DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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.
Claim 4 is 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.
- there appears to be an inadvertent error in claim 4 with the mix up of the first filter and the second filter, where in lines 5-6, “in a second mode of operation, disabling the second filter and filtering the processed signal using the second filter”, it appears that “filtering the processed signal using the second filter” at line 6 is supposed to be “filtering the processed signal using the first filter” since the second filter has already been disabled in the second mode of operation based on applicant’s specification at paragraph [0053]. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Ciccarelli et al (US 2006/0,109,939; hereinafter Ciccarelli).
Regarding claim 1, Ciccarelli disclose a method comprising:
receiving a first signal (receiving a first signal from antenna 104 at RF stage 108; Fig. 1; ¶ [0024]);
processing (processing via amplifier, filter, and down-mixers circuits 108, 110, 112, 114) the first signal to generate and processed signal; providing the processed signal to a filter circuit (122, 124) (paras. [0024] - [0026]); and
adjusting (via control signal 146) a bandwidth of the filter circuit in response to the first signal satisfying a first condition to provide a filtered signal (the filter bandwidth is adjusted based on received/desired/undesired signal strength, which is indicative of the signal strength of desired signal components in the received signal, the desired signal components are in-band signal components within a selected RF channel, e.g. the filter bandwidth may be reduced if the received signal strength is below a first threshold and widened if the received signal strength exceeds a second threshold, the filter bandwidth can be adjusted based on the power regime of the received signal or received signal strength conditions such that the SNR of the filtered signals is maximized; paragraphs [0010], [0031]-[0037], [0058]).
Regarding claim 2, Ciccarelli disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising determining the first condition based on a noise estimation of the first signal (the filter bandwidth may also be adjusted based on some other criterion or a combination of criteria, such as received signal strength, undesired signal strength, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), etc. Received signal strength is indicative of the total power (i.e., signal plus noise) of the desired signal components within the RF channel of interest. SNR is indicative of the quality of the desired signal (i.e., the desired signal divided by the noise) within the RF channel of interest, SNR may be estimated, e.g., based on a received pilot signal; paras. [0035], [0037], [0039], [0058]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 3 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ciccarelli et al (US 2006/0,109,939) in view of Kim et al (US 2003/0,081,696; hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 3, Ciccarelli disclose the method of claim 2, further comprising: demodulating the filtered signal to produce a demodulated signal (¶ [0027]). Ciccarelli do not explicitly disclose determining the noise estimation based on the demodulated signal. In the same field of endeavor, Kim disclose determining the noise estimation based on the demodulated signal (¶ [0006], clm. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so in order to have improve estimation of the noise level or signal to noise ratio (Kim,
¶ [0005]).
Claim 4 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ciccarelli et al (US 2006/0,109,939) in view of Kim et al (US 2003/0,081,696) further in view of Corleto et al (US 6,192,089; hereinafter Corleto).
Regarding claim 4, Ciccarelli and Kim disclose the method of claim 3, wherein they do not disclose demodulating the filtered signal comprises demodulating the filtered signal using a frequency modulation (FM) demodulator. In the same field of endeavor, Corleto disclose demodulating the filtered signal using a frequency modulation (FM) demodulator (100) (col 4, lines 59-67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so in order to use a specific type of demodulator to generate a demodulated signal whose amplitude is proportional to the signal frequency or to digitally process the received signal (Corleto, col 4, lines 59-67).
Claim 5 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ciccarelli et al (US 2006/0,109,939) in view of Ahn (US 2002/0,067,778).
Regarding claim 5, Ciccarelli disclose the method of claim 1, wherein Ciccarelli do not explicitly disclose the filter circuit comprises a first multiplexer, and wherein adjusting the bandwidth of the filter circuit comprises providing a selection signal to the first multiplexer. In the same field of endeavor, Ahn disclose the filter circuit comprises a first multiplexer, and wherein adjusting the bandwidth of the filter circuit comprises providing a selection signal to the first multiplexer (¶ [0080]; Fig. 11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so in order to choose an optimum bandwidth value for the filter circuit from a plurality of bandwidth values in accordance with a control selection signal.
Claim 6 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ciccarelli et al (US 2006/0,109,939) in view of Ahn (US 2002/0,067,778) further in view of Tseng et al (US 2007/0,105,514; hereinafter Tseng).
Regarding claim 6, Ciccarelli and Ahn disclose the method of claim 5, wherein they do not disclose the filter circuit comprises a second multiplexer having an output coupled to an input of the first multiplexer, wherein adjusting the bandwidth of the filter circuit comprises providing the processed signal to an input of the first multiplexer. In the same field of endeavor, Tseng disclose the filter circuit comprises a second multiplexer (130) having an output coupled (via 140) to an input of the first multiplexer (150), wherein adjusting the bandwidth of the filter circuit comprises providing the processed signal to an input of the first multiplexer (150) (¶ [0014]; Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so in order to provide connection of a second switching multiplexer which selects via a selection signal one of the processed signal outputs and provide it to the next multiplexer for selecting via another selection signal one of filtered signal outputs (Tseng; ¶ [0021]).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ciccarelli et al (US 2006/0,109,939) in view of Ahn (US 2002/0,067,778) in view of Tseng et al (US 2007/0,105,514) further in view of Gnidchenko (SU SU 1529260).
Regarding claim 7, Ciccarelli, Ahn, and Tseng disclose the method of claim 6, wherein they do not disclose the filter circuit comprises first and second filters, the first filter having an output coupled to the input of the first multiplexer, and the second filter having an input coupled to the output of the first filter, and an output coupled to the input of the second multiplexer. In the same field of endeavor, Gnidchenko disclose the filter circuit comprises first filter (22) and second filter (41), the first filter (22) having an output coupled to the input of the first multiplexer (3), and the second filter (41) having an input coupled (via switch/multiplexer 3) to the output of the first filter (22), and an output coupled to the input of the second multiplexer (5) (Fig. 1; abstract; pg. 3, line 27 – pg. 4, line 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so in order to provide a filter circuit which can recognize visual images under conditions of noise by removing/filtering noise areas (Gnidchenko; abstract).
Regarding claim 8, Ciccarelli, Ahn, Tseng, and Gnidchenko disclose the method of claim 7, wherein the filter circuit comprises a third filter (2m) having an input coupled to the output of the first filter (22), and an output coupled to a second input of the first multiplexer (3) (Gnidchenko; Fig. 1; abstract; pg. 3, line 27 – pg. 4, line 7).
Claim 14 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ciccarelli et al (US 2006/0,109,939) in view of Espiau et al (US 2005/0,212,456; hereinafter Espiau).
Regarding claim 14, Ciccarelli disclose the method of claim 1, wherein Ciccarelli do not disclose the filter circuit comprises first and second filters, the method further comprising: in a first mode of operation, enabling the second filter and filtering the processed signal using the second filter; and in a second mode of operation, disabling the second filter and filtering the processed signal using the second filter. In the same field of endeavor, Espiau disclose the filter circuit comprises first and second filters, the method further comprising: in a first mode of operation, enabling the second filter and filtering the processed signal using the second filter; and in a second mode of operation, disabling the second filter and filtering the processed signal using the first filter (clm. 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so in order to switch off/on the first filter or the second filter based on the current state/mode of operation.
Claim 15 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ciccarelli et al (US 2006/0,109,939) in view of Espiau et al (US 2005/0,212,456; hereinafter Espiau) further in view of Philips (US 2008/0,045,850).
Regarding claim 15, Ciccarelli and Espiau disclose the method of claim 14, wherein they do not disclose the method further comprising periodically enabling and disabling the second filter during the second mode of operation. In the same field of endeavor, Philips disclose periodically enabling and disabling the second filter during the second mode of operation (¶ [0039]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so in order to sporadically increment or decrement the signal or value of the second filter toward a desired quiescent point (Philips; ¶ [0003]).
Claim 16 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ciccarelli et al (US 2006/0,109,939) in view of Espiau et al (US 2005/0,212,456) further in view of Chiu et al (US 7,742,751; hereinafter Chiu).
Regarding claim 16, Ciccarelli and Espiau disclose the method of claim 14, wherein they do not disclose the filter circuit has a first bandwidth during the first mode of operation, and wherein the filter circuit has a second bandwidth during the second mode of operation, wherein the second bandwidth is lower than the first bandwidth. In the same field of endeavor, Chiu disclose the filter circuit has a first bandwidth during the first mode of operation, and wherein the filter circuit has a second bandwidth during the second mode of operation, wherein the second bandwidth is lower than the first bandwidth (clm. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so in order to provide different bandwidths for the various modes of operation to achieve various results, depending upon the particular application, having a lower/narrower bandwidth in the second mode can e.g. facilitate proper filtering of the received signals, particularly where the received signals may include significant data at close to DC and having a wider bandwidth in the first mode can facilitate a variety of operations including facilitating a relatively rapid settling time for sampling purposes (Chiu; col 4, line 60 – col 5, line 19).
Claim 17 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ciccarelli et al (US 2006/0,109,939) in view of Espiau et al (US 2005/0,212,456) in view of Chiu et al (US 7,742,751; hereinafter Chiu) further in view of Cowley et al (US 2011/0,069,740; hereinafter Cowley).
Regarding claim 17, Ciccarelli, Espiau, and Chiu disclose the method of claim 16, wherein they do not explicitly disclose the first bandwidth is twice the second bandwidth. In the same field of endeavor, Cowley disclose the first bandwidth is twice the second bandwidth (clm. 14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so to switch or adjust between two bandwidths in a multi-mode receiver more quickly when the first bandwidth encompasses the second bandwidth (Cowley; abstract).
Claim 18 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ciccarelli et al (US 2006/0,109,939) in view of Espiau et al (US 2005/0,212,456) further in view of Maldonado (US 2003/0,143,950).
Regarding claim 18, Ciccarelli and Espiau disclose the method of claim 14, wherein they do not disclose the filter circuit comprises a third filter, the method further comprising: enabling the third filter during the first mode of operating; and disabling the third filter during the second mode of operation. In the same field of endeavor, Maldonado disclose the filter circuit comprises a third filter, the method further comprising: enabling the third filter during the first mode of operating; and disabling the third filter during the second mode of operation (three selectable filters in different modes are enabled one at a time in each mode; paras. [0043], [0045], [0053]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so in order to provide multiple filters in various modes where each filter can be designed with an independent charge pump current that require a related change in the respective filter bandwidth of each filter, and each filter can be enabled separately by activating the respective switch, e.g. switches S1, S2, S3, associated with the three selectable filters in the multimode radio.
Claim 19 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ciccarelli et al (US 2006/0,109,939) in view of Espiau et al (US 2005/0,212,456) further in view of Nakase et al (US 6,675,183; hereinafter Nakase).
Regarding claim 19, Ciccarelli and Espiau disclose the method of claim 14, wherein they do not disclose the first filter comprises a delay with respect to the second filter. In the same field of endeavor, Nakase disclose the first filter comprises a delay with respect to the second filter (clm. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so in order to provide a filtering circuit that can be used to process signals in a time division manner to realize a less complex digital filter and whose circuit scale is small (Nakase; abstract).
Claim 20 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ciccarelli et al (US 2006/0,109,939) in view of Lou (US 7,406,302).
Regarding claim 20, Ciccarelli disclose the method of claim 1, wherein Ciccarelli do not disclose the first signal is carried by a frequency modulated (FM) channel. In the same field of endeavor, Lou disclose the first signal is carried by a frequency modulated (FM) channel (col 3, line 63 – col 4, line 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so in order to allow the receiver to receive an FM signal from the antenna and transmit an analog signal to an FM channel select filter which filters out the desired program channel (Lou; col 3, lines 63-67).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 5, 9 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 8,805,312. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim similar subject matter as shown below.
Current application: 18/775,685
Patent No. 8,805,312
1. A method comprising: receiving a first signal; processing the first signal to generate and processed signal; providing the processed signal to a filter circuit; and adjusting a bandwidth of the filter circuit in response to the first signal satisfying a first condition to provide a filtered signal.
1. A wireless receiver comprising: a down converter module operable to deliver a signal having a signal bandwidth that changes over time; a dynamically controllable filter module having a filter bandwidth and fed by said down converter module; and a measurement module operable to at least approximately measure the signal bandwidth, said dynamically controllable filter module responsive to said measurement module to dynamically adjust the filter bandwidth to more nearly match the signal bandwidth as it changes over time, whereby output from said filter module is noise-reduced; and wherein the measurement module is operable to control the adjustment by A) an electronic estimation of audio deviation and B) at least one electronic measurement selected from the group consisting of 1) a signal level derived from said filter module, 2) a noise level derived from demodulation
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising determining the first condition based on a noise estimation of the first signal.
5. The wireless receiver claimed in claim 1 wherein said measurement module is operable to at least approximately determine whether a radio frequency signal to noise ratio (RF SNR) for a channel exceeds a predetermined level and, if so, to at least sometimes relax the filter bandwidth to a default bandwidth.
3. The method of claim 2, further comprising: demodulating the filtered signal to produce a demodulated signal; and determining the noise estimation based on the demodulated signal.
9. The wireless receiver claimed in claim 1 further comprising a demodulator fed from said filter module and operable to supply a demodulated signal, and wherein the measurement module is also operable to electronically estimate a noise level based on the demodulated signal and to control the adjustment of the filter bandwidth at least in part depending on whether the estimated noise level exceeds a threshold.
19. The method of claim 14, wherein the first filter comprises a delay with respect to the second filter.
4. The wireless receiver claimed in claim 2 wherein at least two of the channel select filters have a substantially equal delay.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-13 are 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.
Regarding claim 9, Ciccarelli, Ahn, Tseng, and Gnidchenko disclose the method of claim 8, wherein the cited prior art fails to further disclose or fairly suggest the method further comprising performing delay compensation when the processed signal is routed to the input of the second filter.
Regarding claim 10, Ciccarelli, Ahn, Tseng, and Gnidchenko disclose the method of claim 8, wherein the cited prior art fails to further disclose or fairly suggest the method further comprising: determining a first signal strength level at the output of the second filter; and determining a second signal strength level at the output of the third filter, wherein providing the selection signal comprises providing the selection signal based on a difference between the first and second signal strength levels.
Regarding claim 11, the cited prior art fails to further disclose or fairly suggest method of claim 10, wherein providing the selection signal comprises asserting the selection signal to cause propagation of the output of third stage to the output of the first multiplexer in response to the second signal strength level minus the first signal strength level exceeding a threshold.
Regarding claim 12, the cited prior art fails to further disclose or fairly suggest the method of claim 11, wherein the threshold is between 1.0 dB and 2.5 dB.
Regarding claim 13, Ciccarelli, Ahn, Tseng, and Gnidchenko disclose the method of claim 8, wherein the cited prior art fails to further disclose or fairly suggest further comprising: demodulating, using a demodulator, the output of the second filter when the selection signal has a first state; and demodulating, using the demodulator, the output of the third filter when the selection signal has a second state.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
- Haub et al (US 2013/0,102,267) disclose variable selectivity of at least one power estimation circuit using a filter with variable bandwidth, with power measurements taken using different bandwidth settings.
- Sakai (US 2013/0,122,843) disclose a receiver provided with a receiving quality signal to noise ratio (SNR) estimation unit for estimating receiving quality SNR provided with a signal and noise power estimation unit for estimating the signal power and the noise power of a known signal in a received signal.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LANA N LE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Wesley Kim, can be reached at (571) 272-7867. 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.
/LANA N LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights