DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/19/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Um” should be defines as “eigenvector”, and “[0; 2π[“ should be “[0; 2π]”. 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 11-20 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.
Regarding claims 11-20, the phrase "possibly" in claim 11, line 4, renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention or just an optional, non-binding possibility.
Regarding claims 11-20, "H" in claim 11, line 9, is not defined renders the claims indefinite.
Claims 11-20 recite the limitation "the number of samples" in claim 11, line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 11-20 recite the limitation "the number of antennas" in claim 11, line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 11-20 recite the limitation "the eigenvalues" and "the useful" in claim 11, line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 11-20 recite the limitation "the presence" in claim 11, line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 11-20 recite the limitation "the noise subspace" and "the noise space" in claim 11, line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 12, 14 and 15, the phrase "preferably" in claim 12, line 4, renders the claims indefinite because it fails to clearly define the boundaries of the invention.
Claims 14 and 15 recite the limitation "the B directions" in claim 14, line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 17-19, the phrase "making it possible" in claim 17, lines 3 and 4, renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention or just an optional, non-binding possibility.
Claims 17-19 recite the limitation "the thus detected directions" in claim 17, lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 18, the phrase "making it possible" in claim 18, line 2, renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention or just an optional, non-binding possibility.
Regarding claim 19, the phrase "making it possible" in claim 19, lines 2 and 3, renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention or just an optional, non-binding possibility.
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) 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson et al. (“Flexible GPS Receiver for Jammer Detection, Characterization and Mitigation using a 3D CRPA”, ION GNSS 19th International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division, September 26-29, 2006, pages 189-200).
In view of the 112, 2nd paragraph rejection above, the claims are broadest reasonable interpreted by the examiner, and the following rejection.
Regarding claim 11, Wilson et al. disclose a method for processing a radio navigation signal coming from a satellite received by a radio navigation receiver comprising several receiving antennas, each antenna being configured to receive signals coming from a satellite of interest, of at least one jammer and possibly at least another satellite in given directions (see abstract, page 189), the method comprising steps of: detecting from the signal received by each antenna, at least one direction of a jamming signal (Detecting Interference DOA section, page 191); attenuating the detected jamming signal in the detected direction (Mitigation Interferences section, page 192; and Nuller/Beamformer Module section, page 195); wherein detecting the direction of a jamming signal comprises the steps of: determining a covariance matrix function of the signals received by each antenna; carrying out a singular value decomposition of the covariance matrix (MUSIC Algorithm section , page 191); comparing the eigenvalues together so as to detect the presence of at least one jammer (MUSIC Algorithm section , page 191); determining an indicator function of a direction of arrival θ comprised between [0; 2π], the indicator being a function of a scalar between a spatial signature model of a jammer S(θ) and UHM which corresponds to the noise subspace of the noise space resulting from the decomposition, UHM and S(θ) being orthogonal for a jammer in the direction θ (MUSIC Algorithm section , page 191); a jammer being present in the direction θ for which the indicator is lower than a given threshold (MUSIC Algorithm section , page 191). Wilson et al. do not explicitly disclose the formulas for the covariance matrix function and singular value decomposition (SVC) of the covariance matrix as specified in the claim. However, Wilson et al. disclose obtaining a data matrix, calculating and using the SVC of the data matrix, partition eigenvector subspace into two orthogonal subspaces to determine direction of the jamming signal (see MUSIC Algorithm section, page 191). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the formulas to of the covariance matrix function and the SVC to the method of Wilson et al. as system design preference for serving the same function as to obtain the data matrix and determine the SVC for detecting direction of jamming signal.
Regarding claim 20, Wilson et al. disclose a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing code instructions for implementing a method according to claim 11 (see the rejection of claim 11 above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cookman et al. (US 2023/035272 A1) disclose a jamming signal detection control method includes: receiving, at a satellite positioning signal receiver, one or more satellite positioning signals; determining, at the satellite positioning signal receiver, one or more quality metric values based on the one or more satellite positioning signals; determining, at the satellite positioning signal receiver, whether the one or more quality metric values are indicative of jamming; and activating, at the satellite positioning signal receiver and in response to the one or more quality metric values being indicative of jamming, a jammer detection technique to determine whether a jamming signal is received by the satellite positioning signal receiver.
Velicer et al. (US 7,233,284 B2) teach a handheld GPS jammer locator for locating a GPS jamming signal generated by a jammer; the handheld GPS jammer locator has two modes of operation, a amplitude mode and a difference finding mode; the amplitude measures the strength of an incoming GPS jamming signal and the difference finding mode determines the direction of the incoming jamming signal.
Revol (US 10,330,791 B2) discloses a method for locating a jamming source based on detected powers received by at least one receiver of signals from the satellite navigation system on board a carrier, by estimation, for each satellite, of the power of the noise at the output of each receiver according to the bearing and distance with respect to the carrier, a calculation of the sum of estimated powers, and extraction of the local maxima in terms of bearing and distance by using a synthetic aperture antenna carrying out a coherent integration of received signals in the direction of each bearing angle by using the known movement of the carrier, in which estimation of the power of the noise at the output of each receiver uses a plurality of coherent integrators and non-coherent integrators, with durations matched to the transit time of a source in the beam of the antenna for various distances for the non-coherent integrators.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUOCHIEN B VUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-7902. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-06:00PM M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ANTHONY ADDY can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.
/QUOCHIEN B VUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights