DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The response filed August 14, 2026 has been entered.
No claims are amendment.
Claims 1-13 are pending this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson et al (ION GNSS, 2007) in view of Guard (US 5189429 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Wilson teaches locating method of a GNSS signal jamming source, comprising [page 164, right column, last paragraph for finding DOA]:
in each of the N positions, acquiring by each antenna a GNSS signal comprising a useful signal and a jamming signal [page 167, right column, second paragraph for a creating a jamming signal that propagates in two antennas for DOA estimates];
and computing a phase shift between the jamming signals acquired [page 165, right column, last two paragraphs and equation 0.1 for getting phase difference of two antennas].
Wilson fails to explicitly teach setting in rotation two antennas about a common axis of rotation to form N different respective positions corresponding to different angles of rotation; and determining a direction of the jamming source using a maximum value of the N calculated phase shifts.
Guard determines precision azimuth angle and ± elevation angle of an emitter (abstract) and teaches setting in rotation two antennas about a common axis of rotation to form N different respective positions corresponding to different angles of rotation [col 1, lines 10-15 for determining azimuth using two rotating antennas];
and determining a direction of the jamming source using a maximum value of the N calculated phase shifts [col 1, lines 15-30 and equation 1 for identifying source direction].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the jamming direction techniques, as disclosed by Wilson, further including the angle calculations as taught by Guard for the purpose to accurately resolving measured phase ambiguities using signals received from a rotating interferometer (Guard, col 2, lines 1-10).
Regarding Claim 2 Wilson fails to explicitly teach said setting in rotation is performed by a rotating carrier, the antennas being stationary with respect to the carrier.
Guard determines precision azimuth angle and ± elevation angle of an emitter (abstract) and teaches said setting in rotation is performed by a rotating carrier, the antennas being stationary with respect to the carrier [col 1, lines 15-30 and equation 1 for identifying source direction].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the jamming direction techniques, as disclosed by Wilson, further including the angle calculations as taught by Guard for the purpose to accurately resolving measured phase ambiguities using signals received from a rotating interferometer (Guard, col 2, lines 1-10).
Regarding Claim 3 Wilson fails to explicitly teach said setting in rotation comprises setting the two antennas in a full turn.
Guard determines precision azimuth angle and ± elevation angle of an emitter (abstract) and teaches said setting in rotation comprises setting the two antennas in a full turn [col 2, lines 60-67 for getting seven measurements at 10 degree intervals].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the jamming direction techniques, as disclosed by Wilson, further including the angle calculations as taught by Guard for the purpose to performs phase measurements of signals received at antennas (Guard, col 2, lines 60-67).
Regarding Claim 4, Wilson teaches the GNSS signal acquired at each location comprises K samples of the signal [page 167, left column, first two paragraphs, and page 168, right column, second paragraph for having received signals stored].
Regarding Claim 5, Wilson teaches said computing comprises calculating a complex coefficient of cross-correlation between the samples of the acquired GNSS signals at the corresponding position [page 167, left column, first two paragraphs for using cross-correlation for a time delay, eq 0.9 and 0.10].
Regarding Claim 6, Wilson teaches said computing comprises determining each phase shift between the acquired jamming signals by the argument of the complex cross-correlation coefficient [page 167, left column, first two paragraphs for using cross-correlation for a time delay with phase difference (phase simples for samples during a sampling period)].
Regarding Claim 7, Wilson fails to explicitly teach said determining comprises determining an azimuth angle of the jamming source in a local coordinate frame associated with the two antennas, the azimuth angle being determined in a plane of rotation of the two antennas.
Guard determines precision azimuth angle and ± elevation angle of an emitter (abstract) and teaches said determining comprises determining an azimuth angle of the jamming source in a local coordinate frame associated with the two antennas, the azimuth angle being determined in a plane of rotation of the two antennas [col 2, lines 45-55 for providing signals according to azimuth].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the jamming direction techniques, as disclosed by Wilson, further including the angle calculations as taught by Guard for the purpose to performs phase measurements of signals received at antennas (Guard, col 2, lines 60-67).
Regarding Claim 8, Wilson fails to explicitly teach the azimuth angle is determined as the angle of rotation of the antennas in the respective position of the antennas corresponding to the maximum value of the calculated N phase shifts.
Guard determines precision azimuth angle and ± elevation angle of an emitter (abstract) and teaches the azimuth angle is determined as the angle of rotation of the antennas in the respective position of the antennas corresponding to the maximum value of the calculated N phase shifts [col 1, lines 15-30 and equation 1 for identifying source direction using cosine and heading].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the jamming direction techniques, as disclosed by Wilson, further including the angle calculations as taught by Guard for the purpose to performs phase measurements of signals received at antennas (Guard, col 2, lines 60-67).
Regarding Claim 9, Wilson teaches determining a direction of the jamming source in a geographic coordinate frame, from the azimuth angle of the jamming source and inertial data characterizing an angular position of the antennas in the geographic coordinate frame [page 171, right column, 2nd paragraph for using an INS based measurement with roll/pitch/velocity and a GPS receiver].
Regarding Claim 10, Wilson teaches the direction of the jamming source is specified by reiterating the method from a different geographical position of the antennas [page 172, left column first two paragraphs and figure 17 for getting the line of bearing and using two sites to calculate the DOA].
Regarding Claim 11, Wilson teaches the different geographic position is determined along the direction of the jamming source determined in a preceding iteration of
Regarding Claim 12, Wilson teaches a computer program product including software instructions which, when executed by a computer, implement method of a GNSS signal jamming source, comprising [page 164, right column, last paragraph for finding DOA]:
in each of the N positions, acquiring by each antenna a GNSS signal comprising a useful signal and a jamming signal [page 167, right column, second paragraph for a creating a jamming signal that propagates in two antennas for DOA estimates];
and computing a phase shift between the jamming signals acquired [page 165, right column, last two paragraphs and equation 0.1 for getting phase difference of two antennas].
Wilson fails to explicitly teach setting in rotation two antennas about a common axis of rotation to form N different respective positions corresponding to different angles of rotation; and determining a direction of the jamming source using a maximum value of the N calculated phase shifts [page 165, right column, last two paragraphs and equation 0.1 for getting phase difference of two antennas].
Guard determines precision azimuth angle and ± elevation angle of an emitter (abstract) and teaches setting in rotation two antennas about a common axis of rotation to form N different respective positions corresponding to different angles of rotation [col 1, lines 10-15 for determining azimuth using two rotating antennas];
and determining a direction of the jamming source using a maximum value of the N calculated phase shifts [col 1, lines 15-30 and equation 1 for identifying source direction].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the jamming direction techniques, as disclosed by Wilson, further including the angle calculations as taught by Guard for the purpose to accurately resolving measured phase ambiguities using signals received from a rotating interferometer (Guard, col 2, lines 1-10).
Regarding Claim 13, Wilson teaches a device for locating a jamming source for GNSS signals, comprising [page 164, right column, last paragraph for finding DOA]
apparatus suitable for implementing a locating method of a GNSS signal jamming source, comprising [page 164, left column, last paragraph]:
in each of the N positions [page 167, right column, second paragraph for a creating a jamming signal that propagates in two antennas for DOA estimates],
acquiring by each antenna a GNSS signal comprising a useful signal and a jamming signal [page 165, right column, last two paragraphs and equation 0.1 for getting phase difference of two antennas].
Wilson fails to explicitly teach setting in rotation two antennas about a common axis of rotation to form N different respective positions corresponding to different angles of rotation; and computing a phase shift between the jamming signals acquired; and determining a direction of the jamming source using a maximum value of the N calculated phase shifts.
Guard determines precision azimuth angle and ± elevation angle of an emitter (abstract) and teaches setting in rotation two antennas about a common axis of rotation to form N different respective positions corresponding to different angles of rotation [col 1, lines 10-15 for determining azimuth using two rotating antennas];
and determining a direction of the jamming source using a maximum value of the N calculated phase shifts [col 1, lines 15-30 and equation 1 for identifying source direction].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the jamming direction techniques, as disclosed by Wilson, further including the angle calculations as taught by Guard for the purpose to accurately resolving measured phase ambiguities using signals received from a rotating interferometer (Guard, col 2, lines 1-10).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a
general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
In applicant’s arguments page 5, last paragraph of applicant’s arguments, the applicant states that Guard does not teach using a maximum value of N phase shifts. The examiner respectfully disagrees: Guard teaches point corresponding to the group of distances having the smallest error corresponds to the azimuth angle [Guard, col 4, lines 35-45] finding the minimum error fit and finding a maximum correlation peak are functionally the same. Selecting the best fit intersection point is the point of maximum phase agreement between curves.
In applicant’s arguments page 6, last paragraph of applicant’s arguments, the applicant states that Guard does not teach maximum of measured or calculated phase shifts. The examiner respectfully disagrees: Guard teaches the azimuth angle and ± elevation angle will be identified by an intersection of the curves [col 3, lines 45-55 and figure 4], the intersection point is where curves’ phase angle values line up most closely across all N headings (maximum agreement).
In applicant’s arguments page 7, first paragraph of applicant’s arguments, the applicant states that Guard does not determine emitter direction by max value of phase shifts. The examiner respectfully disagrees: Guard uses two antennas rotated together about a common axis through multiple angle positions to measure phase difference [Guard, col 3, lines 50-55 for azimuth angle and ± elevation angle will be identified by an intersection of the curves].
In applicant’s arguments page 7, last paragraph of applicant’s arguments, the applicant states that Wilson and Guard combined do not teach determining the direction of the jamming source. The examiner respectfully disagrees: Wilson’s core phase equation is maximized in magnitude when the antenna baseline is aligned with the source [Wilson, page 165, Figure 1 and equation (0.1)]. Guard has a cone angle that ties to the larges phase value [Guard, col 3, lines 20-30 and equation (3)]. Combining Guard’s rotate and measure headings with Wilson’s phase vs angle curves covers the claim limitation.
In applicant’s arguments page 8, second paragraph of applicant’s arguments, the applicant states that Guard does not teach the limitations of claim 7. The examiner respectfully disagrees: Guard teaches possible azimuth angles of arrival and elevation angles of arrival [col 3, lines 30-40 and equation (4)] computing azimuth directly from antenna boresight at each rotation measurement.
In applicant’s arguments page 9 second paragraph of applicant’s arguments, the applicant states that Guard does not teach the limitations of claim 8. The examiner respectfully disagrees: Guard teaches point corresponding to the group of distances having the smallest error corresponds to the azimuth angle and ± elevation angle of arrival [Guard, col4, lines 35-45] stepping through each rotation angle checking phase derived curve fit, and selecting the best phase value.
The examiner acknowledges that this is a broader interpretation than Applicant’s.
However, examiners are not only allowed to apply broad interpretations, but are required to do so, as it reduces the possibility that the claims, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. MPEP §2111. Patentability is determined by the “broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification” (MPEP §2111), not the narrowest reasonable interpretation. And Applicant does not have an explicit lexicographical statement in line with MPEP §2111.01
subsection IV requiring a specific interpretation of the relevant phrases which forces the examiner to interpret them only one way.
The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
For applicant’s benefit, portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMARINA MAKHDOOM whose telephone number is (703)756-1044. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Thursdays from 8:30 to 5:30 pm eastern time.
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, Resha Desai can be reached on 571-270-7792 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.
/SAMARINA MAKHDOOM/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights