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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/01/2024, 06/24/2024,
09/24/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Note
To help the reader, examiner notes in this detailed action claim language is in bold, strikethrough limitations are not explicitly taught and language added to explain a reference mapping are isolated from quotations via square brackets.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“processing module” in claim 1-8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 10, 11-12, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fite et al. (US PAT 7995676 hereinafter Fite) in view of Sullivan (US 20020025011).
Regarding claim 1, Fite teaches A signal acquisition device comprising (Abstract “The present invention relates to methods and systems for enhanced signal acquisition through cross-ambiguity function (CAF) interpolation”):
a first stage processing module configured to correlate a first set of a plurality of radio frequency (RF) signal samples to a plurality of generated tones (4:64-67 “Method 200 begins in step 204, which includes low-pass filtering and decimating a complex baseband sampled signal 202 (which initially has .gtoreq.2 complex samples/chip) to a sampling rate that is lower than 2 samples per chip to generate sampled signal 206.”), and to
output a plurality of interpolated tones (5:19-21 “In step 218, the real-valued CAF 216 is interpolated in time and frequency to generate a second more densely sampled CAF 220.”)
each having first correlation magnitudes exceeding a first threshold value (5:28-34“In step 222, a peak value is detected in the second CAF by comparing magnitudes of the second CAF samples to pre-determined detection thresholds. Details on multiple threshold peak detection and corresponding detection logic are further described below. Once samples above their corresponding thresholds have been detected, the sample corresponding to the maximum magnitude is selected”); and
wherein the second set of RF signal samples correspond to the interpolated tones (8:10-17 “Subsequently, following interpolation in step 520, step 530 includes combining the received samples in step 510 and the interpolated samples generated in step 520 to generate complex-valued samples of a second CAF surface. The second CAF surface is characterized by at least two times the number of samples in time as the first CAF surface, thereby increasing the probability of accurate peak detection in subsequent peak detection steps.”).
Fite does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Sullivan teaches
a second stage processing module configured to correlate a second set of the RF signal samples to a plurality of code signals (0019 “the Gold sequence and/or its frequency representation are stored in the memory for future operation. The FFT of the short portion of the input signal and the Gold sequence are multiplied. An inverse FFT operation is performed to convert the product to the time domain. The time domain representation is the convolution of the short portion of the input signal with the generated Gold code sequence. A magnitude calculator calculates a point-by-point magnitude of the time domain product. A peak detector determines where the peak is located. The peak represents the code phase in the short portion of the signal.”), and to
output a plurality of output tones each having second correlation magnitudes exceeding a second threshold value (0044 “A peak detector 514 determines the location of the peak by determining where a bin value exceeds a pre-determined threshold. That bin location is taken as the code phase of the received GPS signal. Interpolation techniques can be used to refine the peak location”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Sullivan with the teachings of Fite. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve a GPS operation (Sullivan 0047). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Sullivan merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular interpolation features. Since both Fite and Sullivan disclose similar interpolation processing, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 10, the cited prior art teaches The signal acquisition device of claim 1, wherein the code signals include a binary phase-shift keying (BPSK) code (Fite 1:53-56 “For certain types of signals, such as binary phase-shift keyed signals with rectangular symbols (BPSK-R), this corresponds to a sampling rate that is twice the chip rate (2 samples/chip) of the received sequence.”).
Regarding claim 11, the cited prior art teaches The signal acquisition device of claim 1, wherein one or more of the following parameters is configurable: a rate at which the RF signal samples are received, a symbol length of each of a plurality of PDI intervals, a time length of each of the PDI intervals, a maximum number of the generated tones, a frequency spacing between each of the generated tones, a maximum number of the RF signal samples in each of the PDI intervals, a maximum number of symbols in each of the PDI intervals, and a frequency spacing between each of the interpolated tones and two adjacent tones on either side of the interpolated tones (Fite 4:51-57 “The invention further exploits the fact that when the true offsets of a received signal are not aligned with samples of the CAF surface, signal power is spread among adjacent sample points” [corresponds to a frequency spacing between each of the interpolated tones and two adjacent tones on either side of the interpolated tones]).
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons. Sullivan further teaches a signal tracking circuit configured to track frequency, phase, and/or delay of each of the RF signal samples corresponding to the at least one output tone (Sullivan 0009 “First, the receiver must acquire the GPS signal's carrier frequency and Gold code phase. This is known as the acquisition mode. Second, receiver 101 must track the carrier frequency and Gold code phase using the carrier frequency and Gold code phase determined in the acquisition phase as a starting point. This is known as the tracking mode.” [corresponds to the tracking the phase]).
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claim(s) 2, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fite et al. (US PAT 7995676 hereinafter Fite) in view of Sullivan (US 20020025011) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Chu et al. (WO 2017105497 hereinafter Chu).
Regarding claim 2, the cited prior art teaches The signal acquisition device of claim 1,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Chu teaches
wherein the first stage processing module is configured to correlate the first set of the RF signal samples to the plurality of generated tones by (p.3 “The SDFT performs an M-point DFT on time samples within a sliding-window function”): subtracting, from each of a plurality of tone integrators, a pre-detection integration of a delayed sample of a first RF signal and a respective one of the generated tones (p.3 “The first delay block 102 of the comb stage 120 generates a delayed sample x.sub.n_.sub.M . The delayed sample x.sub.n_.sub.M is subtracted from the current sample x.sub.n by the first add block 104. The output of the first add block 104 is provided to the integrator stage 130.”), and adding, to each of the tone integrators, a pre-detection integration of a sample of a second RF signal sample and the respective one of the generated tones (p.3 “The first delay block 102 of the comb stage 120 generates a delayed sample x.sub.n_.sub.M . The delayed sample x.sub.n_.sub.M is subtracted from the current sample x.sub.n by the first add block 104. The output of the first add block 104 is provided to the integrator stage 130. In the integrator stage 130 at the second add block 106, the previous accumulation result .sub.n.sup.k_.sub.x is added to the current sample x.sub.n - x.sub.n_.sub.M .”), wherein the first RF signal sample occurs at a beginning of a pre-detection integration (PDI) interval window, wherein the second RF signal sample occurs at an end of the PDI interval window (p.3 “The delayed sample x.sub.n_.sub.M is subtracted from the current sample x.sub.n by the first add block 104. The output of the first add block 104 is provided to the integrator stage 130. In the integrator stage 130 at the second add block 106, the previous accumulation result .sub.n.sup.k_.sub.x is added to the current sample x.sub.n - x.sub.n_.sub.M . The multiplier 110 as a first input that receives the output of second add block 106 the output from the second add block 106 , and a second input that receives a twiddle factor W.sub.M . Multiplier 110 multiplies these two inputs to generate the weighted-sum output representing the DFT of the kt bin.”), and wherein the PDI interval window includes a plurality of consecutive PDI intervals (p.3 “The SDFT computes an M-point DFT for samples within a first window position, shifts the window by one sample, and then computes another M-point DFT for samples within the new window position. Each new DFT is efficiently computed directly from the results of the previous DFT”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Chu with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve accuracy in an inexpensive way (Chu Abstract). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Chu merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular computing features. Since the cited prior art and Chu disclose similar frequency processing systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claim(s) 3, 14, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fite et al. (US PAT 7995676 hereinafter Fite) in view of Sullivan (US 20020025011) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Letourneau (US PAT 11907326).
Regarding claim 3, the cited prior art teaches The signal acquisition device of claim 1, wherein the first stage processing module is further configured to compute the interpolated tones based on a Doppler frequency shift of at least two of the generated tones (Sullivan 0048 “It continues repeating the above process until a set of discrete carrier frequencies is tested that covers the expected Doppler uncertainty and the frequency uncertainty of oscillator used to mix the signal to baseband. Once an carrier frequency is found that causes a peak (a bin having a value greater than the pre-determined threshold), processor 310 discontinues searching for a carrier frequency and uses the carrier frequency that provides a peak.”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Sullivan with the teachings of Fite. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve a GPS operation (Sullivan 0047). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Sullivan merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular interpolation features. Since both Fite and Sullivan disclose similar interpolation processing, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Letourneau teaches
having at least two greatest correlation magnitudes exceeding the first threshold value (7:5-20 “Generating the current set of candidate support coefficients may also include obtaining several samples of the signal f(x), determining M.sub.1 frequency coefficients of a signal formed using the several samples, and including each non zero frequency coefficient from the M.sub.1 frequency coefficients as a respective candidate support coefficient in the current set of candidate support coefficients. A non-zero frequency coefficient may include a frequency coefficient having a magnitude (also called an absolute value) greater than a specified threshold value.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Letourneau with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system accuracy (Letourneau 3:35-50). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Letourneau merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular features. Since the cited prior art and Letourneau disclose similar signal acquisition systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claim(s) 4, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fite et al. (US PAT 7995676 hereinafter Fite) in view of Sullivan (US 20020025011) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Tudose (US 20130002457).
Regarding claim 4, the cited prior art teaches The signal acquisition device of claim 1,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Tudose teaches
further comprising a first-in-first-out (FIFO) buffer, wherein the FIFO buffer is configured to store the interpolated tones output by the first stage processing module (0013 “an interpolation filter for interpolating the filtered up-sampled incoming stream of data; a FIFO for storing the interpolated filtered up-sampled incoming stream of data; wherein the storing is performed at the first frequency and the reading of the FIFO is performed at the second frequency so as to output the stored data at a second corresponding rate.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Tudose with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce errors of the system (Tudose 0115). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Tudose merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular computing features. Since the cited prior art and Tudose disclose similar data interpolation processing systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claim(s) 5, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fite et al. (US PAT 7995676 hereinafter Fite) in view of Sullivan (US 20020025011) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Volpi et al. (US PAT 5347284 hereinafter Volpi).
Regarding claim 5, the cited prior art teaches The signal acquisition device of claim 1,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Volpi teaches wherein the interpolated tones are center tones, wherein the second stage processing module is further configured correlate the second set of the RF signal samples to two adjacent tones on either side of the center tones combined with the code signals, and wherein the output tones include the center tones and the two adjacent tones (10:1-6 “The search processor interpolates between these frequency bins providing bins B.sub.1, B.sub.3, B.sub.5, B.sub.7, B.sub.9 and B.sub.11. These interpolated frequency bins indicate signal power found at a center frequency which is the arithmetic mean of the center frequencies of the even frequency bins from which it was interpolated”; 7:25-31 “Then, via an eight point discrete fourier transform and adjacent doppler bin interpolation, this is converted to 13.times.8 samples in the code/frequency domain. Thus in a single search time, the receiver can determine the existence or absence of signal in many more code and doppler states than are possible with a conventional receiver.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Volpi with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve signal quality estimation (Volpi 7:65-67). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Volpi merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular computing features. Since the cited prior art and Volpi disclose similar RF systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claim(s) 6, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fite et al. (US PAT 7995676 hereinafter Fite) in view of Sullivan (US 20020025011) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Hong et al. (US 20170237521 hereinafter Hong).
Regarding claim 6, the cited prior art teaches The signal acquisition device of claim 1,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Hong teaches wherein the first stage processing module is further configured to generate a noise energy estimate based on an average correlation magnitude of each of the RF signal samples in the first set of RF signal samples, wherein the first threshold value is based at least in part on the noise energy estimate (0023 “The estimating the location of one or more peak values in the channel impulse response may include one or more of the stages of selecting a threshold value, determining one or more pairs of threshold crossing locations of the channel impulse response estimate, and generating the location estimates of the one or more peak values based on ones of corresponding one or more pairs of threshold crossing locations. The ones of the location estimates of the one or more peak values may be generated as the average of ones of the corresponding threshold crossing locations”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Hong with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously produce a low-cost processing system (Hong 0057). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Hong merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular computing features. Since the cited prior art and Hong disclose similar RF systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claim(s) 7, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fite et al. (US PAT 7995676 hereinafter Fite) in view of Sullivan (US 20020025011) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Xiong et al. (US 20180159706 hereinafter Xiong).
Regarding claim 7, the cited prior art teaches The signal acquisition device of claim 1,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Xiong teaches wherein the first stage processing module is further configured to compute the first correlation magnitudes for each of the plurality of generated tones using a coordinate rotation digital computer (CORDIC) algorithm, and wherein the second stage processing module is further configured to compute the second correlation magnitudes for each of the plurality of code signals using the CORDIC algorithm (Abstract “a digital signal arrival (DSA) detector to detect arrival of a transmitted signal. The DSA detector includes a frequency discriminator to receive a signal derived from a received RF signal to generate a first complex signal. The DSA detector further includes a correlator coupled to receive and process the first complex signal and to generate a second complex signal. The DSA detector in addition includes a Coordinate Rotation Digital Computer (Cordic) circuit to receive and process the second complex signal to generate a phase signal and a magnitude signal.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Xiong with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve the overall system (Xiong 0044). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Xiong merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular computing features. Since the cited prior art and Xiong disclose similar RF systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 7 and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fite et al. (US PAT 7995676 hereinafter Fite) in view of Sullivan (US 20020025011) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Underbrink et al. (US PAT 8593345 hereinafter Underbrink).
Regarding claim 8, the cited prior art teaches The signal acquisition device of claim 1,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Underbrink teaches wherein the first stage processing module is further configured to output a pointer to a memory where the second set of the RF signal samples corresponding to the interpolated tones are stored (75:2-7 “The sequencer begins with word 0 in a channel record and "runs" the contents. The contents of a channel record (word 0 through word N) include pointers to addresses in all of the relevant memory areas, which indicate where to get data from and where to write data.”), and wherein the second stage processing module is further configured to retrieve, from the memory, the second set of the RF signal samples based on the pointer (82:36-43 “If there is not, SW moves on to the next channel; if there is, then SS2 is initialized, including pulling data in from the channel RAM and other memory regions. FIFO1 and FIFO 2 are also initialized for the channel. SS2 is run for an adjustable number of milliseconds. If cross-correlation processing is programmed to occur, as shown at 90-2808, it is preformed once after the first run of even half chips.”; 72:38-42 “One odd PDI and one even PDI are stored per context. The peak values are updated after the even and odd PDI data is stored. The peak address locations are updated at the end of every PDI. The arrows indicate the direction in which the write pointer moves when the top of an area has been reached.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Underbrink with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve the overall system (Underbrink 2:12-23). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Underbrink merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular computing features. Since the cited prior art and Underbrink disclose similar satellite systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fite et al. (US PAT 7995676 hereinafter Fite) in view of Sullivan (US 20020025011) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Bacherov et al. (US 20210373177 hereinafter Bacherov).
Regarding claim 9, the cited prior art teaches The signal acquisition device of claim 1,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Bacherov teaches
further comprising an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) or a field-programmable gate array (FPGA), wherein a number of the generated tones is based on a clock rate of the ASIC or FPGA and a rate of the RF signal samples received by the ASIC or FPGA (0057 “One technique to compensate for the inefficiencies of FPGAs is to increase the processing clock rate. By configuring the processing clock rate to be several times faster than the GNSS signal sampling frequency, the same logic circuits (e.g., the same FPGA slices) can be reused as many times as the “processing clock rate”-to-“sampling frequency” ratio”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Bacherov with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve accuracy of the system (Bacherov 0041). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Bacherov merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular computing features. Since the cited prior art and Bacherov disclose similar satellite systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to application’s disclosure:
Nelson et al. (US PAT 5274579) discloses “digital tone detector utilizes pseudo sinusoidal quadrature reference signals in combination with a unique summation rule for summing the resultant quadrature accumulations to obtain a substantial improvement in the sidelobe responses of the filter. The digital tone detector also utilizes a "stepped" observation window to further provide a substantial improvement in the third harmonic response of the filter. The digital tone detector can be implemented using a hardware implementation, a combination hardware and microprocessor implementation, and a microprocessor only implementation. (See abstract)”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571) 272-3896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648