Jump to content

Patent Application 18708623 - Radar System Detection Result Display Method and - Rejection

From WikiPatents

Patent Application 18708623 - Radar System Detection Result Display Method and

Title: Radar System, Detection Result Display Method, and Radar Device

Application Information

  • Invention Title: Radar System, Detection Result Display Method, and Radar Device
  • Application Number: 18708623
  • Submission Date: 2025-05-14T00:00:00.000Z
  • Effective Filing Date: 2024-05-09T00:00:00.000Z
  • Filing Date: 2024-12-26T00:00:00.000Z
  • Examiner Employee Number: 94456
  • Art Unit: 3648
  • Tech Center: 3600

Rejection Summary

  • 102 Rejections: 0
  • 103 Rejections: 2

Cited Patents

No patents were cited in this rejection.

Office Action Text


    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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP 2021-190794, filed on November 26, 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS’s) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.  Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.

Claims 1, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being obvious over Sequeira (US 20170088261 A1) in view of DeLuca (US 20180033312 A1) and Naimer (US 20040111192 A1).
As to claims 1 and 7, Sequeira discloses a radar system comprising a plurality of radar devices that detect an object by monitoring different areas (Para. 29 synthetic aperture radar (SAR) to detect survivors.  Fig. 1A shows radar equipped UAV’s 12a-b located at different angles respective of the survivors 40 thus the coverage areas would not be identical.), 
wherein each of the plurality of radar devices includes a (Para. 66 measured distance to detected survivor meets the scope of an indication.), and 
a  (Para. 67 “the first UAV 12A communicates the first UAV location 70A and survivor location 68 information to the second UAV 12B via the inter-UAV data link 44.”  The second UAV is then to determine survivor detection thus meeting scope of indication.).
 Assuming arguendo that different areas should be interpreted as separate different areas, DeLuca, in same field of endeavor, teaches “plural UAVs that are independently recording an event within an area discover one another, and a collaboration agreement between the UAVs (or between the operators of the UAVs) is established to record different portions of the event and to share those recordings with each other (Para. 11).”  In order to expedite prosecution and without admitting Sequeira teaches this feature, the Examiner will include the teachings of DeLuca.  
In view of DeLuca, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled before filing to at least initially record different portions to allow for more survivors to be found in time to be rescued because the ordinarily skilled understands that once potential survivors are found then the other drones can come to the location of survivors in order to collaborate and confirm that there are survivors thereby improving the possibility of saving more lives by having at least more initial coverage.  
Although Sequeira teaches a remote-control station 92 that has a display, see e.g., Para. 47, Sequeira does not teach the UAVs having a display.  The main issue is whether it would make sense to modify a UAV to have a display.  Applicant would argue that there would be no need because UAVs are unmanned.  However, one of ordinary skill understands that aerial vehicles often record information, such as a flight data recorder FDR, in order to study why tragic events happen.  It is possible that the SAR recordings transmitted to the remote-control station 92 could be corrupted and/or lost, damage, etc.  Thus, there would exist a need for each UAV to have its own visual recording to be studied at a later date if needed.  Moreover, one of ordinary skill could envision that manned aerial vehicles could also be used and manned aerial vehicles are known to have displays such as TCAS, weather radar, etc.  Substituting manned vehicle with unmanned vehicles is a predictable result.
In the same field of endeavor, Naimer teaches “The CPU is operatively connected to the display and alerting driver circuitry 26 which, in turn, is configured to transmit data to the flight deck display and alerting system. This may include any and all of flight deck alert, caution or warning lights, video displays whether dedicated to the flight plan intent alert system or provided for use by or shared use by other aircraft systems, such as general purpose displays, weather radar displays or other display (Para. 34).”
In view of the teachings of Naimer, it would have been the ordinarily skilled before filing to include displays in the UAVs in order to provide redundancy/backup video/images to allow for study of any recorded tragic events in order to determine better future precautions in case the remote station 92 having lost/corrupted video/images thereby reducing the risk to total loss of information.  It would also be predictable that manned aerial vehicles could be used instead of UAVs in order to reduce susceptibility of electronic failure/interference due to having a pilot having some manual control thereby reducing the likelihood of total failure.  
Claims 2 – 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Sequeira in view of DeLuca and Naimer in further view of Goossen (US 20180246200 A1).
As to claim 2, Sequeira in view of DeLuca and Naimer does not teach the radar system of claim 1, wherein the display indicating the position of the first radar device includes a display indicating a direction of the first radar device with respect to the second radar device (Seqeira Para. 39 “trilaterates”).
Although Sequeira teaches trilateration at Para. 39, Sequeira does not teach displaying direction of first device relative to second device.  
In the same field of endeavor, Goossen teaches “The system may include situation awareness for the operator via a display that allows the operator to track information such as the international civil aviation organization (ICAO) address, mode-S transponder identification (ID), position, heading, velocity, and so on (Para. 94).”
In addition to the rationale of the need for UAV having a backup video display, it would have further been obvious, in view of the teachings of Goossen, to have TCAS/mode-s displays in order to backup route and situational awareness information as well as to gather information related to any downed and/or missing UAV in event that the remote station loses or has corrupt video files thereby reducing the risk of total loss of information.  Also, if manned aircraft were used instead of UAVs then the TCAS/mode-s displays would minimize collisions thereby improving safety.  
As to claim 3, Sequeira in view of DeLuca and Naimer does not teach the radar system of claim 2, wherein the display indicating the position of the first radar device includes a display indicating a distance from the second radar device to the first radar device.
Goosen also teaches Range in Para. 94.  The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 2. 
As to claim 4, Sequeira in view of DeLuca and Naimer does not teach the radar system of claim 1, wherein the display indicating the position of the first radar device is a display indicating coordinates of the first radar device.
Position at taught by Goosen at Para. 94 is indicative of coordinate.  The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 2. 
Claims 5 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Sequeira in view of DeLuca and Naimer in further view of Breed (US 20090033540 A1).
As to claim 5, Sequeira in view of DeLuca and Naimer does not teach the radar system of claim 1, wherein the display indicating that the object has been detected is a display indicating coordinates at which the object was detected.
In the same field of endeavor, Breed teaches “A method for avoiding accidents involving a host vehicle in accordance with the invention includes determining the host vehicle's location as the host vehicle travels based on signals received from one or more satellites, receiving at the host vehicle, information directly from other vehicles indicating the locations thereof, receiving at the host vehicle, traffic information from an infrastructure-based station indicating the locations of other vehicles, and displaying images on a display visible to an occupant of the host vehicle representing a vicinity associated with the host vehicle and showing indications of the locations of the other vehicles within the vicinity derived from the information received directly from the other vehicles and the traffic information received from the infrastructure-based station (Para. 34).”
In view of Breed, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before filing, it would have been obvious to collect data for display, display for manned/unmanned vehicles for reasons discussed supra, from other devices because it is understood by the ordinarily skilled that each individual UAV may not have the full coverage as the UAVs combined thereby improving situational awareness which for a UAV could be used in case of the remote station 92 having data that is lost, damaged, corrupted, etc., therefor allowing for information to still be used post tragedy in order to increase likelihood of future tragedies.  
As to claim 6, Sequeira in view of DeLuca and Naimer does not teach the radar system of claim 1, wherein the display indicating that the object has been detected is a display in which the position of the object is superimposed on a map indicating an area monitored by the first radar device.
The modification with Breed equally applies here. 

Conclusion

Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL W JUSTICE whose telephone number is (571)270-7029. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 5:30 M-F.
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.





/MICHAEL W JUSTICE/Examiner, Art Unit 3648                                                                                                                                                                                                        


    
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
    


Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.