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 .
Response to Amendment
The response filed July 7, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 7, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument on page 18 (see first full paragraph) that the Office Action does not demonstrate that the references collectively discloses or suggest the claimed receiver architecture and corresponding method of the independent claims, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection of the respective claims in the Office Action provides references that disclose the claim limitations and motivation for combining the limitations/features taught by the respective references thereby demonstrating how the references disclose the claimed receiver architecture and corresponding method.
In response to applicant’s argument on page 18 (see second full paragraph) that the Office Action has not established that the cited references teach or suggest the claimed combination, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection of the respective claims in the Office Action provides references that disclose the claim limitations and motivation for combining the limitations/features taught by the respective references thereby establishing how the references disclose the claimed inventions. Furthermore, the reasonable expectation of success is implicitly shown based on the prior art references being analogous art to each other and the claimed invention. For example, regarding claim 1, since Leitch et al. discloses a filtering block that filters signals and Hong et al. teaches filtering a specific signal (e.g. a jammer signal), there is a reasonable expectation of success when changing the filtering block in Leitch et al. to filter out a “potential jammer signal” (i.e. a specific signal).
In response to applicant's argument on pages 18-19 (see third full paragraph and fourth paragraph) that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon the applicant’s disclosure as “a blueprint for reconstructing the claimed invention” and improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant’s argument on page 18 (see third full paragraph) that there must be an articulated reason that would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the proposed modification, the rejection of the respective claims in the Office Action provides references that disclose the claim limitations and motivation (i.e. an articulated reason) for combining the limitations/features taught by the respective references thereby providing “an articulated reason, supported by rational underpinning and grounded in the prior art itself, that would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the proposed modification.” For example, regarding claim 1, “in order to improve the accuracy of data recovery” is the motivation/reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Hong et al. with that of Leitch et al.
In response to applicant’s argument on the top of page 19 that the reliance upon separate references for different aspects of the claims is evidence of hindsight reconstruction, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The multiple/separate references are the basis for a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious. If a single reference disclosed the claimed inventions, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated would have been appropriate.
Drawings
The drawings of July 7, 2026 are objected to because:
FIG. 2 does not show “the triangle dots” shown in the originally filed drawings of January 17, 2025 and described in paragraph [0024], line 7 of the amendment;
FIGs. 3 and 4 include text that do not measure at least .32 cm (1/8 inch) in height thereby failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p);
in FIGs. 3 and 4, the symbols for some of the components have been changed from the originally filed drawings of January 15, 2025. For example, the symbols for the “Sign-check Comparator” and “Tunable Delay Cell” should be consistent with those in the originally filed drawings. The symbols used in the replacement sheets represent different functions than the symbols in the originally filed drawings and are inconsistent with the function of the respective components. For example, the “comparator” symbol for the “sign-check comparator” in originally filed FIG. 3 is shown as an “integration” symbol in the replacement drawing sheet of FIG. 3 of July 7, 2026 thereby rendering the symbol inconsistent with the function of the component;
in FIGs. 3 and 4, the multiple occurrences of “OFF” should be “DFF” (see paragraph [0026] and the originally filed drawings of January 17, 2025); and
in FIG. 3, the outputs of Stage 3 differs from the outputs of Stage 3 in FIG. 3 of January 17, 2025 (for example, the topmost output in FIG. 3 of July 7, 2026 is “Data(1)” whereas the topmost output in FIG. 3 of January 17, 2025 is “Data<4>”). The outputs of Stage 3 should be consistent with FIG. 3 as originally filed and paragraphs [0024]-[0025].
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “the frequency synthesis circuit for generating the quadrature LO signal” in claim 13 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Although the replacement sheet for FIG. 1 shows a frequency synthesis circuit, it shows the carrier synchronization loop, not the frequency synthesis circuit,” as “generating” the “Quadrature LO signal.” No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure filed July 7, 2026 is objected to because:
it is not presented on a separate sheet thereby failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.72(b); and
on line 6, “receiver a carrier synchronization loop” should be “receiver includes a carrier synchronization loop”.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The amendment filed July 7, 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
“a jammer detection signal for use by one or more receiver components” (emphasis added) in paragraph [0047], lines 16-17. Claim 9, as originally filed, recites providing a jammer detection signal to the quadrature mixer. “Use by one or more receiver components” broadens the subject matter to include use by other receiver components besides the “quadrature mixer” in claim 9. Since the specification, at the time the application was filed, does not describe other receiver components as “using” the jammer detection signal, “a jammer detection signal for use by one or more receiver components” constitutes new matter;
“a carrier synchronization loop may include a phase-locked loop (PLL), a frequency-locked loop (FLL), or a combination thereof” (emphasis added) in paragraph [0057], lines 1-2. Claim 6, as originally filed, recites “a phase-locked loop (PLL) or a frequency-locked loop (FLL)” but it does not recite “a combination thereof.” The detailed description, at the time the application was filed, also does not describe a carrier synchronization loop as including a combination of a phase locked loop and a frequency locked loop. Therefore, “a combination thereof” constitutes new matter; and
“to reduce noise using …. other signal-processing techniques” (emphasis added) in paragraph [0059], lines 19-20. Claim 15, as originally filed, recites filtering and adaptive noise cancellation as two techniques for reducing noise. “Other signal-processing techniques” broadens the scope of the subject matter to include techniques that were not present on the filing date of the application. Since the specification, at the time the application was filed, does not describe any other signal-processing techniques besides filtering and adaptive noise cancellation for noise reduction, “other signal-processing techniques” for noise reduction constitutes new matter.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraphs [0055]-[0057] include number steps/phrases (e.g. “Taking the received signal that has been down-converted...” in paragraph [0055], lines 6-7 and “Utilizing a demodulator… ” in paragraph [0056], lines 3-4) that are not written as sentences. The numerous instances of phrases should be re-written as proper sentences. For example, “Taking the received signal that has been down-converted to baseband using the quadrature mixer.” in paragraph [0055], lines 6-7 should be amended to a sentence such as “The received signal is down-converted to a baseband signal using the quadrature mixer.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 (i.e. module” 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 limitations are: “jammer detection module” in claim 9 and “noise reduction module” in claim 15.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 1, lines 4-6, “to generate a quadrature local oscillation (LO) signal; a carrier synchronization loop configured to synchronize the quadrature LO signal…” should be “to generate a down-converted signal; a carrier synchronization loop configured to synchronize a quadrature local oscillation (LO) signal…” in order to be consistent with FIG. 1 (wherein the quadrature mixer receives a LO signal) and “the down-converted signal” in claim 5, lines 2-3;
similarly, in claim 16, lines 4-5, “generating a quadrature local oscillation (LO) signal; synchronizing the quadrature LO signal…” should be “generating down-converted signal; synchronizing a quadrature local oscillation (LO) signal…” in order to be consistent with FIG. 1 and “the down-converted signal” in claim 5, lines 2-3;
in claim 18, lines 1-2, “a local oscillator signal” should be “the quadrature LO signal” in order to be consistent with the proposed change to claim 16 above and FIG. 1; and
dependent claim(s) are objected to under the same ground(s) as the claim(s) from which it depends.
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 15 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. In claim 15, “such as filtering or adaptive noise cancellation” on lines 2-3 renders the claim indefinite. The intended scope of the claim is unclear because of the exemplary claim language “such as.” (See MPEP 2173.05(d))
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.
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, 5-7, 16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leitch et al. (US Patent No. 4,942,592 cited in the Office Action of April 7, 2026) in view of Hong et al. (US Patent No. 9,392,547 B2 cited in the Office Action of April 7, 2026).
With regard to claim 1, FIG. 2 of Leitch et al. discloses the claimed invention including a receiver comprising:
a front-end amplification and filtering block configured to amplify and filter a received signal from a communication channel (see column 1, line 65 – column 2, line 2);
a quadrature mixer (204, 206, 208 and 210), coupled to the front-end amplification and filtering block, configured to down-convert the amplified and filtered signal;
a carrier synchronization loop (208 and 216) configured to synchronize the quadrature LO signal and the carrier phase of the received signal (see also column 8, lines 59-62); and
a demodulator (see “TO DEMODULATOR”) coupled to the quadrature mixer and the carrier synchronization loop.
However, Leitch et al. does not disclose the front-end amplification and filtering block as configured to “filter out” a potential jammer signal. Hong et al. discloses a front-end circuit that provides filtering to eliminate unwanted signals, such as jammers. (See column 8, lines 37-41) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to filter out potential jammer signals in Leitch et al. in order to improve the accuracy of data recovery.
With regard to claim 5, Leitch et al. in view of Hong et al. disclose the claimed invention including the quadrature mixer comprising a local oscillator (LO) signal generator (208) and mixers (204 and 206) for generating in-phase and quadrature components of the down-converted signal. (See FIG. 2 of Leitch et al.)
With regard to claim 6, Leitch et al. in view of Hong et al. disclose the claimed invention including a phase locked loop for tracking and adjusting the carrier phase of the received signal. (See Leitch et al., 208 and 216 in FIG. 2 and column 8, lines 59-62)
With regard to claim 7, Leitch et al. in view of Hong et al. disclose the claimed invention including an antenna for receiving the signal from the communication channel. (See Leitch et al., 202 in FIG. 2)
With regard to claim 16, FIG. 2 of Leitch et al. discloses the claimed invention including a method comprising:
amplifying a received signal and filtering the signal from a communication channel using a front-end amplification and filtering block (see column 1, line 65 – column 2, line 2);
down-converting the amplified and filtered signal to baseband using a quadrature mixer (204, 206, 208 and 210);
synchronizing the quadrature LO signal and the carrier phase of the received signal using a carrier synchronization loop (208 and 216) (see also column 8, lines 59-62); and
demodulating the synchronized signal (see column 9, lines 3-7).
However, Leitch et al. does not “filtering out” a potential jammer signal. Hong et al. discloses a front-end circuit that provides filtering to eliminate unwanted signals, such as jammers. (See column 8, lines 37-41) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to filter out potential jammer signals in Leitch et al. in order to improve the accuracy of data recovery.
With regard to claim 18, Leitch et al. in view of Hong et al. disclose the claimed invention including generating a local oscillator signal in the “quadrature mixer” (via 208), the local oscillator signal used to down-convert the received signal (via 204 and 206) to baseband. (See FIG. 2 of Leitch et al.)
With regard to claim 19, Leitch et al. in view of Hong et al. disclose the claimed invention including maintaining the synchronization of the quadrature LO signal and the carrier phase of the received signal using a phase locked loop in the carrier synchronization loop. (See Leitch et al., 208 and 216 in FIG. 2 and column 8, lines 59-62)
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leitch et al. in view of Hong et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Khayrallah et al. (US Patent No. 9,602,242 B2 cited in the Office Action of April 7, 2026).
With regard to claim 2, Leitch et al. in view of Hong et al. discloses the claimed invention except for a digital signal processor (DSP), coupled to the demodulator, configured to perform digital signal processing on the demodulated signal. Khayrallah et al. discloses a receiver comprising a digital signal processor is configured to perform digital signal processing on the demodulated signal. (See FIG. 3 and column 4, line 67 – column 5, line 8 wherein the de-interleaver 36 and channel decoder 38 that process the demodulated signal are “implemented in software stored in a computer readable medium… and executed by a processor (e.g. a CPU, a DSP..)” ) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to couple a digital signal processor to the demodulator in Leitch et al. in view of Hong et al. in order to facilitate processing of the demodulated signal.
With regard to claim 3, Leitch et al. in view of Hong et al. and Khayrallah et al. discloses the claimed invention including channel decoding of the demodulated signal. (See Khayrallah et al., 38 in FIG. 3) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the receiver of Leitch et al. in view of Hong et al. and Khayrallah et al. in a communication system with channel encoding and channel decoding to detect and correct errors introduced during transmission thereby enhancing the reliability of the recovered data.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leitch et al. in view of Hong et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Janesch et al. (US Patent No. 11,545,995 B1 cited in the Office Action of April 7, 2026). Leitch et al. in view of Hong et al. discloses the claimed invention including the front-end amplification and filtering block comprising one or more amplifiers and one or more filters. (See column 1, line 65 – column 2, line 2) However, Leitch et al. in view of Hong et al. does not teach including low-noise amplifiers or bandpass filters. FIG. 7 of Janesch et al. discloses a front-end amplification and filtering block (702) that comprises a low-noise amplifier (706) and a bandpass filter (708). (See column 9, lines 4-9) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention apply the teachings of Janesch et al. to the circuit of Leitch et al. in view of Hong et al. in order to optimize signal recovery by amplifying the received signal while adding minimal noise and filtering out-of-band signals.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leitch et al. in view of Hong et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Leitch (US Patent No. 4,910,467 cited in the Office Action of April 7, 2026). Leitch et al. in view of Hong et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the demodulator configured to demodulate the down-converted signal using a modulation scheme from the group consisting of the recited modulation schemes. Since Leitch discloses a QAM receiver that also down-converts a received signal to a baseband signal (see abstract; FIG. 1; column 1, lines 22-64 wherein “quadrature modulator” is equivalent to “quadrature mixer”) prior to demodulating the signal (see column 3, lines 41-42 and column 4, lines 1-2), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Leitch et al. in view of Hong et al. to a QAM receiver by configuring the demodulator to demodulate the down-converted signal using a QAM scheme in order to optimize data recovery in a QAM receiver. The modulation scheme implemented by the receiver is based on the modulation scheme of the communication system in which the receiver is implemented.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leitch et al. in view of Hong et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ghazi-Moghadam (US Publication No. 2022/0182179 A1 cited in the Office Action of April 7, 2026). Leitch et al. in view of Hong et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the demodulator implemented as a software-defined radio (SDR) demodulator. Ghazi-Moghadam teaches using a software-defined radio to implement a demodulator. (See paragraph [0012]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the demodulator in Leitch et al. in view of Hong et al. as a software-defined radio (SDR) demodulator in order to have greater flexibility for adapting the demodulator.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leitch et al. in view of Hong et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wilson et al. (US Patent No. 5,617,060 cited in the IDS submitted January 17, 2025).
With regard to claim 11, Leitch et al. in view of Hong et al. disclose the claimed invention except for a power control circuit configured to adjust the amplification level of the front-end amplification and filtering block based on the received signal strength. FIG. 1 of Wilson et al. discloses a “power control circuit” (22) configured to adjust the amplification level of an amplifier (18) based on the received signal strength (RSSI). (See also column 4, lines 6-12; column 5, lines 63-66; and column 6, lines 29-34) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a power control circuit to adjust the amplification level in the front-end circuit of Leitch et al. in view of Hong et al. in order to optimize receiver performance by adjusting the amplifier to maintain sufficient signal levels for varying channel conditions.
With regard to claim 12, Leitch et al. in view of Hong et al. disclose the claimed invention except for an automatic gain control circuit configured to dynamically the gain of the front-end amplification and filtering block to maintain a desired signal level at the quadrature mixer. FIG. 1 of Wilson et al. discloses an “automatic gain control (AGC) circuit” (22) configured to dynamically the gain of an amplifier (18) to maintain a desired signal level at the quadrature mixer (wherein “AGC_REF” corresponds to the desired signal strength for the baseband signals). (See also column 4, lines 6-12; column 5, lines 63-66; and column 6, lines 29-34) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a power control circuit to the receiver of Leitch et al. in view of Hong et al. in order to optimize receiver performance by maintaining sufficient signal levels for proper processing for varying channel conditions.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leitch et al. in view of Hong et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chiou (US Patent No. 7,035,339 B2 cited in the Office Action of April 7, 2026).
With regard to claim 13, Leitch et al. in view of Hong et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the quadrature mixer comprising a frequency synthesis circuit for generating the quadrature LO signal based on a reference frequency and a frequency control signal. FIG. 3 of Chiou discloses a “quadrature mixer” that comprises a frequency synthesis circuit (NCO 23) for generating the quadrature LO signal based on a reference frequency (see “central frequency of the NCO” in column 4, line 65 – column 5, line 3) and a frequency control signal (Δf[k]). Since Leitch et al. discloses that it is ideal for the controlled oscillator to provide a signal that is synchronized in frequency and phase to the carrier signal of the received signal (see Leitch et al., column 2, lines 5-10), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching Leitch et al. to also control/adjust the frequency of the VCO to improve data recovery by eliminating unwanted rotation in the baseband signal. (See Chiou, column 5, lines 15-19)
With regard to claim 14, Leitch et al. in view of Hong et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the quadrature LO signal being adjusted based on a frequency offset estimation obtained from the carrier synchronization loop. FIG. 3 of Chiou discloses a carrier synchronization loop (23 and 24) that adjusts the quadrature LO oscillator based on a frequency offset estimation (Δf[k]). (See also column 4, line 50 – column 5, line 3 and column 5, lines 15-19) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify to the carrier synchronization loop in the receiver disclosed by Leitch et al. in view of Hong et al. to also adjust the quadrature LO signal based a frequency offset estimation in order to eliminate unwanted rotation and crosstalk in the baseband signal to improve date recovery. (See Chiou, column 5, lines 15-19)
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leitch et al. in view of Hong et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Olsen et al. (US Patent No. 10,855,499 B2 cited in the Office Action of April 7, 2026). Leitch et al. in view of Hong et al. disclose the claimed invention except for a noise reduction module, coupled to the demodulator, configured to reduce noise using techniques such as filtering. Fig. 4A of Olsen et al. discloses coupling a filter to the output of a demodulator to remove noise. (See column 8, lines 36-39) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to couple a filter (i.e. a “noise reduction module”) to the demodulator of Leitch et al. in view of Hong et al. in order to remove unwanted noise to facilitate accurate data recovery.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leitch et al. in view of Hong et al. as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Sutton et al. (US Patent No. 8,862,081 B2 cited in the Office Action of April 7, 2026) and Sahota et al. (US Patent No. 8,170,487 B2 cited in the Office Action of April 7, 2026). Leitch et al. in view of Hong et al. disclose the claimed invention except for isolating the potential jammer signal from the received signal using a bandpass filter in the front-end amplification and filtering block. Figure 8 of Sutton et al. discloses a receiver front end with a jammer detector (882) that isolates a potential jammer signal. (See also column 23, lines 21-26) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to isolate the potential jammer (using a jammer detector) in the method of Leitch et al. in view of Hong et al. in order to compensate for the influences of the jammer signal during data recovery.
However, Leitch et al. in view of Hong et al. and Sutton et al. does not teach isolating the potential jammer signal using a bandpass filter. Sahota et al. discloses that a jammer detector may be a bandpass filter. (See column 10, lines 15-18) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a bandpass filter to isolate the potential jammer signal in Leitch et al. in view of Hong et al. and Sutton et al. since a bandpass filter is a known component/device that performs the intended function and yields predictable results.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leitch et al. in view of Hong et al. as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Hur et al. (US Publication No. 2022/0094514 A1 cited in the Office Action of April 7, 2026). Leitch et al. in view of Hong et al. disclose the claimed invention except for converting the demodulated signal from analog to digital format using an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) coupled to the demodulator. FIG. 9A of Hur et al. discloses converting the demodulated signal from analog to digital format using an analog-to-digital converter (83) coupled to the demodulator (82). (See also paragraph [0070]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to couple an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) to the demodulator to convert the demodulated signal from analog to digital format based on the format of the demodulated signal (i.e. an analog signal) and the necessary format for subsequent processing of the demodulated signal (i.e. digital signal processing of the demodulated signal).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Please note that non-cited portions of the references may also read on the claim limitations. Therefore, the references should be considered in their entirety.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Betsy Deppe whose telephone number is 571-272-3054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday and Thursday, 7:00 am - 3:00 pm (ET).
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, Sam Ahn can be reached at 571-272-3044. 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.
/BETSY DEPPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
