DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the initial filing filed on December 25, 2024, claim 1-20 have been examined this application.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 10-13, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierro (US 10,591,609 B1) in view of Carrender (US 6,868,073 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Pierro teaches a range detector, comprising: at least one processor coupled with a memory [col 9, lines 5-15 for tactical computing device possessed by the mission participant who must directly interact in the GPS comprised territory, and who require accurate position location information (range)];
the at least one processor configured to cause the range detector at least to [col 9, lines 5-15 for computing device and col 14, lines 25-35]:
receive first GPS coordinates of a first unmanned aerial vehicle when hovering proximate to a first known location [col 12, lines 45-55 section 1 for occupy a stationary position in support of a covert mission leave a base of operation and hover in close proximity to each other near the location of the covert operation];
receive second GPS coordinates of a second unmanned aerial vehicle when hovering proximate to a second known location [col 12, lines 45-55 for hover in close proximity to each other near the location of the covert operation, which stationary position is known by a mother air vehicle];
and calculate a position of the range detector relative to the first known location and the second known location based on the distance calculated between the range detector and the transponder mounted to the first unmanned aerial vehicle [col 14, lines 25-35 for a computing device configured to perform time difference of arrival measurements of said respective signals to determine a location (distance) of said computing device],
a distance between the first GPS coordinates and the first known location [col 14, lines 45-55 for aerial vehicles are configured to hover above said respective ground location (knowing location coordinates)],
a distance between the second GPS coordinates and the second known location [col 14, lines 10-20 for knowing multiple positions of ground location (known locations)],
a distance between the first GPS coordinates and the second GPS coordinates [col 5, lines 35-45 for three stationary platforms spaced five to fifty miles apart],
and a distance between the first known location and the second known location [col 5, lines 35-45 for stationary platforms (known positions)].
Pierro fails to explicitly teach calculate a distance between the range detector and a transponder mounted to each of the first unmanned aerial vehicle and the second unmanned aerial vehicle based on Radio Frequency (RF) signals exchanged with the transponder and the distance calculated between the range detector and the transponder mounted to the second unmanned aerial vehicle.
Carrender has a system that can locate an RF transponder based on phase differences between signals transmitted (abstract) and teaches calculate a distance between the range detector and a transponder mounted to each of the first unmanned aerial vehicle and the second unmanned aerial vehicle based on Radio Frequency (RF) signals exchanged with the transponder [col 2, lines 35-40 for second signal is compared with the first signal and a distance between the first and second transponders is determined based on a phase difference between the first and second signals]
and the distance calculated between the range detector and the transponder mounted to the second unmanned aerial vehicle [col 2, lines 60-67 for number of nulls or peaks within a period is directly related to the distance between the interrogator and the RF tag and claim 17].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the range detecting techniques, as disclosed by Pierro, further including the transponder calculations as taught by Carrender for the purpose of locating an RF transponder (Carrender, col 2, lines 35-45).
Regarding Claim 10, Pierro fails to explicitly teach the at least one processor is configured to cause the range detector at least to: transmit a first RF signal at a transmit frequency to the transponder, to receive a second RF signal at a receive frequency from the transponder in response to the first RF signal, and to calculate the distance between the range detector and the transponder based on the first RF signal and the second RF signal.
Carrender has a system that can locate an RF transponder based on phase differences between signals transmitted (abstract) and teaches the at least one processor is configured to cause the range detector at least to: transmit a first RF signal at a transmit frequency to the transponder, to receive a second RF signal at a receive frequency from the transponder in response to the first RF signal [col 2, lines 35-40 for second signal is compared with the first signal and a distance between the first and second transponders is determined based on a phase difference between the first and second signals]
and to calculate the distance between the range detector and the transponder based on the first RF signal and the second RF signal [col 2, lines 60-67 multiple RF (mixed) signals].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the range detecting techniques, as disclosed by Pierro, further including the transponder calculations as taught by Carrender for the purpose of locating an RF transponder (Carrender, col 2, lines 35-45).
Regarding Claim 11, Pierro fails to explicitly teach the first RF signal transmitted includes an address of the transponder.
Carrender has a system that can locate an RF transponder based on phase differences between signals transmitted (abstract) and teaches the first RF signal transmitted includes an address of the transponder [col 2, lines 60-67 multiple RF (mixed) signals].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the range detecting techniques, as disclosed by Pierro, further including the transponder calculations as taught by Carrender for the purpose of locating an RF transponder (Carrender, col 2, lines 35-45).
Regarding Claim 12, Pierro teaches the receive frequency is lower than the transmit frequency [figure 1, for using x band, GPS, and UAV frequencies].
Regarding Claim 13, Pierro teaches a method, comprising: operating a range detector by [col 9, lines 5-15 for tactical computing device possessed by the mission participant who must directly interact in the GPS comprised territory, and who require accurate position location information (range)]:
receiving first GPS coordinates of a first unmanned aerial vehicle when hovering proximate to a first known location [col 12, lines 45-55 section 1 for occupy a stationary position in support of a covert mission leave a base of operation and hover in close proximity to each other near the location of the covert operation];
receiving second GPS coordinates of a second unmanned aerial vehicle when hovering proximate to a second known location [col 12, lines 45-55 for hover in close proximity to each other near the location of the covert operation, which stationary position is known by a mother air vehicle];
and calculating a position of the range detector relative to the first known location and the second known location based on the distance calculated between the range detector and the transponder mounted to the first unmanned aerial vehicle [col 14, lines 25-35 for a computing device configured to perform time difference of arrival measurements of said respective signals to determine a location (distance) of said computing device],
a distance between the first GPS coordinates and the first known location [col 14, lines 45-55 for aerial vehicles are configured to hover above said respective ground location (knowing location coordinates)],
a distance between the second GPS coordinates and the second known location [col 14, lines 10-20 for knowing multiple positions of ground location (known locations)],
a distance between the first GPS coordinates and the second GPS coordinates [col 5, lines 35-45 for three stationary platforms spaced five to fifty miles apart],
and a distance between the first known location and the second known location [col 5, lines 35-45 for stationary platforms (known positions)].
Pierro fails to explicitly teach calculating a distance between the range detector and a transponder mounted to each of the first unmanned aerial vehicle and the second unmanned aerial vehicle based on Radio Frequency (RF) signals exchanged with the transponder, the distance calculated between the range detector and the transponder mounted to the second unmanned aerial vehicle.
Carrender has a system that can locate an RF transponder based on phase differences between signals transmitted (abstract) and teaches calculating a distance between the range detector and a transponder mounted to each of the first unmanned aerial vehicle and the second unmanned aerial vehicle based on Radio Frequency (RF) signals exchanged with the transponder [col 2, lines 35-40 for second signal is compared with the first signal and a distance between the first and second transponders is determined based on a phase difference between the first and second signals]
the distance calculated between the range detector and the transponder mounted to the second unmanned aerial vehicle [col 2, lines 60-67 for number of nulls or peaks within a period is directly related to the distance between the interrogator and the RF tag and claim 17].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the range detecting techniques, as disclosed by Pierro, further including the transponder calculations as taught by Carrender for the purpose of locating an RF transponder (Carrender, col 2, lines 35-45).
Regarding Claim 16, Pierro teaches a range detector, comprising [col 9, lines 5-15 for tactical computing device possessed by the mission participant who must directly interact in the GPS comprised territory, and who require accurate position location information (range)]:
at least one processor coupled with a memory [col 9, lines 5-15 for computing device and col 14, lines 25-35];
the at least one processor configured to cause the range detector at least to: when an unmanned aerial vehicle is hovering proximate to a first known location, receive first GPS coordinates of the unmanned aerial vehicle [col 12, lines 45-55 section 1 for occupy a stationary position in support of a covert mission leave a base of operation and hover in close proximity to each other near the location of the covert operation],
when the unmanned aerial vehicle is hovering proximate to a second known location, receive second GPS coordinates of the unmanned aerial vehicle [col 12, lines 45-55 for hover in close proximity to each other near the location of the covert operation, which stationary position is known by a mother air vehicle],
and calculate a position of the range detector relative to the first known location and the second known location based on the distance calculated between the range detector and the transponder with the unmanned aerial vehicle at the first GPS coordinates [col 14, lines 25-35 for a computing device configured to perform time difference of arrival measurements of said respective signals to determine a location (distance) of said computing device],
a distance between the first GPS coordinates and the first known location [col 14, lines 45-55 for aerial vehicles are configured to hover above said respective ground location (knowing location coordinates)],
a distance between the second GPS coordinates and the second known location [col 14, lines 10-20 for knowing multiple positions of ground location (known locations)],
a distance between the first GPS coordinates and the second GPS coordinates [col 5, lines 35-45 for three stationary platforms spaced five to fifty miles apart],
and a distance between the first known location and the second known location [col 5, lines 35-45 for stationary platforms (known positions)].
Pierro fails to explicitly teach and calculate a distance between the range detector and a transponder mounted to the unmanned aerial vehicle based on Radio Frequency (RF) signals exchanged with the transponder, and calculate the distance between the range detector and the transponder based on the RF signals exchanged with the transponder, and the distance calculated between the range detector and the transponder with the unmanned aerial vehicle at the second GPS coordinates.
Carrender has a system that can locate an RF transponder based on phase differences between signals transmitted (abstract) and teaches calculate a distance between the range detector and a transponder mounted to each of the first unmanned aerial vehicle and the second unmanned aerial vehicle based on Radio Frequency (RF) signals exchanged with the transponder [col 2, lines 35-40 for second signal is compared with the first signal and a distance between the first and second transponders is determined based on a phase difference between the first and second signals]
and calculate the distance between the range detector and the transponder based on the RF signals exchanged with the transponder [col 2, lines 60-67 for number of nulls or peaks within a period is directly related to the distance between the interrogator and the RF tag and claim 17]
and the distance calculated between the range detector and the transponder with the unmanned aerial vehicle at the second GPS coordinates [claim 17].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the range detecting techniques, as disclosed by Pierro, further including the transponder calculations as taught by Carrender for the purpose of locating an RF transponder (Carrender, col 2, lines 35-45).
Regarding Claim 20, Pierro teaches a method, comprising: operating a range detector by [col 9, lines 5-15 for tactical computing device possessed by the mission participant who must directly interact in the GPS comprised territory, and who require accurate position location information (range)]:
when an unmanned aerial vehicle is hovering proximate to a first known location, receiving first GPS coordinates of the unmanned aerial vehicle [col 12, lines 45-55 section 1 for occupy a stationary position in support of a covert mission leave a base of operation and hover in close proximity to each other near the location of the covert operation];
when the unmanned aerial vehicle is hovering proximate to a second known location, receiving second GPS coordinates of the unmanned aerial vehicle [col 12, lines 45-55 for hover in close proximity to each other near the location of the covert operation, which stationary position is known by a mother air vehicle],
and calculating a position of the range detector relative to the first known location and the second known location based on the first distance [col 14, lines 10-20 for knowing multiple positions of ground location (known locations)],
a distance between the first GPS coordinates and the first known location, the second distance, a distance between the second GPS coordinates and the second known location [col 5, lines 35-45 for three stationary platforms spaced five to fifty miles apart],
a distance between the first GPS coordinates and the second GPS coordinates, and a distance between the first known location and the second known location [col 5, lines 35-45 for stationary platforms (known positions)].
Pierro fails to explicitly teach and calculating a first distance between the range detector and a transponder mounted to the unmanned aerial vehicle based on Radio Frequency (RF) signals exchanged with the transponder and calculating a second distance between the range detector and the transponder based on the RF signals exchanged with the transponder.
Carrender has a system that can locate an RF transponder based on phase differences between signals transmitted (abstract) and teaches and calculating a first distance between the range detector and a transponder mounted to the unmanned aerial vehicle based on Radio Frequency (RF) signals exchanged with the transponder [col 2, lines 35-40 for second signal is compared with the first signal and a distance between the first and second transponders is determined based on a phase difference between the first and second signals]
and calculating a second distance between the range detector and the transponder based on the RF signals exchanged with the transponder [col 2, lines 60-67 for number of nulls or peaks within a period is directly related to the distance between the interrogator and the RF tag and claim 17].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the range detecting techniques, as disclosed by Pierro, further including the transponder calculations as taught by Carrender for the purpose of locating an RF transponder (Carrender, col 2, lines 35-45).
Claims 2-3, 14-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierro (US 10,591,609 B1) in view of Carrender (US 6,868,073 B1), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Wallin (US 2017/0168154 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, 14, and 17, Pierro fails to explicitly teach the at least one processor is configured to cause the range detector at least to: perform a correlation between a first RF signal transmitted to the transponder and a second RF signal received from the transponder in response to the first RF signal, to calculate an integer wavelength delay based on the correlation, and to calculate the distance between the range detector and the transponder based on the integer wavelength delay.
Wallin has system for determining a distance, a transponder, a position detection apparatus (abstract) and teaches the at least one processor is configured to cause the range detector at least to: perform a correlation between a first RF signal transmitted to the transponder and a second RF signal received from the transponder in response to the first RF signal [0034-0036 for transmitting the PN sequence],
to calculate an integer wavelength delay based on the correlation [0038 for detection of a maximum value of the correlation signal, the corresponding adjusted delay time of the delay means],
and to calculate the distance between the range detector and the transponder based on the integer wavelength delay [0041 for distance between said position detection apparatus and said transponder by means of the flight time].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the range detecting techniques, as disclosed by Pierro, further including the time calculations as taught by Wallin for the purpose of calculating the distance between said position detection apparatus and said transponder by means of the flight time (Wallin, 0041).
Regarding Claim 3, 15, and 18, Pierro fails to explicitly teach the at least one processor is configured to cause the range detector at least to: determine a phase difference between the first RF signal and the second RF signal, to calculate a fractional wavelength delay based on the phase difference, and to calculate the distance between the range detector and the transponder based on the integer wavelength delay and the fractional wavelength delay.
Carrender has a system that can locate an RF transponder based on phase differences between signals transmitted (abstract) and teaches at least one processor is configured to cause the range detector at least to: determine a phase difference between the first RF signal and the second RF signal [col 2, lines 35-40 for second signal is compared with the first signal and a distance between the first and second transponders is determined based on a phase difference between the first and second signals]
to calculate a fractional wavelength delay based on the phase difference, and to calculate the distance between the range detector and the transponder based on the integer wavelength delay and the fractional wavelength delay [col 5, lines 50-60 for determining distance based on wavelengths].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the range detecting techniques, as disclosed by Pierro, further including the transponder calculations as taught by Carrender for the purpose of locating an RF transponder (Carrender, col 2, lines 35-45).
Claims 4-8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierro (US 10,591,609 B1) in view of Carrender (US 6,868,073 B1), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Tavernetti et al (US 5729143 A).
Regarding Claim 4 and 19, Pierro fails to explicitly teach the first known location and the second known location are on a property line of a property; and the at least one processor is configured to cause the range detector at least to calculate the position of the range detector as a distance from the range detector to the property line, and to provide information to a user regarding the distance calculated from the range detector to the property line through a user interface.
Tavernetti has metal detector includes a receive coil and a transmit coil connected in an inductive bridge (abstract) and teach the first known location and the second known location are on a property line of a property [col 7, lines 35-50 for scan mode the visual display LCD U2 and a frequency modulated audio output signal from speaker SPl indicate increasing signal intensity, i.e. the nearness of a metal target];
and the at least one processor is configured to cause the range detector at least to calculate the position of the range detector as a distance from the range detector to the property line, and to provide information to a user regarding the distance calculated from the range detector to the property line through a user interface [col 7, lines 40-50 for modulated audio output signal from speaker SPl indicate increasing signal intensity, i.e. the nearness of a metal target The maximum signal is indicated when the metal detector is at its closest position to the metal target].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the range detecting techniques, as disclosed by Pierro, further including the distance calculations as taught by Tavernetti for the purpose of covering maximum dynamic signal range (Tavernetti, col 7, lines 45-50).
Regarding Claim 5, Pierro fails to explicitly teach the user interface is configured to provide real-time changes to the distance calculated from the range detector to the property line when the range detector is in motion.
Tavernetti has metal detector includes a receive coil and a transmit coil connected in an inductive bridge (abstract) and teach the user interface is configured to provide real-time changes to the distance calculated from the range detector to the property line when the range detector is in motion [col 7, lines 40-50 for present metal detector is not so limited. In the scan mode the visual display LCD U2 and a frequency modulated audio output signal from speaker SPl indicate increasing signal intensity].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the range detecting techniques, as disclosed by Pierro, further including the distance calculations as taught by Tavernetti for the purpose of covering maximum dynamic signal range (Tavernetti, col 7, lines 45-50).
Regarding Claim 6, Pierro fails to explicitly teach the user interface is configured to visually display the distance calculated from the range detector to the property line.
Tavernetti has metal detector includes a receive coil and a transmit coil connected in an inductive bridge (abstract) and teach the user interface is configured to visually display the distance calculated from the range detector to the property line [col 7, lines 40-50 for present metal detector is not so limited. In the scan mode the visual display LCD U2 and a frequency modulated audio output signal from speaker SPl indicate increasing signal intensity].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the range detecting techniques, as disclosed by Pierro, further including the distance calculations as taught by Tavernetti for the purpose of covering maximum dynamic signal range (Tavernetti, col 7, lines 45-50).
Regarding Claim 7, Pierro fails to explicitly teach the user interface is configured to visually display graphical information representing a relative proximity of the range detector to the property line based on the distance calculated from the range detector to the property line.
Tavernetti has metal detector includes a receive coil and a transmit coil connected in an inductive bridge (abstract) and teach the user interface is configured to visually display graphical information representing a relative proximity of the range detector to the property line based on the distance calculated from the range detector to the property line [col 7, lines 60-65 for a maximum signal all eight LCD segments are illuminated].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the range detecting techniques, as disclosed by Pierro, further including the distance calculations as taught by Tavernetti for the purpose of covering maximum dynamic signal range (Tavernetti, col 7, lines 45-50).
Regarding Claim 8, Pierro fails to explicitly teach the user interface is configured to generate a sound that varies as the range detector moves away or toward the property line.
Tavernetti has metal detector includes a receive coil and a transmit coil connected in an inductive bridge (abstract) and teach the user interface is configured to generate a sound that varies as the range detector moves away or toward the property line [col 7, lines 35-40 for the closest position].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the range detecting techniques, as disclosed by Pierro, further including the distance calculations as taught by Tavernetti for the purpose of covering maximum dynamic signal range (Tavernetti, col 7, lines 45-50).
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierro (US 10,591,609 B1) in view of Carrender (US 6,868,073 B1) and Tavernetti et al (US 5729143 A), as applied to Claim 4 above, and further in view of Wakefield (US 2007/0224980 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Pierro fails to explicitly teach the user interface is configured to generate a vibration that varies as the range detector moves away or toward the property line.
Wakefield has methods of detecting proximity between a mobile terminal and a wireless accessory device (abstract) and teaches the user interface is configured to generate a vibration that varies as the range detector moves away or toward the property line [0022 for user interface with a vibrating mechanism configured to provide a tactile alert signal].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the range detecting techniques, as disclosed by Pierro, further including the vibration calculations as taught by Wakefield for the purpose to provide the alert signal at an increasing frequency and/or intensity over a predetermined period of time (Wakefield, 0022).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Charlot (US 5517179 A) has a batteryless, portable frequency divider, such as used in presence detection systems for article surveillance or as used for article-location determination.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMARINA MAKHDOOM whose telephone number is (703)756-1044. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Thursdays from 8:30 to 5:30 pm eastern time.
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, Resha Desai can be reached on 571-270-7792 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.
/SAMARINA MAKHDOOM/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights