DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the application and preliminary amendment filed on 21 December 2023.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The amended element of “A Frequency Lock Loop (FFL)” and instead of FLL. 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 1, 12 are 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 12 recites the limitation of "the reset event" in claim 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in claim 12.
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)(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.
Claims 1-6, 10-12, 13, 14, 15-16, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al. US 2014/0106697 A1.
As to claim 1, Wang discloses substantially the invention as claimed, including an adaptive filter device (Figure 9, the interference wave signal remover 50B) comprising:
a detector circuit (Figure 9, the local frequency scanner 54);
a delay circuit (Figure 9, the demultiplexer 552 introduces a delay which is a parameter chosen by the circuit designer);
a tracker circuit (Figure 9, the controller 51B); and
a notch filter circuit (Figure 9, the notch filters 521-523);
the detector circuit configured to receive an input signal (Sin) (Figures 1, 9, the input signal (Si)), to detect a presence of a sweeping interference (Ssw) (the interference wave signal) in the input signal, and upon detection of such sweeping interference to provide a first trigger signal (T1) (output from the frequency analyzer) to the delay circuit (Figure 9, the demultiplexer 552), wherein the first trigger signal (T1) comprises a first frequency indication (f1),
the delay circuit (the demultiplexer introduces a delay, which is a parameter that is chosen by the circuit designer) configured, upon receiving the first trigger signal (T1) (output from the frequency analyzer), to provide a second trigger signal (T2) to the tracker circuit after an adjustable amount of time, the second trigger signal (T2) having a second frequency indication (f2), which is derived from the first frequency indication (f1) (Figure 9, and associated paragraphs [112]-[116], the demultiplexer 552 performs a switch operation to output the integrating result of each local scan frequency BIN to a setting of the controller 51 module of the controller 51B for the notch filter 522),
the tracker circuit configured, upon receiving the second trigger signal (T2), to estimate a frequency of the sweeping interference using the second frequency indication (f2) (Figure 9, (Scn1 – Scn3)), “The controller 51B tracks the frequency of the interference wave signal by using the frequency scanning result of the interference wave signal in the narrow frequency band (local frequency band) containing the attenuation frequency band of the notch filter”, [22]), to track the estimated frequency and provide the estimated frequency as a third frequency indication (f3) to the notch filter circuit (Figure 9, the notch filters 521-523), and
the notch filter circuit configured to substantially eliminate (to remove) the sweeping interference from the input signal (Sin) (Figure 9, the input signal (Si)) using the third frequency indication (f3) (frequency output from the controller 51B) and therefrom provide an output signal (Sout) (Figure 9, the output signal So).
As to claim 2, Wang discloses, wherein the sweeping interference is represented by an interference signal (Ssw) (the interference wave signal) which comprises a sweeping frequency which increases or decreases, the interference signal (Ssw) being comprised by the input signal (Sin) (Figures 3, 9 and associated paragraphs).
As to claim 3, Wang discloses, wherein the delay circuit is further configured to initialize the tracker circuit during the adjustable amount of time (Figures 3, 9 and associated paragraphs).
As to claim 4, Wang discloses, wherein the adjustable amount of time is realized as a pre-defined amount of time (scanning time period) or is adjusted depending on at least a computation and delay time needed by the tracker circuit (Figures 3, 9 and associated paragraphs).
As to claim 5, Wang discloses, wherein the detector circuit comprises a number of low-pass filters (Figure 5, LPF 502), which are jointly covering the spectrum of the input signal (Sin) and are configured to scan the spectrum of the input signal (Sin) in order to detect the presence of the sweeping interference, wherein the detector circuit further comprises a detection circuit being coupled downstream of the filters, wherein the detection circuit is configured to detect a speed of change of the sweeping interference (Figures 3, 9 and associated paragraph, [34], [81], [118], [126]).
As to claim 6, Wang discloses, wherein a frequency of a specific filter of the number of low-pass filters (Figure 5, LPF 502 in notch filter 52 and in Notch filters 521, 522, 523 in Figures 8, 9, [63]-[65]), which detects the presence of the sweeping interference, together with an output of the detection circuit are used as the first frequency indication (f1) (Figures 3, 9 and associated paragraphs).
As to claim 10, Wang discloses, a detector delay circuit configured to delay the input signal (Sin) according to a detector processing time needed by the detector circuit and to provide a signal resulting therefrom as a first delayed input signal (Sin1) to the tracker circuit (Figures 3, 9, and associated paragraphs).
As to claim 11, Wang discloses, a tracker delay circuit which is configured to delay the first delayed input signal (Sin1) according to the computation and delay time needed by the tracker circuit and to provide a signal resulting therefrom as a second delayed input signal (Sin2) to the notch filter circuit, wherein the first delayed input signal (Sin1) is a delayed version of the input signal (Sin) (Figures 3, 9, and associated paragraphs).
As to claim 12, Wang discloses, a delay control circuit which is coupled between the detector circuit and the delay circuit, wherein the delay control circuit is configured to adjust the adjustable amount of time used in the delay circuit in dependence on a relationship between a frequency of the sweeping interference and a frequency of a wanted signal and in dependence on a presence of the reset event within the sweeping interference, wherein the sweeping interference and the wanted signal are both comprised by the input signal (Sin ) (Figures 3, 9, and associated paragraphs).
Claims 13 corresponds to the GNSS receiver claim of the adaptive filter device claim 1, wherein the adaptive filter device included in the GHSS receiver; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as in the adaptive filter device 1 shown above.
Claims 15-16 have similar limitations of claims 5-6; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale as in claims 5-10 shown above.
Claims 14 corresponds to the method claim of the adaptive filter device claim 1; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as in the adaptive filter device 1 shown above.
Claim 20 has similar limitation of claim 10; therefore, it rejected under the same rationale as in claim 10 above.
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.
Claims 7-9, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of HUDSON US 2018/0013514 A1.
As to claim 7, Wang does not explicitly disclose, “wherein the tracker circuit is realized as a frequency locked loop (FFL), configured to receive the input signal (Sin) or a delayed version thereof (Sin1), the FLL is further configured according to the second frequency indication (f2) and operation of the FLL is started upon receiving the second trigger signal (T2)”.
HUDSON discloses in Figure 1 and [25]-[31] that, “[31] The mixer 140, correlating unit 150, code tracking loop 165, and carrier tracking loop 185 operate together to synchronize the receiver with the signal output from the signal condition 130. The code tracking loop 165 includes a code tracking unit 170, a pseudo random-noise (PRN) generator unit 180, and the correlator 150 to enable extracting the broadcast message from the GPS signals. The code tracking unit 170 can implement a delay lock for following the code delay of the received RF signal enabling calculation of a pseudorange. The carrier tracking loop includes the mixer 140, the correlator unit 150, and a carrier tracking unit 190. The carrier tracking unit 190 uses a phase or frequency lock loop for tracking a carrier phase the carrier frequency of the received RF signal”.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the wireless communication art before the effective filing date of the claimed to have modified HUDSON’s teachings of the FLL with the teachings of Wang’s, for the purpose of tracking a carrier phase the carrier frequency of the received RF signal (HUDSON, [31]).
As to claim 8, Wang does not explicitly disclose, “wherein the notch filter circuit comprises a Finite Impulse Response (FIR) filter, which is configured to receive the input signal (Sin) or a delayed version thereof (Sin2), the FIR filter being further configured to filter the input signal (Sin) or its delayed version (Sin2) according to the third frequency indication (f3)”
HUDSON discloses in paragraph [4] that, “[4] Known systems describe an approach for suppressing jamming signals using spatial nulling. The system includes a plurality of channels for receiving signals from GPS satellites. Each channel includes an antenna element, receiver, digitizer, and an adaptive notch filter. The notch filters provide outputs to one or plural spatial combiners. Temporal filters are arranged upstream of the spatial combiner so that narrowband jamming signals can be suppressed. Suppression is achieved using adaptive FIR filters that attenuate narrowband jamming signals up to 60 to 80 dB. The GPS signals within the received signals are undistorted, which allows them to be acquired and tracked by the receiver”.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the wireless communication art before the effective filing date of the claimed to have modified HUDSON’s teachings of the adaptive FIR device with the teachings of Wang’s, for the purpose of suppressing the narrowband jamming signals (HUDSON, [4]).
As to claim 9, Wang does not explicitly disclose, “wherein the input signal (Sin) and the output signal (Sout) each comprise a number of samples corresponding to a radio frequency signal, each sample comprising an in-phase value I and a quadrature value Q, forming an I/Q-sample”.
HUDSON discloses in Figures 1, 2 and [36] that, “[36] Because the signal output from the FFT 210 includes in-phase (I) and quadrature-phase (Q) components, the filter bank 220 can be configured to include multiple filter banks, each configured to process one of the I and Q components output from the FFT 210”.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the wireless communication art before the effective filing date of the claimed to have modified HUDSON’s teachings of the I and Q components with the teachings of Wang’s, for the purpose of providing the filter bank 220 to include multiple banks and each processing the I and Q components (HUDSON, [36]).
Claims 17-19 have similar limitations of claims 7-9; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale as in claims 7-9 shown above.
The prior art cited in this Office action are: Wang et al. US 2014/0106697 A1 and HUDSON US 2018/0013514 A1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAI V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3901. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:00AM -3:30PM.
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, Kevin Pan can be reached at 571-272-7855. 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.
/HAI V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649