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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 03/12/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments for the USC § 103 rejection of claim 1, Applicant argues on pg. 7 of the Remarks,
“Dafesh's "predetermined window of time" is a signal-processing parameter that defines the averaging period for an amplitude averager circuit 213. See, e.g., Dafesh at ||157 ("Exemplary hardware implementations of amplitude averager 213 include suitably configured infinite impulse response (IIR) filters, finite impulse response (FIR) filters, and arithmetic circuits configured to calculate a weighted average of a signal over a predetermined window of time") (emphasis added). Dafesh's "predetermined window" is determined by the characteristics of the desired signal itself, specifically, the signaling rate of the desired GPS C/A code, not by any characteristic of a wireless transmitter's transmission or its transmission schedule. As Dafesh further explains, this predetermined window can be "defined to be the minimum fraction of the desired signal's symbol duration that permits adequate suppression of constant envelope interference, so as to also permit the suppression of time varying amplitudes." Dafesh, ||159. The purpose of this predetermined window is to set an appropriate temporal length for the amplitude averaging computation that feeds Dafesh's interference suppression algorithm. Importantly, the "predetermined window" has no relationship whatsoever to the activity, timing, or transmission schedule of any wireless transmitter.” (emphasis added)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The language of claim 1 doesn’t indicate that the time window is determined by a transmission schedule, timing, or a wireless transmitter by itself. Examiner understands the language of claim 1 (“identifying a time window associated with a wireless signal transmitted by a wireless transmitter”) to mean that the time window is associated with a wireless signal, and that the wireless signal is transmitted from a wireless transmitter, not that the time window is associated with the wireless transmitter itself. The language of claim 1 does not establish that the window of time is determined by a “characteristic of a wireless transmitter's transmission or its transmission schedule”. The language of claim 1 also does not include the limitation that the predetermined window is associated with the “timing” or “transmission schedule of any wireless transmitter”. Dafesh discloses a window of time associated with a signal. Dafesh does not explicitly disclose that the signal is from a wireless transmitter, but a person of ordinary skill in the art understands that in an art such as GNSS, it is reasonable to believe wireless signals come from wireless transmitters. Applicant acknowledges on pg. 7 of the Remarks that “Dafesh's "predetermined window" is determined by the characteristics of the desired signal itself”. The secondary reference Yu establishes that the wireless signal comes from a wireless transmitter. It is reasonable to believe that the “desired signal” of Dafesh is transmitted by a wireless transmitter such as the wireless transmitter of Yu. Therefore, Dafesh and Yu read onto the claim limitations of claim 1 as written.
Applicant further argues on pages 8-9 of the Remarks,
“Dafesh discloses application of amplitude-based processing, including thresholding, linear time-domain filtering, non-unity power amplitude processing, and amplitude clustering, to all samples of a received signal. See Dafesh at 128 ("the present circuits and methods can use any suitable combination of one or more of the interference reduction circuits or methods provided herein so as to provide an output that includes the desired signal with reduced contribution from the interference signal"). In contrast to the claimed features, Dafesh does not gate, condition, or temporally restrict its interference suppression operations based on any time window associated with a wireless signal transmitted by a wireless transmitter. The cited 293 describes Dafesh's ability to suppress "impulsive interference, such as non-ideal pulses (sudden spikes or dips) or pulsed interference," but this is a description of the types of interference Dafesh's system can handle, not a disclosure of conditioning mitigation on a transmitter-associated time window.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The language of claim 1 as written (“performing at least one interference mitigation action based on detecting a drop in signal amplitude”) does not include the limitation of “gate, condition, or temporally restrict its interference suppression operations”. Dafesh does disclose suppressing impulsive interference such as dips, which can be considered “at least one interference mitigation action” as written in claim 1. Therefore, Dafesh does read on this limitation of claim 1.
Regarding the stated motivation for combining Dafesh and Yu, Examiner further details the 103 analysis later in this Office Action under the 103 rejection of claim 1. As further detailed later in the Office Action, Yu provides teachings that read onto various other claims of the application as well.
For at least these reasons, Examiner is unpersuaded and maintains previous rejections corresponding to the USC § 103 rejection. Therefore, the Examiner asserts that Dafesh et al. (US 20170111069 A1) and Yu et al. (US 20230280471 A1) disclose each and every limitation of independent claim 1 as written based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1.
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 1-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dafesh et al. (US 20170111069 A1) in view of Yu et al. (US 20230280471 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Dafesh discloses [Note: what Dafesh fails to disclose is strike-through]
A method to mitigate interference in a position determination operation (see pg. 2, paragraph 0013, “Embodiments of the present invention provide circuits and methods for reducing an interference signal”), the method comprising:
obtaining one or more global navigation satellite system (GNSS) signals (see pg. 8, paragraph 0133, “Receiver 10 illustrated in FIG. 1A can include, but is not limited to, a global navigation satellite system receiver (GNSS) such as GPS, Glonass, Compass, or Galileo”);
identifying a time window associated with a wireless signal (see pg. 11, paragraph 0159, a predetermined window of time can be chosen to measure a signal); and
performing at least one interference mitigation action based on detecting a drop in signal amplitude of at least one of the one or more GNSS signals during the time window (see pg. 7, paragraph 0128, “Such circuits and methods can reduce interference based on any suitable combination of one or more of: estimating the amplitude of the interference signal; applying thresholds based on the difference between the measured amplitudes and the estimated interference amplitude” pg. 29, paragraph 0293, “the present circuits and methods further can be used to suppress interference signals having impulsive interference, such as non-ideal pulses (sudden spikes or dips) or pulsed interference”; see Fig. 2C, amplitude measurements with Thresholds 1 and 2).
Yu discloses
transmitted by a wireless transmitter (see pg. 2, paragraph 0035, “Each satellite 101 (e.g., GNSS satellite) comprises a transmitter for transmitting a desired navigation satellite signal or radio frequency signal that can be received by a receiver system 100 (e.g., GNSS receiver system or satellite navigation receiver). Meanwhile, an interfering transmitter 104 may transmit an interference signal 103”)
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 Yu into the invention of Dafesh. Both Dafesh and Yu are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose interference mitigation methods for GNSS systems. Dafesh discloses obtaining signals, identifying a time window, and performing mitigation actions; however, Dafesh fails to explicitly disclose the wireless signal coming from a wireless transmitter. This feature is disclosed by Yu where a GNSS satellite can have a transmitter that transmits signals to a receiver. Examiner uses Yu as a secondary reference for the 103 rejection of claim 1 is because Dafesh discloses receiving wireless signals and applying a predetermined time window to the analysis of the wireless signals, but fails to explicitly disclose that the signal came from a transmitter. Although a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that it is reasonable to believe a transmitted wireless signal is transmitter from a wireless receiver, Examiner chose to include the teachings of Yu to firmly establish this feature. The combination of Dafesh and Yu would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to establish a strong connection between pre-existing compatible transmitters and receivers, reducing the cost of having to manufacture new communication infrastructure. The combination would also be obvious because the combining of the interference mitigation processes of Dafesh with the common wireless infrastructure of Yu would successfully lead to signal analysis of specific moments of interference for a signal within a time window, improving signal analysis efficiency by only focusing on relevant parts of the signal instead of the entire signal as a whole.
Regarding claim 2, Dafesh further discloses
The method of claim 1, wherein identifying the time window is based, at least in part, on expecting the drop in signal amplitude to occur during the time window due to interference from the wireless signal (see pg. 11, paragraph 0159, “In some embodiments, the predetermined window of time can be defined to be the minimum fraction of the desired signal's symbol duration that permits adequate suppression of constant envelope interference, so as to also permit the suppression of time varying amplitudes”).
Regarding claim 3, Yu discloses
The method of claim 2, wherein performing the at least one interference mitigation action comprises:
identifying at least a first GNSS signal among the one or more GNSS signals that is susceptible to interference from the wireless signal over the time window during which the drop in signal amplitude of the at least one of the one or more GNSS signals is expected (see pg. 10, paragraph 0108, the algorithm can identify when a signal is affected by interference); and
performing the position determination operation based on at least one of a subset of GNSS signals that precludes the first GNSS signal (see pg. 2, paragraph 0038, device can determine position based on signals).
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 Yu into the invention of Dafesh. Dafesh teaches the limitations of claim 2; however, Dafesh fails to teach identifying a GNSS signal that is susceptible to interference over the time window, and performing a position determination operation based on a subset of signals. These features are disclosed in Yu where the mitigation module can identify when a signal is affected by interference and can determine position based on GNSS signals. The combination of Dafesh and Yu would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to identify specific moments of interference for a signal within a time window and improve signal analysis efficiency by only focusing on relevant parts of the signal instead of the entire signal as a whole, as well as applying a practical use by using the signals to determine a position of a target of interest based on the GNSS signals.
Regarding claim 4, Dafesh further discloses
The method of claim 3, wherein identifying the time window during which the drop in signal amplitude is expected to occur comprises:
obtaining information about the wireless signal from the wireless transmitter (see pg. 11, paragraph 0159, “the predetermined window of time can be defined to be a fraction or multiple of the desired signal's signaling rate, for example the C/A code chip/symbol duration of 1/1.023 MHz in the embodiments where the present circuits and methods can be used to suppress GPS C/A code interference”); and
determining the time window during which the drop in signal amplitude is expected to occur, based on at least the information about the wireless signal obtained from the wireless transmitter (see pg. 11, paragraph 0159, “the predetermined window of time can be defined to be a fraction or multiple of the desired signal's signaling rate”).
Regarding claim 5, Yu discloses
The method of claim 4, wherein the information about the wireless signal is contained in at least one of one or more messages or one or more digital signals (see pg. 13, paragraph 0133, “the civil moderate code is modulated by a navigation message that can be demodulated by civilian receivers in addition to the L1C/A navigation messages”).
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 Yu into the invention of Dafesh. Dafesh teaches the limitations of claim 4; however, Dafesh fails to teach information about the wireless signal being contained in a message or digital signal. This feature is disclosed by Yu where navigation messages can contain civil moderate code, or a PN code. The combination of Dafesh and Yu would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to identify a specific satellite or transmitter of where a signal is coming from, improving communication efficiency.
Regarding claim 6, Yu discloses
The method of claim 5, wherein the one or more digital signals comprise at least one digital signal having a pulse duration that corresponds to a duration of transmission of the wireless signal (see pg. 26, paragraph 0245, the digital signal containing PN code may also contain a “duration of period or full cycle of the PN code”).
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 Yu into the invention of Dafesh. Dafesh fails to disclose the digital signals comprising a pulse duration. This feature is disclosed by Yu where the duration of a of a cycle of the PN code may be included in a digital signal. The combination of Dafesh and Yu would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to establish the beginning, end, and duration of a transmission to make sure the transmission was complete, and if it wasn’t, to know where to look for possible interference.
Regarding claim 7, Dafesh further discloses
The method of claim 6, wherein detecting the drop in signal amplitude of the at least one of the one or more GNSS signals comprises:
monitoring a signal amplitude at a terminal of at least one component in at least one of one or more GNSS receivers, the monitoring extending over the pulse duration of the at least one digital signal (see pg. 30, paragraph 0305, the amplitude of the received signal can be monitored over N samples); and
detecting a drop in the signal amplitude below a threshold signal amplitude during one or more periods of time over the pulse duration of the at least one digital signal (see Figs. 5I and 5J, step 513 can determine a drop in amplitude; pg. 29, paragraph 0293, “the present circuits and methods further can be used to suppress interference signals having impulsive interference, such as non-ideal pulses (sudden spikes or dips) or pulsed interference”; see Fig. 2C, amplitude measurements with Thresholds 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 8, Dafesh discloses
The method of claim 7, further comprising:
stopping the at least one interference mitigation action based on the signal amplitude staying above the threshold signal amplitude during one or more other periods of time over the pulse duration of the at least one digital signal (see pgs. 23-24, paragraph 0251, “Cluster assignment circuit 522 can be configured so as to … receive via a suitable pathway the sample amplitudes from the amplitude circuit… For example, based upon the amplitude of the sample exceeding a threshold, then cluster assignment circuit 522 can be configured to discard the sample or to set the amplitude for that value to zero or other constant”).
Regarding claim 9, Dafesh further discloses
The method of claim 8, wherein the threshold signal amplitude is settable based on at least one of detecting a rate of occurrence of the signal amplitude dropping below the threshold signal amplitude, detecting a number of occurrences of the signal amplitude dropping below the threshold signal amplitude, or a desired level of interference mitigation (see pg. 13, paragraph 0173, “Threshold TH1 can be determined according to the tolerable loss, L, in signal to noise ratio”).
Regarding claim 10, Dafesh further discloses
The method of claim 8, wherein the at least one component is an amplifier configured to amplify the at least one of the one or more GNSS signals (see pg. 17, paragraph 0203, signal can be amplified by a low noise amplifier).
Regarding claim 11, Dafesh further discloses
The method of claim 8, wherein detecting the drop in signal amplitude of the at least one of the one or more GNSS signals comprises:
monitoring at least one analog-to-digital converter (ADC) in a GNSS receiver to detect an out-of-conversion-range condition (see pg. 17, paragraph 0203, the signal is “sampled by an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) and digitally converted to an in-phase (I) and quadrature (Q) baseband signal inside of the digital processor. The processor processes the in-phase and quadrature signals in a manner using a linear time domain filter in a manner such as described above with reference to FIGS. 3A-3B, so as to generate an output baseband signal with reduced interference”).
Regarding claim 13, Dafesh further discloses
The method of claim 1, wherein the wireless transmitter is included in one of a wireless wide area network (WWAN) system, an ultra-wideband (UWB) system, a radio-frequency sniffer system, a Wi-Fi system, a Bluetooth system, a near-field communications (NFC) system, or a combination thereof (see pg. 32, paragraph 0313).
Regarding claim 14, Dafesh further discloses
The method of claim 1, wherein the wireless signal comprises at least one frequency that is included in at least one of one or more L-bands of operation of one or more GNSS systems (see pg. 8, paragraph 0133, “Receiver 10 illustrated in FIG. 1A can include, but is not limited to, a global navigation satellite system receiver (GNSS) such as GPS, Glonass, Compass, or Galileo, a cellular wireless communications receiver, a WiFi, Bluetooth, or other radio frequency receiver, or a radar receiver or satellite communication system receiver”).
Regarding claims 15-20, the same cited sections and rationale for claims 1-7 are applied. The only difference between claims 1-7 and claims 15-20 is that claims 1-7 refer to a method while claims 15-20 refer to an apparatus. The examiner considers Dafesh pg. 2, paragraph 0013, “Embodiments of the present invention provide circuits and methods for reducing an interference signal” to show that the radar apparatus performs the radar method of claims 1-7.
Allowable Subject Matter
None of the prior art of record teach or suggest the subject matter of dependent claim 12. The prior art of record does not anticipate or render fairly obvious in combination to teach all of the additional limitations of the claimed invention, as best understood within the context of Applicant’s claimed invention as a whole. Accordingly, claim 12 is deemed to have allowable subject matter.
Claim 12 is 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.
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
US 20240323897 A1 (Barbu); Certain examples of the present disclosure relate to an apparatus (110) comprising means for: receiving Ultra-Wideband, UWB, Reference Signal, RS, configuration information (503), wherein the UWB RS configuration information comprises information for configuring a transmission or a reception of a UWB RS 508 by the apparatus (110) to or from at least one node of a Radio Access Network, RAN 120; and based at least in part on the received UWB RS configuration information (503), causing transmission or reception of the UWB RS 508 to or from the at least one node of the RAN 120.
US 20230261693 A1 (Dafesh); Provided herein are circuits and methods for processing samples of a received in-phase and quadrature (I/Q) domain signal that includes a desired signal and an interference signal that spectrally overlaps the desired signal. In the I/Q domain, a first contribution to the interference signal is removed from the samples using a first algorithm to generate first processed signal samples. Amplitudes and phases of the first processed signal samples are obtained. In an amplitude domain, a second contribution to the interference signal is removed from the amplitudes of the first processed signal samples using a second algorithm to generate second processed signal samples. A signal quality metric of the second processed signal samples is obtained. Based on the signal quality metric of the second processed signal samples, one or more parameters of the first or second algorithm are adjusted to improve the signal quality metric of the second processed signal samples.
US 20230062363 A1 (Golshan); Techniques for ranging for a mobile device with one or more electronic devices using communication circuitry implementing a wireless protocol can include storing a schedule for a plurality of communication sessions. The technique can include broadcasting the advertising packets during a selected number of available time slots of a second time period, the advertising packets including information about the schedule for the plurality of communication sessions. After broadcasting an advertising packet during a selected time slot, the technique can include entering a reduced power state for the communication circuitry until a subsequent advertising packet is sent or a subsequent first time period for communicating the ranging packets as specified by the schedule. The technique can include exiting the reduced power state for the communication circuitry prior to the subsequent first time period. The technique can include transmitting a ranging packet via the wireless protocol according to the schedule.
US 10838040 B2 (Jales); Techniques are disclosed for detection and ranging systems and methods to improve range resolution, target separation, and reliability. A method includes selectively attenuating a signal representing a ranging system return or echo from targets so as to suppress side lobes or other undesirable artifacts appearing in the signal due to noise, interference, and/or distortion. A method may additionally or alternatively include rejecting interference events in ranging system returns by comparing a received return with that expected from a target illuminated by the ranging system, as determined by characteristics of its particular ranging sensor, and rejecting or attenuating returns or portions of returns that fail to match those characteristics in time or space. A system configured to perform such methods and comprising a transducer/antenna, a transceiver, a controller, and/or other logic devices implementing a pulse generator, correlator, selective attenuator, comparator, buffer, subtractor, and/or output circuit is also disclosed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISABELLA A EDRADA whose telephone number is (571)272-4859. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9am-5pm ET.
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, William Kelleher can be reached at (571) 272-7753. 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.
/ISABELLA A EDRADA/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights