DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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.
Claim(s) 1 – 3 and 7 – 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kendall et al. (US 2022/0404273) in view of Duncan et al. (US 2014/0361922).
Regarding claim 1, Kendall et al. discloses a high-altitude, unmanned aircraft for performing synthetic- aperture radar (SAR) imaging (paragraphs [0022] and [0025]), comprising: a fuselage (130); wings (120) connected to the fuselage and for providing lift to the aircraft; one or more electrically-powered propellers (claim 7 of Kendall et al.) for providing thrust to the aircraft; a SAR payload for performing SAR imaging of the surface of the Earth when the aircraft is in flight (paragraph [0025]); solar cells (110) for generating electricity to drive the one or more electrically-powered propellers and to operate the SAR payload; and one or more batteries (220) for storing electrical energy generated by the solar cells.
Kendall et al. fails to specifically teach that the SAR payload is configured to operate within the Ka band. However, Duncan et al. discloses a SAR payload (antennae assemblies) configured to operate within the Ka band (paragraph 0077]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, with reasonable expectation of success, to utilize frequencies within the Ka band as taught by Duncan et al. in order to provide high data transfer rates, swift communication, and compact and lightweight architecture.
Regarding claim 2, Kendall et al. discloses the SAR payload is configured to be side-looking (paragraph [0026]) but does not explicitly teach a look angle of 10 degrees or greater. However, the angle shown in Kendall et al. would make it possible for a look angle of 10 degrees or greater. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a look angle of 10 degrees or greater, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 3, Kendall et al. discloses that the one or more batteries comprise lithium-ion batteries (paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 7, Kendall et al. discloses a wireless communications module for allowing the aircraft to be remotely operated using communications from a satellite or a ground control station (paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 8, Kendall et al. discloses that the aircraft further comprises one or more vertically-oriented surfaces (140); and at least one of the solar cells (paragraph [0024]) is located on the one or more vertically-oriented surfaces.
Regarding claim 9, Kendall et al. discloses that the one or more vertically- oriented surfaces (140) comprise one or more of: one or more surfaces of a tail of the aircraft (Fig. 1A; paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 10, Kendall et al. discloses that the aircraft is configured to fly at an altitude between 50,000 and 80,000 feet (paragraph [0023]).
Regarding claim 11, Kendall et al. discloses a tail connected to the fuselage, the tail comprising one or more elevators for controlling a pitch of the aircraft (paragraph [0025] and [0035]).
Regarding claim 12, Kendall et al. fails to disclose that the tail further comprises a rudder for controlling a yaw of the aircraft. Examiner takes Official Notice that rudders are well known in the field. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, with reasonable expectation of success, to include a rudder in Kendall et al. in order to better maneuver the aircraft.
Claim(s) 13, 14, and 16 – 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kendall et al. (US 2022/0404273) in view of Najafi (“Design of a High Altitude Long Endurance Solar Powered UAV”).
Regarding claim 13, Kendall et al. discloses a method of performing synthetic-aperture radar (SAR) imaging (paragraphs [0022] and [0025]), comprising: flying an unmanned aircraft over a target location on the surface of the Earth (paragraph [0025]), wherein the unmanned aircraft comprises: a fuselage (130); wings (120) connected to the fuselage and providing lift to the aircraft; one or more electrically-powered propellers (claim 7 of Kendall et al.) providing thrust to the aircraft; a SAR payload (paragraph [0025]); solar panels (110) for generating electricity to drive the one or more electrically- powered propellers and to operate the SAR payload; and one or more batteries (220) for storing electrical energy generated by the solar panels.
Kendall et al. fails to teach using the SAR payload to perform SAR imaging of the target location, wherein flying the unmanned aircraft comprises ascending the unmanned aircraft to a first altitude during the day to gain potential energy; and descending the unmanned aircraft to a second altitude, lower than the first altitude, by using the gained potential energy. However, Najafi discloses a high-altitude long endurance solar powered UAV, ascending the aircraft to a first altitude during the day to gain potential energy (page 7); and descending the unmanned aircraft to a second altitude, lower than the first altitude, by using the gained potential energy (page 7). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, with reasonable expectation of success, to include this feature taught by Najafi in Kendall et al. in order to maximize energy efficiency.
Regarding claim 14, Kendall et al. as modified by Najafi discloses that descending the unmanned aircraft to the second altitude occurs at night (page 7 of Najafi).
Regarding claim 16, Kendall et al. as modified by Najafi discloses that ascending the unmanned aircraft to the first altitude comprises: flying the aircraft at the second altitude; while flying the aircraft at the second altitude, waiting for: the batteries to be charged above a threshold; or a rate of solar power generation of the solar panels to be greater than a rate of power consumption; and once the batteries are charged above the threshold or when the rate of solar power generation of the solar panels is greater than the rate of power consumption, ascending the aircraft to the first altitude (it is inherent in Najafi that the power would need to be recharged before ascending to a first altitude).
Regarding claim 17, Kendall et al. as modified by Najafi discloses that descending the aircraft to the second altitude begins at sunset (page 7 of Najafi).
Regarding claim 18, Kendall et al. as modified by Najafi discloses that descending the aircraft to the second altitude comprises operating the propellers at a setting below a cruise power setting (inherent in Najafi).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kendall et al. (US 2022/0404273) as modified by Najafi (“Design of a High Altitude Long Endurance Solar Powered UAV”) and further in view of Duncan et al. (US 2014/0361922).
Regarding claim 15, Kendall et al. as modified by Najafi fails to teach operating the SAR payload within the Ka band. However, Duncan et al. discloses a SAR payload (antennae assemblies) configured to operate within the Ka band (paragraph 0077]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, with reasonable expectation of success, to utilize frequencies within the Ka band as taught by Duncan et al. in order to provide high data transfer rates, swift communication, and compact and lightweight architecture.
Claim(s) 4 – 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kendall et al. (US 2022/0404273) as modified by Duncan et al. (US 2014/0361922) and further in view of Suess (EP 1,241,487).
Regarding claim 4, Kendall et al. as modified by Duncan et al. fails to teach that the SAR payload comprises at least one transmitter for transmitting SAR radar waves and at least one receiver for receiving reflections of the SAR radar waves; and the at least one transmitter is provided in a module that is separate from a module in which is provided the at least one receiver. However, Suess discloses a transmit module (transmit aperture) provided separately from a receiver module (receive aperture) for receiving reflections of the SAR waves. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, with reasonable expectation of success, to modify the invention of Kendall et al. as modified by Duncan et al. with the separate transmit and receive modules of Suess in order to eliminate strong signals from bleeding into the receiver and to improve radar swath coverage.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Kendall et al. as modified by Duncan et al. and Suess fails to teach that the at least one transmitter is provided in a nose of the aircraft and wherein the at least one receiver is provided in at least one of the wings or a tail of the aircraft. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the transmitter in a nose of the aircraft and the receiver on one of the wings or tail of the aircraft, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Morris (US 7,812,758) – Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Imaging System
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VALENTINA XAVIER whose telephone number is (571)272-9853. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am - 6:30 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, Joshua Huson can be reached at (571) 270-5301. 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.
/VALENTINA XAVIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
