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(s) (IDS) submitted on 12/30/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 and 6 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, the phrase “the correlators of each group of isolated correlators being leading or lagging the corresponding correlators of the tracking group of an integer number of chips” should be “the correlators of each group of isolated correlators by an integer number of chips”
In Claim 6, the phrase “the indices of the group” should be “the indices of the groups”
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, and 9-10 is/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 Claim 1, the claim recites the limitation “k groups” of isolated correlators without defining k. It is unclear whether k may be 1 or 2. The claim later recites determining a “plurality” of phase shifts between the punctual correlators of the isolated correlators which suggests that k must be at least 3.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites the limitation “the consecutive groups of isolated correlators.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is also unclear whether “consecutive” means that the groups are merely adjacent to each other, or that the groups are successively offset by an integer number of chips. For examination purposes, the limitation is interpreted as meaning the groups are ordered by chip offset, and that “consecutive groups” refers to neighboring groups in the ordering.
Regarding Claim 2, the claim recites the limitation “the distance according to the likelihood criterion.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is also unclear what it means for a “distance” to be “according to a likelihood criterion.”
Regarding Claim 2, the claim recites the limitation “the phase shifts.” It is unclear if this limitation refers to only the consecutive phase shifts, or both the consecutive phase shifts and the mean phase shift. For examination purposes, the limitation is interpreted as including both the consecutive phase shifts and the mean phase shift.
Regarding Claim 3, the claim recites the limitation “the groups of isolated correlators are selected so as to be consecutive to each integer number of chips.” It is unclear how a group of correlators can be “consecutive to” a number, and it is unclear whether “consecutive” means that the groups are merely adjacent to each other, or that the groups are successively offset by an integer number of chips. For examination purposes, the limitation is interpreted as requiring the k groups to be successively offset from the tracking group by an integer number of chirps.
Regarding Claim 6, the claim recites the limitation(s) “corresponding correlators.” It is unclear what “corresponding” refers to. For examination purposes, the limitation is interpreted as referring to the pairs of consecutive groups recited earlier in the claim.
Regarding Claim 6, the denominator of the equation,
Z
P
j
×
P
j
, is not explicitly defined. For examination purposes,
Z
P
j
×
P
j
is interpreted as
Z
P
j
×
P
j
=
Z
P
j
∙
c
o
n
j
(
Z
P
j
)
.
Regarding Claim 9, the claim recites the limitations “a fractional part thereof” and “an integer part thereof.” It is unclear whether “thereof” refers to the frequency or the interfering signal. For examination purposes, “thereof” is interpreted as referring to the frequency.
Regarding Claim 10, the claim recites the limitation “correcting the correlators of the group of tracking correlators.” It is unclear whether “correcting the correlators” requires modifying correlator devices, correlation values, the phase shifts, or something else. For examination purposes, the limitation is interpreted as correcting correlation values output by the tracking correlators.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US 7,764,224) in view of Lennen (US 2009/0323780) and Revol (US 2015/0116149).
Regarding Claim 1, Anderson teaches:
A detection method for detecting a … interfering signal in a GNSS receiver, the method being implemented during a tracking phase of a satellite ([col. 4, lines 49-50]: “tracking of a true signal along with spoofer signal tracking”) and comprising:
calculating a group of tracking correlators over a predetermined integration interval, the group of tracking correlators comprising a punctual correlator and at least one offset correlator ([col. 6, lines 16-19]: “the early, prompt, and late correlator taps of the primary channel … such correlator taps are used conventionally to track a GPS signal”);
calculating k groups of isolated correlators over the integration interval, each group of isolated correlators being composed of the same number and same types of correlators as the group of tracking correlators, the correlators of each group of isolated correlators being leading or lagging the corresponding correlators of the tracking group … ([col. 6, lines 19-20]: “One or more utility channels are added to the primary channel”; [col. 12, lines 12-15]: “As with the primary channel 630, and with similar functionality, each utility channel has … a correlator 690, which is a 6 tap correlator”);
determining a plurality of … phase shifts … using the punctual correlators of the consecutive groups of isolated correlators ([col. 5, lines 60-61]: “The correlator is one example of hardware that can be used to measure a signal’s phase”; [col. 7, lines 50-51]: “spoofer tracking directly measures the phase difference between the signals.”);
… and
detecting an interfering signal by applying a likelihood criterion … ([col. 8, lines 64-66]: “mathematically compute confidence levels for each combination of signals to determine which set is statistically most likely to be the direct signals”).
Anderson does not explicitly teach:
the interfering signal being a continuous wave interfering signal;
the correlators of each group of isolated correlators leading or lagging the corresponding correlators of the tracking group by an integer number of chips;
determining a plurality of consecutive phase shifts between the punctual correlators of the consecutive groups of isolated correlators;
estimating a mean phase shift between the correlators inside the groups of isolated correlators by making use of the punctual correlators and the offset correlators of these groups; or
detecting an interfering signal by applying a likelihood criterion between the consecutive phase shifts and the estimated mean phase shift.
However, Lennen is in the field of GPS interference mitigation (Lennen [Abstract]) and teaches:
the interfering signal being a continuous wave interfering signal (Lennen [0006]: “One common type of narrowband interference is continuous wave carrier (CW) interference.”; [0034]); and
the correlators of each group of isolated correlators leading or lagging the corresponding correlators of the tracking group by an integer number of chips (Lennen [0041]: “The code phases chosen for CW estimation are preferably ≧1 chip from the estimated signal peak”; “choosing correlations ≧3 code chips from the estimated signal peak correlation”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Anderson and detect a continuous wave interfering signal and position the groups of isolated correlators at integer-chip offsets, as taught by Lennen, with a reasonable expectation of success. Continuous wave interference is a common type of interference, and detecting it is beneficial for improving a receiver’s performance (Lennen [0006]). Further, applying Lennen’s integer-chip offsets to Anderson’s utility correlators yields the predictable result of enabling and improving continuous wave interference detection (Lennen [0041]).
Furthermore, Revol is in the field of satellite interference detection (Revol [Abstract]) and teaches:
determining a plurality of consecutive phase shifts between consecutive correlators (Revol [0032]: “the phase difference between two correlation measurements is determined at two consecutive temporal positions”);
estimating a mean phase shift between the correlators by making use of the correlator measurements (Revol [0035]: “the mean of the phase differences”); and
detecting an interfering signal by applying a likelihood criterion between the consecutive phase shifts and the estimated mean phase shift (Revol [0035-0036]: calculating the mean and standard deviation of the phase differences; [0037]: “interference indicator”; [0038]: “the indicator γ is compared with an interference detection threshold”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Anderson and determine consecutive phase shifts, determine a mean phase shift, and detect an interfering signal by applying a likelihood criterion between the consecutive phase shifts and the estimated mean phase shift, as taught by Revol, with a reasonable expectation of success. Applying Revol’s satellite interference detection technique to Anderson’s spoofing detection system yields the predictable result of detecting narrow-band interference and enabling a receiver to correct or exclude interfered signals (Revol [0003-0004]).
Regarding Claim 2, Anderson as modified does not explicitly teach: wherein the interfering signal is detected when the distance according to the likelihood criterion between vectors calculated based on the phase shifts is less than a predetermined threshold value.
However, Revol teaches: wherein the interfering signal is detected when the distance according to the likelihood criterion between vectors calculated based on the phase shifts is less than a predetermined threshold value (Revol [0037]: “interference indicator”; [0038]: “the indicator γ is compared with an interference detection threshold”; Examiner note; Revol’s interference indicator is calculated by dividing the mean and standard deviation of the phase shifts, which is equivalent to a statistical distance between vectors.).
In that detecting interference when a distance between vectors is less than a threshold is an element of Revol’s satellite interference detection technique, the rationale to modify Anderson with the teachings of Revol persists from Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3, Anderson as modified does not explicitly teach: wherein the groups of isolated correlators are selected so as to be consecutive to each integer number of chips.
However, Lennen teaches: wherein the groups of isolated correlators are selected so as to be consecutive to each integer number of chips (Lennen [0041]: “≧1 chip from the estimated signal peak”; “≧3 code chips from the estimated signal peak correlation”).
The rationale to modify Anderson with the teachings of Lennen persists from Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 4, Anderson as modified teaches: wherein each group of correlators comprises one lead correlator and one lag correlator for the corresponding punctual correlator ([col. 6, line 17]: “the early, prompt, and late correlator taps of the primary channel”; [col. 12, lines 35-37]: “the utility channel 660 may be built substantially similar for manufacturing purposes as the primary channel”).
Regarding Claim 5, Anderson as modified does not explicitly teach: wherein each lead correlator and each lag correlator is spaced apart from the corresponding punctual correlator by a same given distance corresponding to a fraction of a chip.
However, Lennen teaches: wherein each lead correlator and each lag correlator is spaced apart from the corresponding punctual correlator by a same given distance corresponding to a fraction of a chip (Lennen [0038]: “In general, the code tracking loop takes early and late correlations (for example ¼ chip apart) and forms a loop to balance the early and late correlations (coherent or non-coherent) in terms of power.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Anderson and space the lead and lag correlators apart from the corresponding punctual correlator by a same given distance corresponding to a fraction of a chip, as taught by Lennen, with a reasonable expectation of success. Applying Lennen’s early and late correlator spacing to Anderson’s correlators yields the predictable result of accurately locating the correlation peak (Lennen [0038]).
Regarding Claim 7, Anderson as modified teaches: each group of correlators comprising a punctual correlator and offset correlators.
Anderson as modified does not explicitly teach: determining an elementary phase shift corresponding to the phase shift between the punctual correlator and the or each offset correlator of this group.
However, Revol teaches: determining an elementary phase shift corresponding to the phase shift between two consecutive positions (Revol [0032]: “the phase difference between two correlation measurements is determined at two consecutive temporal positions”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Anderson and determine an elementary phase shift corresponding to the phase shift between the punctual correlator and the or each offset correlator of this group, with a reasonable expectation of success. Applying Revol’s consecutive correlator phase shift technique to Anderson’s correlator groups yields the predictable result of determining an elementary phase shift between the punctual correlator and the offset correlators of a group.
Regarding Claim 8, Anderson as modified does not explicitly teach: wherein said estimating further comprises summing all of the elementary phase shifts.
However, Revol teaches: wherein said estimating further comprises summing all of the elementary phase shifts (Revol [0035]: “the mean of the phase differences calculated in step 203”).
In that summing all of the elementary phase shifts is an element of Revol’s satellite interference detection technique, the rationale to modify Anderson with the teachings of Revol persists from Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 11, Anderson as modified teaches: A detection device for detecting an interfering signal in a GNSS receiver, configured to implement the method according to claim 1 ([col. 11, lines 8-9]: “spoofer tracking signal processing system”; See the rejection for Claim 1 above.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 9-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 6, the claim requires determining each consecutive phase shift between the punctual correlators of consecutive groups of correlators using the argument of a complex number which is defined by a specific equation.
Anderson as modified does not teach the claimed phase shift determination or the claimed equation.
Revol teaches calculating a phase difference between consecutive correlators using the argument of a complex conjugate (Revol [0036]) but does not teach the claimed equation.
Therefore, the prior art does not teach the combined limitations of the claimed invention. Specifically, the prior art does not teach determining each consecutive phase shift between the punctual correlators of consecutive groups of correlators using the argument of a complex number which is defined by the claimed equation.
Regarding Claim 9, the claim requires determining the frequency of the interfering signal based on a fractional part of the frequency, which is determined based on the consecutive phase shifts, and an integer part of the frequency, which is determined based on the mean phase shift.
Anderson as modified does not teach determining a frequency of the interfering signal or determining fractional and integer parts of a frequency.
Lennen teaches determining an interfering signal frequency by averaging phase differences (Lennen [0036]). However, Lennen does not determine the interfering signal frequency based on fractional and integer parts of the frequency.
Revol teaches detecting interference based on phase differences (Revol [0035-0038]), but does not determine a frequency or fractional and integer parts thereof.
Therefore, the prior art does not teach the combined limitations of the claimed invention. Specifically, the prior art does not teach determining the frequency of the interfering signal based on a fractional part of the frequency, which is determined based on the consecutive phase shifts, and an integer part of the frequency, which is determined based on the mean phase shift.
Regarding Claim 10, the claim would be allowable by virtue of its dependence on Claim 9.
Conclusion
The cited references made of record in the contemporaneously filed PTO-892 form and not relied upon in the instant office action are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, and may have one or more of the elements in Applicant’s disclosure and at least Claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH Y. ZHU whose telephone number is (571) 270-0170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-4PM.
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).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire, can be reached on (571) 270-5144. 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.
/NOAH YI MIN ZHU/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/BRADY W FRAZIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights