DETAILED ACTION
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 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, line 10 – delete “the processor”.
Regarding claim 11, line 1 – “The apparatus” needs to be changed to “The jamming signal detection method”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5-6, 8, and 12-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 9-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,196,865. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because even though there are variations in the wording of the claim, the differences in the claims would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Application 18/989,253
Claim 1. An apparatus comprising:
a receiver configured to receive satellite positioning signals;
a memory; and
a processor, communicatively coupled to the receiver and the memory, configured to:
determine one or more quality metric values based on one or more of the satellite positioning signals;
determine whether the one or more quality metric values are indicative of jamming, wherein to determine whether the one or more quality metric values are indicative of jamming the processor is at least one of:
configured to determine whether the one or more quality metric values are indicative of an inconsistency between a speed of the apparatus and a change in range between the apparatus and a satellite vehicle; or
configured to determine whether a measurement of a particular one of the satellite positioning signals is a qualified measurement at least one of based on at least one characteristic of the measurement of the particular one of the satellite positioning signals or based on at least one characteristic of a satellite corresponding to the particular one of the satellite positioning signals; and
activate, 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 receiver.
Claim 1. …wherein to determine whether the one or more quality metric values are indicative of jamming the processor is at least one of:
configured to determine whether the one or more quality metric values are indicative of an inconsistency between a speed of the apparatus and a change in range between the apparatus and a satellite vehicle; or
configured to determine whether a measurement of a particular one of the satellite positioning signals is a qualified measurement at least one of based on at least one characteristic of the measurement of the particular one of the satellite positioning signals or based on at least one characteristic of a satellite corresponding to the particular one of the satellite positioning signals;
Claim 5. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to deactivate the jammer detection technique in response to completion of jammer detection.
Claim 6. The apparatus of claim 5, wherein the processor is configured to determine that jammer detection completion has occurred by determining that:
a threshold time has passed since activation of the jammer detection technique; or
the jamming signal has been detected by the jammer detection technique; or
all analysis of the jammer detection technique has been performed; or
all of the one or more quality metric values being satisfactory; or
any combination of two or more thereof.
Claim 8. A jamming signal detection control method comprising:
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 by at least one of:
determining whether the one or more quality metric values are indicative of an inconsistency between a speed of the satellite positioning signal receiver and a change in range between the satellite positioning signal receiver and a satellite vehicle; or
determining whether a measurement of a particular one of the one or more satellite positioning signals is a qualified measurement at least one of based on at least one characteristic of the measurement of the particular one of the one or more satellite positioning signals or based on at least one characteristic of a satellite corresponding to the particular one of the one or more satellite positioning signals; 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.
Claim 8. A jamming signal detection control method comprising:…determining, at the satellite positioning signal receiver, whether the one or more quality metric values are indicative of jamming by at least one of:
determining whether the one or more quality metric values are indicative of an inconsistency between a speed of the satellite positioning signal receiver and a change in range between the satellite positioning signal receiver and a satellite vehicle; or
determining whether a measurement of a particular one of the one or more satellite positioning signals is a qualified measurement at least one of based on at least one characteristic of the measurement of the particular one of the one or more satellite positioning signals or based on at least one characteristic of a satellite corresponding to the particular one of the one or more satellite positioning signals;
Claim 12. The jamming signal detection control method of claim 8, further comprising deactivating the jammer detection technique in response to completion of jammer detection.
Claim 13. The jamming signal detection control method of claim 12, wherein determining that jammer detection completion has occurred comprises determining that:
a threshold time has passed since activation of the jammer detection technique; or
the jamming signal has been detected by the jammer detection technique; or
all analysis of the jammer detection technique has been performed; or
all of the one or more quality metric values being satisfactory; or
any combination of two or more thereof.
U.S. Patent No. 12,196,865
Claim 1. An apparatus comprising:
a receiver configured to receive satellite positioning signals;
a memory; and
a processor, communicatively coupled to the receiver and the memory, configured to: determine one or more quality metric values based on one or more of the satellite positioning signals;
determine whether the one or more quality metric values are indicative of jamming;
activate, 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 receiver; and
deactivate the jammer detection technique in response to completion of jammer detection.
Claim 3. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein to determine whether the one or more quality metric values are indicative of jamming the processor is:
configured to determine whether a threshold number of satellite vehicle measurements are available; or
configured to determine whether a dilution of precision is less than a threshold dilution of precision; or
configured to determine whether a position uncertainty is less than a threshold position uncertainty; or
configured to determine whether an average of post-fix satellite vehicle range measurement residuals exceeds a residual threshold; or
configured to determine whether the one or more quality metric values are indicative of an inconsistency between a speed of the apparatus and a change in range between the apparatus and a satellite vehicle; or
configured to determine whether an autocorrelation peak exceeds a threshold peak width, or
the one or more quality metric values comprise an unacceptable amount of autocorrelation peaks below a threshold strength, or
a combination thereof; or
configured in accordance with a combination of two or more thereof.
Claim 1. …a processor…deactivate the jammer detection technique in response to completion of jammer detection.
Claim 2. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to determine that jammer detection completion has occurred by determining that:
a threshold time has passed since activation of the jammer detection technique; or
the jamming signal has been detected by the jammer detection technique; or
all analysis of the jammer detection technique has been performed; or
all of the one or more quality metric values being satisfactory; or
any combination of two or more thereof.
Claim 9. A jamming signal detection control method comprising:
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;
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; and deactivating the jammer detection technique in response to completion of jammer detection.
Claim 11. The jamming signal detection control method of claim 9, wherein determining whether the one or more quality metric values are indicative of jamming comprises:
determining whether a threshold number of satellite vehicle measurements are available; or
determining whether a dilution of precision is less than a threshold dilution of precision; or
determining whether a position uncertainty is less than a threshold position uncertainty; or determining whether an average of post-fix satellite vehicle range measurement residuals exceeds a residual threshold; or
determining whether the one or more quality metric values are indicative of an inconsistency between a speed of the satellite positioning signal receiver and a change in range between the satellite positioning signal receiver and a satellite vehicle; or
determining whether an autocorrelation peak exceeds a threshold peak width, or
the one or more quality metric values comprise an unacceptable amount of autocorrelation peaks below a threshold strength, or
a combination thereof; or
determining any combination of two or more thereof.
Claim 9. A jamming signal detection control method comprising:…deactivating the jammer detection technique in response to completion of jammer detection.
Claim 10. The jamming signal detection control method of claim 9, wherein determining that jammer detection completion has occurred comprises determining that:
a threshold time has passed since activation of the jammer detection technique; or
the jamming signal has been detected by the jammer detection technique; or
all analysis of the jammer detection technique has been performed; or
all of the one or more quality metric values being satisfactory; or
any combination of two or more thereof.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1, 7-8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azoulai et al (IDS reference – US 2021/0266091).
PNG
media_image1.png
720
553
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
269
472
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, and similarly claim 8, Azoulai et al disclose in Fig 1 and 4 above an apparatus and a method comprising:
a receiver (i.e. reception unit 2) configured to receive satellite positioning signals ([0049]-[0053]);
a memory ([0112]); and
a processor ([0112]), communicatively coupled to the receiver and the memory, configured to:
determine one or more quality metric values based on one or more of the satellite positioning signals ([0062]-[0065]);
determine whether the one or more quality metric values are indicative of jamming ([0067]-[0073]), and
activate, 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 receiver ([0068]-[0073]).
Azoulai et al do not disclose wherein to determine whether the one or more quality metric values are indicative of jamming is at least one of: configured to determine whether the one or more quality metric values are indicative of an inconsistency between a speed of the apparatus and a change in range between the apparatus and a satellite vehicle; or configured to determine whether a measurement of a particular one of the satellite positioning signals is a qualified measurement at least one of based on at least one characteristic of the measurement of the particular one of the satellite positioning signals or based on at least one characteristic of a satellite corresponding to the particular one of the satellite positioning signals as claimed. Instead, Azoulai et al teach in the same field of endeavor determining whether the one or more quality metric values are indicative of jamming is: configured to determine whether a threshold number of satellite vehicle measurements are available ([0063]-[0067]). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to determine any workable quality metric values indicative of jamming since Applicant has not disclosed that the determined one or more quality metric values indicative of jamming as claimed solves any stated problem. It appears that the invention would perform equally well with determining whether a threshold number of satellite vehicle measurements are available as one or more quality metric values are indicative of jamming as taught by Azoulai et al for properly detecting jamming in a positioning system.
While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Azoulai et al disclose the processor is configured to implement a jammer mitigation technique in response to the jammer detection technique determining that the jamming signal is received by the receiver ([0098]-[0102]).
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 and 9-11 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.
Claims 5-6 and 12-13 are rejected but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if overcome double patenting rejection.
Claims 15-22 are allowed.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 12,490,248 discloses a solution for radio jamming detection. The solution comprises determining M subcarriers in a time-frequency resource grid to be blanked and outputting the M subcarriers in the time-frequency resource grid to be blanked by performing at least one of the following operations: first determination of a number M of subcarriers in a time-frequency resource grid to be blanked based on probability of detecting a jammer attack or on channel quality of subcarriers in the time-frequency resource grid, second determination of which M subcarriers in the time-frequency resource grid are blanked taking into account the channel quality of subcarriers in the time-frequency resource grid.
US 11,754,723 discloses an apparatus control method includes: controlling a first frequency band receive chain, of an apparatus, to alternate being on and off with a first duty cycle, the first frequency band receive chain being configured to measure satellite signals within a first frequency band; determining one or more performance criteria; and controlling, based on the one or more performance criteria, a second frequency band receive chain, of the apparatus, to alternate being on and off with a second duty cycle, the second frequency band receive chain being configured to measure satellite signals within a second frequency band.
US 12,219,428 discloses a method includes: receiving one or more positioning signals; determining that a UE is line-of-sight to fewer than a threshold number of positioning signal sources; determining a first position estimate hypothesis for the UE using a first position estimating process and one or more first measurements of the positioning signal(s); determining a second position estimate hypothesis for the UE using a second position estimating process and one or more second measurements of the positioning signal(s), wherein the second position estimating process uses a second parameter value of a parameter and the parameter is absent from the first position estimating process or has a first parameter value that is different from the second parameter value; and reporting a reported position estimate based on the first position estimate hypothesis or the second position estimate hypothesis in response to the UE being line-of-sight to fewer than the threshold number of positioning signal sources.
US 11,984,970 discloses a system includes at least one reception unit installed in an aircraft and configured for tracking satellites of the satellite navigation system of the GNSS type. The system includes a generation unit for generating an expected number corresponding to the number of satellites that the reception unit is expected to track, a detection unit including a comparison part for comparing the expected number with a tracked number corresponding to the number of satellites that the reception unit is actually tracking and a decision part for detecting a jamming, as a function of the result of the comparison made by the comparison part and transmitting detection data in the event of detection, and a transmission unit configured to transmit jamming detection data to at least one user device, the system making it possible to detect a jamming of a GNSS system in an automatic and reliable manner.
US 8,862,081 discloses methods and apparatus for implementing a wireless communication transceiver having receive path performance diversity. The transceiver implements a plurality of signal paths that can be configured as diversity receive paths. Each of the plurality of signal paths includes a distinct RF filter. Each RF filter can be configured to provide a distinct jammer rejection profile. Each receive path also includes a jammer detector, that can be a multiple level jammer detector. Each jammer detector operates to control a level of processing gain applied to the signals in its receive path. The multiple gain scaled receive signals can be combined in a coherent combiner before being routed for further processing.
US 8,565,439 discloses a method is provided for detecting scrambling of a radiocommunication network. The method is applied by a radiocommunication circuit capable of being connected to the network by being synchronized on a radiocommunication channel. The method includes a final detection phase, having the following steps: detection of verification of the following final condition: there are N radiocommunication channels on which the radiocommunication circuit cannot be synchronized despite detection of a power level normally sufficient for being synchronized, where N>2; and if the final condition is verified, generation of a final scrambling signal with a probability of scrambling equal to 100%. The method also includes at least one intermediate detection phase, having the following steps: detection of verification of at least one intermediate condition; and if the at least one intermediate condition is verified, generation of an intermediate scrambling signal with a probability of scrambling of less than 100%.
EP 2,187,229 discloses a device having a receiver of a satellite-based location system. A unit has a detector detecting interfering signals of an interfering transmitter. The unit contains a global positioning system (GPS) receiver, which is coupled with an antenna of a satellite-based positioning system. A data connection is formed between the receiver and the detector. The detector comprises an evaluation component for a position of the interfering transmitter. A radio communication unit transmits information to a toll operator, and a cable connection is formed between the receiver and the antenna. An independent claim is also included for a method for detecting global navigation satellite system-interfering transmitters.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUONG P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 10:00-10:00 EST.
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, JACK KEITH can be reached at (571) 272-6878. 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.
/CHUONG P NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights