synchronization of the receivers and/or compensating a clock synchronization error of the receivers. Such a test emitter in fact may simulate an aircraft based emitter and has the advantage that its position (vertical and horizontal) is exactly known, which means that also the vertical and horizontal distances between this test emitter and the receivers are exactly known. A calculated vertical and/or horizontal position of the emitter using the principles of multilateration and/or of bistatic range determination therefore may be compared to the actual position, and from the differences a clock synchronization may be verified and/or a clock synchronization error of the receivers may be compensated. This allows to further enhance the accuracy of the determination of the vertical and/or horizontal aircraft position.”),
determine a range accuracy based on the range, range accuracy (see paragraph 0034, further see paragraph 0070, “The intersection between curves 43a and 43b is the vertical position ALT(MLAT) of the aircraft 12. The accuracy is further enhanced by determining the further time differences of arrival TDOA1-TDOA4 resulting in further hyperbolic curves, these curves however not being shown in FIG. 2.”, further see paragraph 0077),
HALBERT discloses,
an angular accuracy based on a spatial diversity of the first receiver and the second receiver, and antenna beamforms of the first receiver and the second receiver (see paragraph 0250, “The arrangement of sub-arrays 1422 and receiving elements 1424 allows multiple (overlapping) beams to be formed (e.g. one for each of the different sub-arrays 1422), digitally by the processor, which have substantially the same look direction, thereby permitting monopulse sub-beam angular measurement. The use of a plurality of sub-arrays 1422 permits greater measurement accuracy than phase monopulse angular measurement using, for example, a single array of closely spaced receiver elements.”),
and angular accuracy, where the angular accuracy is determined based on a volume formed by a union of overlapping detection volumes of the first receiver and the second receiver (see paragraph 0250, “The arrangement of sub-arrays 1422 and receiving elements 1424 allows multiple (overlapping) beams to be formed (e.g. one for each of the different sub-arrays 1422), digitally by the processor, which have substantially the same look direction, thereby permitting monopulse sub-beam angular measurement. The use of a plurality of sub-arrays 1422 permits greater measurement accuracy than phase monopulse angular measurement using, for example, a single array of closely spaced receiver elements.”, where the “a volume formed by a union of overlapping detection volumes of the first receiver and the second receiver” is indeed multilateration).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by HALBERT into the invention of Neufeldt. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a system to determine the position of an aircraft using a multilateration technique. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order perform accurate range and angular position estimation for the target.
Regarding claim 18, Neufeldt discloses [Note: what Neufeldt fails to disclose is strike-through]
The system of claim 1,
HALBERT discloses,
wherein the first receiver and the second receiver are configured to receive the first signal and the second signal having a frequency of less than 6 MHz (see paragraph 0267, “In operation, the transmitter emits a continuous (or quasi-continuous) signal, centred at the required frequency, and modulated to occupy the minimum bandwidth (typically a single 2 MHz band) to support range resolution requirements. The bandwidth, in this example, is based on a range resolution requirement of approximately 150 m which has the potential to deliver positional accuracy of better than 50 metres.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by HALBERT into the invention of Neufeldt. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a system to determine the position of an aircraft using a multilateration technique. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order perform long-range target detection.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Neufeldt and HALBERT discloses [Note: what Neufeldt fails to disclose is strike-through]
The system of claim 18,
HALBERT discloses,
wherein the first receiver and the second receiver are configured to receive the first signal and the second signal having a frequency of less than 200 MHz (see paragraph 0267, “In operation, the transmitter emits a continuous (or quasi-continuous) signal, centred at the required frequency, and modulated to occupy the minimum bandwidth (typically a single 2 MHz band) to support range resolution requirements. The bandwidth, in this example, is based on a range resolution requirement of approximately 150 m which has the potential to deliver positional accuracy of better than 50 metres.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by HALBERT into the invention of Neufeldt. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a system to determine the position of an aircraft using a multilateration technique. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order perform long-range target detection.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Neufeldt and HALBERT discloses [Note: what Neufeldt fails to disclose is strike-through]
The system of claim 19,
HALBERT discloses,
the first receiver and the second receiver are configured to receive the first signal and the second signal having a frequency of between 2 and 20 MHz (see paragraph 0267, “In operation, the transmitter emits a continuous (or quasi-continuous) signal, centred at the required frequency, and modulated to occupy the minimum bandwidth (typically a single 2 MHz band) to support range resolution requirements. The bandwidth, in this example, is based on a range resolution requirement of approximately 150 m which has the potential to deliver positional accuracy of better than 50 metres.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by HALBERT into the invention of Neufeldt. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a system to determine the position of an aircraft using a multilateration technique. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order perform long-range target detection.
Regarding claim 24, Neufeldt discloses [Note: what Neufeldt fails to disclose is strike-through]
The system of claim 1,
HALBERT discloses,
further comprising determining a location of the target from the first signal and the second signal and determining doppler frequencies of the first signal and the second signal (see paragraph 0082, “The array element dimensions are transformed to form beams, and the time dimension of the signal frame is transformed to produce Doppler transforms for each element or beam. The number of columns of array elements may vary from 2 to 96, or any number suitable for forming resolved beams in the azimuth dimension. The number of rows may vary from 2 to 32 or any number suitable for forming resolved beams in the elevation dimension. The number of resolved range values may be between say 16 and 512 or any suitable number for measuring range.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by HALBERT into the invention of Neufeldt. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a system to determine the position of an aircraft using a multilateration technique. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order perform high resolution motion detection of a target and thereby accurately determine its position.
Regarding claim 25, Neufeldt discloses [Note: what Neufeldt fails to disclose is strike-through]
The system of claim 24,
HALBERT discloses,
further comprising generating a five-dimensional map comprising a three-dimensional location of the target, as a function of time, and as a function of the doppler frequencies (see paragraphs 0083-0085 which reference to figures depicting doppler data which is concatenated into a five dimensional signal history over time).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by HALBERT into the invention of Neufeldt. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a system to determine the position of an aircraft using a multilateration technique. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order perform high resolution motion detection of a target and thereby accurately determine its position.
Regarding claim 28, Neufeldt discloses [Note: what Neufeldt fails to disclose is strike-through]
The system of claim 1,
HALBERT discloses,
wherein the target is a maritime vessel (see paragraph 0424, “Whilst the cellular radar network is particularly useful for conventional civil aeronautical radar it may be extended to air defence, military and maritime radar.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by HALBERT into the invention of Neufeldt. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a system to determine the position of an aircraft using a multilateration technique. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order perform accurate position detection for a maritime vessel.
Regarding claims 38 and 44, the same cited section and rationale as claim 16 is applied.
Claim(s) 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neufeldt et al. (US 20200150214 A1) in view of Camwell et al. (US 20100200296 A1).
Regarding claim 29, Neufeldt discloses [Note: what Neufeldt fails to disclose is strike-through]
The system of claim 1,
Camwell discloses,
wherein the target is stationary (see paragraph 0065, “This 3D receiver, firmly held within the BHA 32 is constrained to travel in the well bore 33, and typically in horizontal wells will preferentially lie along the bottom of the bore. Sonic energy travelling through the formations will activate one of the receivers such that a time of arrival (TOA) for each nearby transmitter node can be determined. This information, with certain other data such as node address, time, signal strength etc. can be encoded and sent back to the drilling rig using convention techniques such as mud pulse telemetry. Once detected and decoded at surface this information can be combined with the known locations of the transmitter nodes and used to estimate time of flight (TOF). TOF information from each node is used to solve a set of simultaneous equations that utilize the speed of sound within the formation and thus determine the distance traveled from node to each successive position of the moving receiver. In general there will be more TOF `rays` than are necessary to determine position, thus enabling position accuracy enhancement techniques (such as Kalman filters) to be used.”, where a multilateration technique is used to determine borehole positioning data for accurate drilling).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Camwell into the invention of Neufeldt. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a system to determine the position of a target using a multilateration technique. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order perform accurate position detection for a borehole drilling.
Regarding claim 30, Neufeldt discloses [Note: what Neufeldt fails to disclose is strike-through]
The system of claim 29,
Camwell discloses,
wherein the target is a geological feature (see paragraph 0065, “This 3D receiver, firmly held within the BHA 32 is constrained to travel in the well bore 33, and typically in horizontal wells will preferentially lie along the bottom of the bore. Sonic energy travelling through the formations will activate one of the receivers such that a time of arrival (TOA) for each nearby transmitter node can be determined. This information, with certain other data such as node address, time, signal strength etc. can be encoded and sent back to the drilling rig using convention techniques such as mud pulse telemetry. Once detected and decoded at surface this information can be combined with the known locations of the transmitter nodes and used to estimate time of flight (TOF). TOF information from each node is used to solve a set of simultaneous equations that utilize the speed of sound within the formation and thus determine the distance traveled from node to each successive position of the moving receiver. In general there will be more TOF `rays` than are necessary to determine position, thus enabling position accuracy enhancement techniques (such as Kalman filters) to be used.”, where a multilateration technique is used to determine borehole positioning data for accurate drilling).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Camwell into the invention of Neufeldt. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose a system to determine the position of a target using a multilateration technique. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order perform accurate position detection for a borehole drilling.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17,31,40 and 46 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:
In reference to dependent claims 17,31,40 and 46, the prior arts made of record individually or in any combination, failed to teach, render obvious, or fairly suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the combination of the claimed features of claims 17,31,40 and 46.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wu (US 20070247368 A1) discloses
A system for locating a target (see paragraph 0036, “The system and method of the present invention determine target location by signal processing measurements collected by mobile RUs that receive signals emitted from the target.”), the system (see system of Fig. 2) comprising:
a first receiver configured for receiving a first signal from the target (see system of Fig. 2, further see paragraph 0013, “In a preferred embodiment of the present invention, the method of multilaterating the position of a target includes the steps of: deploying a plurality of time synchronized receiving units in a network that allows the receiving units to communicate with a central processor; receiving a target signal from the target at each receiving unit; determining a time of arrival for the target signal at each receiving unit; determining position data for each receiving unit at the time when the target signal is received at each respective unit; and using the time of arrival and position data for each receiving unit to determine the position of the target by multilateration.”);
a second receiver configured for receiving a second signal from the target (see system of Fig. 2, further see paragraph 0013, “In a preferred embodiment of the present invention, the method of multilaterating the position of a target includes the steps of: deploying a plurality of time synchronized receiving units in a network that allows the receiving units to communicate with a central processor; receiving a target signal from the target at each receiving unit; determining a time of arrival for the target signal at each receiving unit; determining position data for each receiving unit at the time when the target signal is received at each respective unit; and using the time of arrival and position data for each receiving unit to determine the position of the target by multilateration.”), the second receiver time-synchronized with the first receiver (see paragraph 13, further see paragraph 0004, “In this embodiment, the method further includes the step of determining which receiving unit has a clock with a highest time quality indicator and synchronizing clocks to the clock of the receiving unit that has the highest time quality indicator.”);
GAGNE (US 20250052887 A1) a multistatic system for locating a target (see paragraph 0005, “Disclosed herein are systems and methods for a multistatic radar system that is configured to detect both crewed and uncrewed aircraft in a given airspace without the need for a transponder on the aircraft (e.g., uncooperative aircraft, or aircraft that are otherwise unable to or unwilling to provide location information directly to a network).”)
Moghaddam (US 20220239541 A1) discloses wherein the first receiver and the second receiver are time synchronized to within 10 nanoseconds (see paragraph 0054, “Various embodiments of wireless synchronization systems methods are those based on ultra-wideband (UWB) pulse signals, rather than network packet exchanges. These UWB methods rely on wide bandwidth and high sample rate ADC hardware, often >1 GHz, to estimate time of arrival (TOA) at nanosecond and sub-nanosecond levels. UWB signaling is applicable to numerous synchronization models, including passive schemes with multiple receivers synchronized to a single transmitter, decentralized consensus approaches, and distributed sensor localization all using TOA estimated from high sample rate ADCs.”, further see paragraph 0074).
Kratz et al. (US 10455350 B2) discloses a multilateration system using four receivers (Col. 8, line 63 – Col. 9, line 2, FIG. 6 illustrates the geometry for a multilateration (MLAT) calculation for radiolocation of a radio-frequency (RF) transmitter using four or more receivers 606 to uniquely determine the three-dimensional coordinates 605 of the transmitter 601, or fewer than four receivers to determine the approximate location of the transmitter, according to various embodiments.”).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAZRA N. WAHEED whose telephone number is (571)272-6713. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8 AM - 4:30 PM).
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.
/NAZRA NUR WAHEED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
