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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 20-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/13/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “Applicants submit that both of independent claims 1 and 20 are directed to methods of operating a wireless communication device… Applicants submit that the search and examination of all the claims may be made without serious burden…” (See Applicant’s Remarks, pages 8-9).
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant. This is not found persuasive because the argument presented by the Applicant appears to be a general statement taken from the preamble of each of the method claims. However, the differences between the Invention I of claims 1-10 and 15-19 and Invention II of claims 20-24 are specifically shown in body of independent claims 1 and 20.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/25/2023 and 08/20/2024 are considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hou et al. (US 2023/0101372; hereinafter Hou) in view of Gunasekara et al. (US 2020/0228993; hereinafter Gunasekara).
Regarding claim 1, Hou shows a method (Figures 7 and 8 shows a method performed in part by the communication device of Figure 9.) of operating a wireless communication device, the method comprising:
detecting a first signal based on an auto correlation function value of each of a plurality of sub-bands (Par. 0032, 0038; the receiver can locate time periods with the least likelihood of desired receive signals. In durations when desired receive signals are weak or not present, the receiver can compute cross correlation and autocorrelation of dual-antenna signals, given as Equations (7) and (8) wherein Equations (7) and (8) considers RAntA(n) and RAntB(n) are digitized received signals of the first antenna 112-c and the second antenna 112-d in the particular sub-band (n), respectively, J (n) is the interferer or jammer signal, S (n) is the signal of interest, and vA(n) and vB(n) are radio circuit noise attributed to the antenna 112 chains.);
determining whether the first signal is an interference signal (Par. 0033, 0039-0040; the split signals from each antenna radio chain for a given sub-band may be inputted into the blind adaptive canceller (BAC) for that sub-band. The BACs can remove common interfering/jammer signals that are present on both antennas 112.), the interference signal not being in a primary channel (Figure 1; Par. 0018-0019; interferer/jamming signal transmitted on a different link/channel instead of the tactical data links/channels 110.);
aborting a first synchronization for the first signal in response to determining the first signal is the interference signal (Par. 0033-0034, 0039-0040; removal of the interference/jammer J(n) signal based on the detection performed by the BACs.) and
performing a second synchronization according to the adjusted bandwidth (Par. 0026, 0033-0034, 0042; jammer J(n) signal occupies a certain bandwidth and removal of the jammer signal also removes the bandwidth occupied of by this signal. After the processing performed at the BACs, the processed signals are provided to a series of signal processors for further processing (e.g., demodulating and decoding an expected or desired signal).).
Hou shows all of the elements as discussed above. Hou does not specifically show adjusting a bandwidth to exclude a first sub-band among the plurality of sub-bands, the first sub-band corresponding to the interference signal to obtain an adjusted bandwidth.
However, the above-mentioned claim limitations are well-established in the art as evidenced by Gunasekara. Specifically, Gunasekara shows adjusting a bandwidth to exclude a first sub-band among the plurality of sub-bands, the first sub-band corresponding to the interference signal to obtain an adjusted bandwidth (Figure 5; Par. 0153; Per step 510, the obtained data is evaluated for potentially deleterious interference within any of the allocated sub-bands, and any allocated sub-bands with significant interference (or prospective interference) are removed from the available pool of sub-bands for use by the CBSD(s) 314 per step 512.).
In view of the above, having the system of Hou, then given the well-established teaching of Gunasekara, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hou as taught by Gunasekara, in order to provide motivation for mitigating disruptions caused by channel withdrawal, and optimizing the network across multiple bands and access technologies (Par. 0052 of Gunasekara).
Regarding claim 2, modified Hou shows obtaining the plurality of sub-bands by band-splitting an input signal (Hou: Par. 0031-0032; The pre-processors may spectrally split the incoming signals into a plurality of sub-bands (e.g., into n sub-bands, wherein n is a positive integer).).
Regarding claim 4, modified Hou shows obtaining the plurality of sub-bands by quantizing each of the band-split signals (Hou: Par. 0031-0032; The pre-processors may spectrally split the incoming signals into a plurality of sub-bands (e.g., into n sub-bands, wherein n is a positive integer). For each RF sub-band, after down conversion and signal sampling, the digital baseband signal can be expressed as discrete complex variables, as given in Equations (1) and (2).).
Regarding claim 5, modified Hou shows calculating the auto correlation function value of each of the plurality of sub-bands after the quantizing (Hou: Par. 0032, 0038; the receiver can locate time periods with the least likelihood of desired receive signals. In durations when desired receive signals are weak or not present, the receiver can compute cross correlation and autocorrelation of dual-antenna signals, given as Equations (7) and (8) wherein Equations (7) and (8) considers RAntA(n) and RAntB(n) are digitized received signals of the first antenna 112-c and the second antenna 112-d in the particular sub-band (n), respectively, J (n) is the interferer or jammer signal, S (n) is the signal of interest, and vA(n) and vB(n) are radio circuit noise attributed to the antenna 112 chains.).
Regarding claim 6, modified Hou shows wherein the detecting the first signal includes determining whether a received signal is present based on the auto correlation function value of each of the plurality of sub-bands, the auto correlation function value corresponding to, a respective auto correlation function value for each sub-band among the plurality of sub-bands (Examiner elects this claim limitation for prosecution. Hou: Par. 0032, 0038; the receiver can locate time periods with the least likelihood of desired receive signals. In durations when desired receive signals are weak or not present, the receiver can compute cross correlation and autocorrelation of dual-antenna signals, given as Equations (7) and (8) wherein Equations (7) and (8) considers RAntA(n) and RAntB(n) are digitized received signals of the first antenna 112-c and the second antenna 112-d in the particular sub-band (n), respectively, J (n) is the interferer or jammer signal, S (n) is the signal of interest, and vA(n) and vB(n) are radio circuit noise attributed to the antenna 112 chains.), or
a sum of auto correlation function values corresponding to an entirety of the plurality of sub-bands.
Regarding claim 15, Hou shows a wireless communication system (Figure 1 shows a communication system performing the method of Figures 7 and 8.), comprising:
a transmitter configured to output a signal of a wideband channel (Figure 1; Par. 0018, 0036; devices 105b-c transmitting wideband signals along tactical data link 110.);
a receiver configured to receive an input signal output from the transmitter (Figure 1; Par. 0018; device 105a receiving the wideband signals from devices 105b-c.); and
an interferer configured to output an interference signal to the receiver (Figure 1; Par. 0018-0019; device 115 transmitting an interferer/jamming signaling to device 105a.),
wherein the receiver is configured to,
detect the interference signal output from the interferer (Par. 0032, 0038; the receiver can locate time periods with the least likelihood of desired receive signals. In durations when desired receive signals are weak or not present, the receiver can compute cross correlation and autocorrelation of dual-antenna signals, given as Equations (7) and (8) wherein Equations (7) and (8) considers RAntA(n) and RAntB(n) are digitized received signals of the first antenna 112-c and the second antenna 112-d in the particular sub-band (n), respectively, J (n) is the interferer or jammer signal, S (n) is the signal of interest, and vA(n) and vB(n) are radio circuit noise attributed to the antenna 112 chains.), and
receive and synchronize the input signal in the adjusted bandwidth (Par. 0026, 0033-0034, 0042; jammer J(n) signal occupies a certain bandwidth and removal of the jammer signal also removes the bandwidth occupied of by this signal. After the processing performed at the BACs, the processed signals are provided to a series of signal processors for further processing (e.g., demodulating and decoding an expected or desired signal).).
Hou shows all of the elements as discussed above. Hou does not specifically show dynamically adjust a bandwidth to exclude a sub-band corresponding to the interference signal.
However, the above-mentioned claim limitations are well-established in the art as evidenced by Gunasekara. Specifically, Gunasekara shows dynamically adjust a bandwidth to exclude a sub-band corresponding to the interference signal (Figure 5; Par. 0153; Per step 510, the obtained data is evaluated for potentially deleterious interference within any of the allocated sub-bands, and any allocated sub-bands with significant interference (or prospective interference) are removed from the available pool of sub-bands for use by the CBSD(s) 314 per step 512.).
In view of the above, having the system of Hou, then given the well-established teaching of Gunasekara, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hou as taught by Gunasekara, in order to provide motivation for mitigating disruptions caused by channel withdrawal, and optimizing the network across multiple bands and access technologies (Par. 0052 of Gunasekara).
Regarding claim 16, modified Hou shows wherein the receiver is configured to:
detect the interference signal of an auxiliary channel, the auxiliary channel not including a primary channel (Hou: Figure 1; Par. 0018-0019; interferer/jamming signal transmitted on a different link/channel instead of the tactical data links/channels 110.), and
abort a process of receiving the interference signal in response to detecting the interference signal of the auxiliary channel (Hou: Par. 0033-0034, 0039-0040; removal of the interference/jammer J(n) signal based on the detection performed by the BACs.).
Regarding claim 17, modified Hou shows wherein the receiver is configured to receive the input signal from the transmitter through a primary channel (Hou: Figure 1; Par. 0018, 0036; devices 105b-c transmitting wideband signals along tactical data link 110.).
Regarding claim 18, modified Hou shows wherein the receiver is configured to skip a synchronization procedure in response to determining the interference signal is a false detection signal appearing due to interference (Hou: Par. 0033, 0039-0040; the split signals from each antenna radio chain for a given sub-band may be inputted into the blind adaptive canceller (BAC) for that sub-band. The BACs can remove common interfering/jammer signals that are present on both antennas 112.), the interference signal not being in a primary channel (Figure 1; Par. 0018-0019; interferer/jamming signal transmitted on a different link/channel instead of the tactical data links/channels 110.).
Regarding claim 19, modified Hou shows wherein the input signal includes a valid signal in both a primary channel and at least one auxiliary channel (Hou: Figures 7-8; Par. 0032, 0038; the receiver can locate time periods with the least likelihood of desired receive signals. In durations when desired receive signals are weak or not present, the receiver can compute cross correlation and autocorrelation of dual-antenna signals, given as Equations (7) and (8) wherein Equations (7) and (8) considers RAntA(n) and RAntB(n) are digitized received signals of the first antenna 112-c and the second antenna 112-d in the particular sub-band (n), respectively, J (n) is the interferer or jammer signal, S (n) is the signal of interest, and vA(n) and vB(n) are radio circuit noise attributed to the antenna 112 chains.).
Modified Hou shows all of the elements except wherein the input signal is a wireless local area network (WLAN) signal.
However, the above-mentioned claim limitations are well-established in the art as also evidenced by Gunasekara. Specifically, Gunasekara shows wherein the input signal is a wireless local area network (WLAN) signal (Figure 3B; Par. 0124.).
In view of the above, having the system of Hou, then given the well-established teaching of Gunasekara, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hou as taught by Gunasekara, in order to provide motivation for mitigating disruptions caused by channel withdrawal, and optimizing the network across multiple bands and access technologies (Par. 0052 of Gunasekara).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hou in view of Gunasekara and Hohne et al. (US 2021/0329565; hereinafter Hohne).
Regarding claim 3, modified Hou shows all of the elements including wherein the band-splitting includes splitting the input signal into sub-bands. Modified Hou does not specifically show sub-bands of 20MHz.
However, the above-mentioned claim limitations are well-established in the art as evidenced by Hohne. Specifically, Hohne shows sub-bands of 20MHz (Figure 2).
In view of the above, having the system of Hou, then given the well-established teaching of Hohne, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hou as taught by Hohne, in order to provide motivation to increase the robustness of the signal and aid the intended receiver combat potential adjacent sub-band interference (Par. 0051 of Hohne).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hou in view of Gunasekara and Liu et al. (US 2021/0075579; hereinafter Liu).
Regarding claim 7, modified Hou shows all of the elements except setting a recovery timer to a first period of time for at which to recover the first sub-band.
However, the above-mentioned claim limitations are well-established in the art as evidenced by Liu. Specifically, Liu shows setting a recovery timer to a first period of time for at which to recover the first sub-band (Figure 13; Par. 0137-0139; the UE performs a BWP hopping freeze in a current subband (e.g., the subband 310.sub.S2) without hopping to a next BWP hop according to a frequency hopping pattern (e.g., the frequency hopping patter 604 or 804). The avoidance is due to interference in the subband. At step 1320, the UE starts a timer to monitor whether the UE receives any communication (e.g., DCI) from the BS in the current subband. If at step 1340, the timer expires and the UE hasn't receive any DCI successfully from the BS, the UE may resume the BWP hopping.).
In view of the above, having the system of Hou, then given the well-established teaching of Liu, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hou as taught by Liu, in order to provide motivation to avoid being stuck in a subband when the subband is impacted by interference (Par. 0041 of Liu).
Claim(s) 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hou in view of Gunasekara and Every et al. (US 2012/0027218; hereinafter Every).
Regarding claim 8, modified Hou shows all of the elements except setting an automatic gain control in response to determining the first signal is not the interference signal.
However, the above-mentioned claim limitations are well-established in the art as evidenced by Every. Specifically, Every shows setting an automatic gain control in response to determining the first signal is not the interference signal (Figure 4; Par. 0069; A time domain signal is reconstructed from sub-band signals at step 445. The time band signal may be reconstructed by applying a series of delays and complex multiply operations to the sub-band signals by reconstructor module 314. Post processing may then be performed on the reconstructed time domain signal at step 450. The post processing may be performed by a post processor and may include applying an output limiter to the reconstructed signal, applying an automatic gain control, and other post-processing. The reconstructed output signal may then be output at step 455.).
In view of the above, having the system of Hou, then given the well-established teaching of Every, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hou as taught by Every, in order to provide motivation to provide a "perceptually optimal" amount of noise suppression based upon the characteristics of the noise and use case (Par. 0016 of Every).
Regarding claim 9, modified Hou shows performing the first synchronization after the setting the automatic gain control (Every: Figure 4; Par. 0069; A time domain signal is reconstructed from sub-band signals at step 445. The time band signal may be reconstructed by applying a series of delays and complex multiply operations to the sub-band signals by reconstructor module 314. Post processing may then be performed on the reconstructed time domain signal at step 450. The post processing may be performed by a post processor and may include applying an output limiter to the reconstructed signal, applying an automatic gain control, and other post-processing. The reconstructed output signal may then be output at step 455.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 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.
Examiner submits that none of the prior art references cited in this action teaches the claimed subject matter as specifically presented in the above dependent claim. Examiner submits that the allowance of this application is based on an examination wherein the claim limitations recited in the dependent claims were not taken alone but in view of the scope of the claim(s) as a whole including any proceeding and/or preceding claim limitation(s) present within the claims and by their respective dependencies on other claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20220385512 A1 - The present disclosure relates to reference signal design methods and devices. In one example method, a first communication device obtains at least one sequence from a subset of sequences in a set of sequences and obtains at least one reference signal based on the obtained at least one sequence.
US 20210258029 A1 - There is provided a mitigation module for mitigating interference complementing a receiver of a wireless network.
US 20180233158 A1 - A method for reducing noise within an acoustic signal includes receiving at least a primary acoustic signal from a primary microphone and a secondary acoustic signal from a different, secondary microphone, wherein the primary acoustic signal includes a speech component emanating from a user and a noise component.
US 9778367 B2 - An anti-jamming apparatus and method for a compact array antenna are provided.
US 20150215017 A1 - The method for cancelling interference, performed by a User Equipment (UE) includes receiving interference transmission layer restriction information about a neighbor Base Station (BS) transmitting an interference signal or information about the number of antenna ports used in transmitting the interference signal by the neighbor BS.
US 8958572 B1 - Null processing noise subtraction is performed per sub-band and time frame for acoustic signals received from multiple microphones.
US 20100303182 A1 - Certain disclosed embodiments pertain to suppressing interference in a wireless communication system. For example, a method of suppressing interference can include receiving one or more first signals including components from a plurality of sub-channels.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REDENTOR M PASIA whose telephone number is (571)272-9745. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Thursdays - 5am-245pm and Fridays 5am-330pm.
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, Un Cho can be reached at (571)272-7919. 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.
/REDENTOR PASIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2413