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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 17 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 17, the acronym “GFSK” needs to be spelled out as it is the first occurrence of the term. Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent on claim 17.
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 8, 12, 17 and 18 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 8, the terms “the first detection technique” and “the second detection technique” lack antecedent basis. Clarification required.
Regarding claims 12 and 17, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 18 is rejected as being indefinite by virtue of being dependent on claim 17.
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.
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: “interference detection unit configured to perform spectral analysis” in claim 12. Although the claim is indefinite after the phrase “preferably”, in light of the specification, FFT is used for spectral analysis. It is pointed out that although specification lists other ways to perform spectral analysis such as Goertzal analysis and others listed in the claim , there is insufficient support for the structure or actual algorithm used to perform the spectral analysis for any other method than FFT, and would render the claim with the limitation “interference detection unit configured to…” indefinite for lacking support in the specification. However, hereinafter, it is assumed that applicant intends to claim “interference detection unit configured to perform spectral analysis” and this is interpreted as performing FFT.
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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abdelmonem et al. (US 9042497 B2), hereinafter Abdelmonem.
Regarding claim 19:
Abdelmonem discloses an apparatus for reducing the effect of at least one of wideband interference and narrowband off-channel interference at a receiver of a wireless communications system (intended use of the apparatus does not limit the apparatus itself especially when only stated in the preamble and is thus not given patentable weight), the apparatus comprising:
a Viterbi detector (Column 25, lines 45-65, decoder implementing Viterbi algorithm is claimed Viterbi detector).
Regarding claim 20:
Abdelmonem discloses the apparatus comprising:
a threshold detector (Column 18, lines 3-21, threshold comparison (claimed threshold detector algorithm, block 312 is the threshold detector) .
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.
Claims 1-11,13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdelmonem in view of Chen (US 6130907 A), hereinafter, Chen.
Regarding claim 1:
Abdelmonem discloses a method of reducing the effect of interference at a receiver of a wireless communications system, the method comprising:
receiving a transmitted bit stream at the receiver (Column 4, lines 49-53, base station 16 is claimed receiver, received signal is claimed transmitted bit stream);
determining a type of interference present in the transmitted bit stream, the type of interference comprising a second type of interference (Column 16, lines 5-55, narrowband interference is detected, claimed determining of type of interference comprising a second type of interference ); and
detecting the transmitted bit stream based on the type of interference present in the transmitted bit stream (Fig.3, AF module 56 and wideband receiver 60 together perform claimed detecting. Column 5, line 49-column 6, line 3; Fig. 4, wideband receiver 60 as shown in Fig. 6 performs claimed detection; if narrowband type interference (claimed second type) is detected, a filter is used, and if narrowband type interference is not detected, then no filter is used, i.e. detecting the transmitted bit stream based on the type of interference present in the transmitted bit stream; output of 72 is received message i.e. transmitted bit stream; See column 7, line 17- column 8, line 56 and column 35, lines 30-60, error detection is performed in order to recover the transmitted signal).
Abdelmonem discloses different types of interference including claimed first type, (Column 20, line 64- column 21, line 9), but fails to explicitly disclose determining a first type of interference.
Chen discloses determining a type of interference present in the transmitted bit stream, the type of interference comprising a first type of interference (Fig. 3, step 306, wideband interference is claimed first type of interference) and a second type of interference (Fig. 3, step 304, narrowband interference is claimed second type of interference) (Fig. 3, Column 2, line 52-column 3, line 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of instant application to modify Abdelmonem’s determining of interference type including narrowband interference to also include determining a first type of interference, wideband interference, as disclosed by Chen. It would have been obvious so as to eliminate all types of interference present, thereby allowing for more accurate recovery of the signal.
Regarding claim 10:
Claim 10 is rejected as being obvious over Abdelmonem and Chen based on a rationale similar to the one used to reject claim 1 above. The base station 16 of Fig. 4 is claimed apparatus (Column 5, lines 18-21).
Regarding claims 2 and 13:
Abdelmonem and Chen disclose all the limitations of claims 1 and 10 above.
Chen further discloses the method and apparatus, wherein the first type of interference comprises at least one of wideband interference and narrowband off-channel interference (Fig. 3, step 306, wideband interference is claimed first type of interference; Column 2, line 52-column 3, line 20), at least one of wideband interference and narrowband off-channel interference is interpreted as wideband interference or narrowband off-channel interference, in light of instant specification, for example, page 12, lines 18-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of instant application to modify Abdelmonem’s determining of interference type including narrowband interference to also include determining a first type of interference, wideband interference, as disclosed by Chen. It would have been obvious so as to eliminate all types of interference present, thereby allowing for more accurate recovery of the signal.
Regarding claim 3:
Abdelmonem and Chen disclose all the limitations of claim 2 above. Abdelmonem further discloses the method, further comprising: using a first detection technique for the first type of interference (See column 5, line 61 - column 6, line 3; column 7, line 17- column 8, line 56 and column 35, lines 30-60, if narrowband interference is not found, signal is provided to wideband receiver 60 without filters; after demodulation by wideband receiver 60, detection using Viterbi algorithm is performed; together, no filtering and then demodulating and detecting using Viterbi algorithm is claimed first detection technique).
Regarding claims 4 and 14:
Abdelmonem and Chen disclose all the limitations of claim 3 and 13 above. Abdelmonem further discloses the method and apparatus, wherein the first detection technique/detector comprises a Viterbi algorithm (See column 5, line 61 - column 6, line 3; column 7, line 17- column 8, line 56 and column 35, lines 30-60).
Regarding claims 5 and 15:
Abdelmonem and Chen disclose all the limitations of claims 4 and 10 above. Abdelmonem further discloses the method and apparatus wherein the second type of interference comprises narrowband in-channel interference (See column 21, lines 4-8, narrowband interference within the channels is determined, i.e. claimed second type of interference comprises narrowband in-channel interference).
Regarding claim 6:
Abdelmonem and Chen disclose all the limitations of claim 5 above.
Abdelmonem discloses method, further comprising using a second detection technique for the second type of interference (column 5, lines 49-60 and Column 18, lines 3-21, threshold comparison is used to detect narrowband interference in the channel; if narrowband interference Is detected, front end filters the signal; the threshold comparison together with filtering upon detection of narrowband signal is claimed second detection technique).
Regarding claims 7 and 16:
Abdelmonem and Chen disclose all the limitations of claims 6 and 15 above.
Abdelmonem discloses method and apparatus, wherein the second detection technique comprises a threshold detector algorithm (Column 18, lines 3-21, threshold comparison (claimed threshold detector algorithm) is used to detect narrowband interference in the channel).
Regarding claim 8:
Abdelmonem and Chen disclose all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Abdelmonem discloses method, further comprising: dynamically switching between (a) the first detection technique and (a) the second detection technique depending upon the type of interference present in the transmitted bit stream (Column 5, line 49- column 6, line 3; if narrowband type interference is detected, first detection technique including filtering the signal is used, if it is not detected, second detection technique with no filtering is used, i.e. performing claimed dynamically switching between the first detection technique and the second detection technique depending upon the type of interference present in the transmitted bit stream).
Regarding claim 9:
Abdelmonem and Chen disclose all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Abdelmonem discloses the method, further comprising: outputting a detected bit stream from the receiver (Column 8, lines 55, 56).
Regarding claim 11:
Abdelmonem and Chen disclose all the limitations of claim 10 above.
Abdelmonem discloses the method, wherein the detector comprises an interference determination unit (column 5, lines 49-60 and Column 18, lines 3-21, threshold comparison is used to detect narrowband interference in the channel; if narrowband interference Is detected, front end filters the signal; the threshold comparison together with filtering upon detection of narrowband signal is claimed detector with interference determination unit).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdelmonem and Chen as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Lindoff et al. (US 20110085629 A1), hereinafter, Lindoff.
Regarding claim 12:
Abdelmonem and Chen disclose all the limitations of claim 10 above.
Abdelmonem discloses the method, wherein the interference determination unit is configured to perform spectral analysis (Column 22, line 56-Column 23, line 2, the remainder of the claim is indefinite and uses optional language and is thus not given patentable weight.
Assuming the claim is “the interference determination unit is configured to perform spectral analysis “ and hence invokes 112 (f) as explained above,
Abdelmonem and Chen fail to disclose the exact means , i.e. spectral analysis performed using Fast Fourier Transform (FFT).
However, Lindoff discloses narrowband interference detection performed by spectral analysis using FFT (Paragraph [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of instant application to modify Abdelmonem’s interference determination unit performing spectral analysis as modified by Chen to be further modified to use FFT for the spectral analysis as disclosed by Lindoff. It would have been obvious because FFT provides a quick and optimized way to analyze a signal.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdelmonem and Chen as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Hendrix et al. (US 20090015714 A1), hereinafter, Hendrix.
Regarding clam 17:
Abdelmonem and Chen disclose all the limitations of claim 10 above.
Abdelmonem discloses the apparatus, wherein the detector comprises a demodulator (Column 8, lines 55-56).
Abdelmonem and Chen fail to disclose demodulator configured to calculate a phase and a magnitude of the transmitted bit stream.
However, Hendrix discloses demodulator configured to calculate a phase and a magnitude of transmitted bit stream (Paragraph [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of instant application to modify Abdelmonem’s demodulator as modified by Chen to be further modified to calculate to calculate a phase and a magnitude of transmitted bit stream as disclosed by Hendrix. It would have been obvious so as to perform further processing and analysis.
Regarding claim 18:
Abdelmonem, Chen and Hendrix disclose all the limitations of claim 17 above.
Hendrix discloses the apparatus, wherein the demodulator comprises a COordinate Rotation DIgital Computer, CORDIC, block (Paragraph [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of instant application to modify Abdelmonem’s demodulator as modified by Chen to be further modified to comprise CORDIC as disclosed by Hendrix. It would have been obvious to do so because it is an efficient way to demodulate a signal.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINEETA S PANWALKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-8561. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-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, David C. Payne can be reached at 571-272-3024. 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.
/VINEETA S PANWALKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights