DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/21/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (response page 9) that Offermans lacks the arrangement of a “memory to store a dithering schedule” integrated with a processor that specifically “determine[s] the dithering interval at least partially responsive to the dithering schedule; obtain[s] a time of transmission of the pulse group; and adjust[s] the time of transmission to account for the dithering interval”, Examiner respectfully disagrees, and maintains that Offermans teaches these features for the reasons set forth in the rejections below.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (response page 9) that Offermans uses a pseudo-random generator (PRG) to create time offsets, ensuring that offsets are generated “on-the-fly (dynamically during operation)” rather than looked up from a stored table, Examiner agrees that Offermans does not teach a stored table. However, independent claim 12 does not recite a stored table, but “a memory to store a dithering schedule, the dithering schedule comprising a pre-defined schedule of dithering intervals”, and Applicant’s specification para. [0121] teaches that a stored dithering schedule includes within its scope a function: “As an example, the dithering schedule may include a function … that may accept as input the key and the epoch number and may return corrections for dithering for one or more transmitters for that epoch” (emphasis added). Offermans’ equation (1) in para. [0083] comprises such a function. It accepts as input an epoch number i, returns a pseudorandom, i.e. dithered, interval Δprt M, i :
PNG
media_image1.png
136
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Offermans’ Fig. 4 shows the interval Δprt M, i as a delay (440) of a pulse group (432) from a nominal-pulse-group-start time (TM nominal) as claimed:
PNG
media_image2.png
337
588
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4
Examiner therefore maintains that Offerman’s equation (1) meets the claimed schedule in a manner that is consistent with Applicant’s specification.
Examiner notes that a pseudo random number is a quantity that appears to be random but is produced by a deterministic process. Examiner therefore respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s characterization of Offermans’ determination of the dithering interval as “dynamic” and “on-the-fly”. Offermans’ sequence of dithering intervals 440 is not determined dynamically, or on-the-fly, or generated and updated in real time, but is entirely predetermined by the seed value.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (response page 9) that Offermans does not use a schedule of dithering intervals nor does it determine a dithering interval by which a pulse group is delayed from the normal pulse-group-state time and adjust the time of transmission to account for the dithering interval, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Offermans determines a dithering interval according to the schedule provided by equation (1) in para. [0083]. Equation (1) comprises a function that accepts as input an epoch number i and returns a pseudorandom, i.e. dithered, interval Δprt M, i , consistent with Applicant’s para. [0121]: “As an example, the dithering schedule may include a function … that may accept as input the key and the epoch number and may return corrections for dithering for one or more transmitters for that epoch” (emphasis added).
Regarding Applicant’s argument (response page 9) that the amendment to claim 12 distinguishes the claimed invention from Offermans by explicitly reciting a pre-defined schedule of dithering intervals stored in memory and used by the processor to determine the specific dithering interval delaying the pulse group from its nominal start time, thereby enabling precise adjustment of the obtained time of transmission of the pulse group from the transmitter and providing a structured, predictable correction mechanism absent in Offermans’ dynamic, seed-based PRG approach, which relies on real-time offset generation without any stored schedule, Examiner respectfully disagrees that claim 12 distinguishes the claimed invention from Offermans, for the same reasons already discussed above.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (response page 9) that claim 14 is independently allowable over Offermans because Offermans mentions no epoch decoding from pulses, but its pseudo-random offsets are generated via a PRG seed without any pulse-based epoch extraction or schedule-responsive determination, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth in the rejection below, paras. [0087]-[0088] teach an epoch ‘n’ that is used to calculate the nominal transmission time TAnominal, where ‘n’ is transmitted in pulses of the Loran Data Channel (LDC), and these pulses are considered “timing pulses” in view of the last three lines of Applicant’s para. [0061] “the terms... ‘timing pulse’... may refer to pulses that may encode timing information”, as ‘n’ can be considered “timing information”.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (response page 9) that claims 15-18 are independently allowable over Offermans because they recite receiving a further ranging signal with a further dithering interval, determining both intervals responsive to the same dithering schedule, and distinguishing durations based on chain-level dithering (same duration) or transmitter-level dithering (different durations), while Offermans appears to employ only a single-level pseudo-random offset without chain- or transmitter-specific layering, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has not provided any specific arguments directed to the portions of Offermans cited in the rejection of these claims, and Examiner maintains that Offermans teaches further pulse groups delayed by further dithering intervals at least partially responsive to the dithering schedule, with same dithering durations at least partially responsive to chain-level dithering and different durations at least partially responsive to transmitter-level dithering as set forth in the rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co.v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert, denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) See MPEP 2123.
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 12 and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Offermans (US 20190377055 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Offermans teaches a device (Fig. 3) comprising:
an antenna (302, 304, Fig. 3) to receive a ranging signal encoding timing information for one or more of positioning, navigation, and timing (abstract “eLoran signals”), the ranging signal comprising a pulse group (432, Fig. 4), the pulse group delayed from a nominal-pulse-group-start time by a dithering interval (440 Δprt M, i, Fig. 4, described in para. [0079] as “a pseudo-random time offset”);
a memory to store a dithering schedule, the dithering schedule comprising a pre-defined schedule of dithering intervals (para. [0068] “memory” in view of para. [0126] “transmission key built into its memory”; para. [0083] “PRG”, where “PRG seed” provide a dithering schedule according to equation (1)); and
a processor (320, Fig. 3) to:
determine the dithering interval by which the pulse group is delayed from the nominal-pulse-group-start time at least partially responsive to the dithering schedule (“Pseudo Random Generator (PRG)” and “PRG seed”, para. [0083], as used to determine the dithering interval according to equation (1));
obtain a time of transmission of the pulse group, wherein the time of transmission is representative of a time of transmission from a transmitter (paras. [0086], [0087] “TA nominal” in view of para. [0080] “nominal times... are virtual transmission times... nominal times can be the times that a non-private normal eLoran transmitter starts transmissions”); and
adjust the time of transmission to account for the dithering interval (para. [0086] “exact transmission times for a transmitter A… can be determined according to … TA,I = TA nominal + Δprt A, i “, where Δprt A, i provides an adjustment of nominal transmission time TA nominal).
Regarding claim 14, Offermans teaches wherein the processor to: decode an epoch number from timing pulses of the pulse group; and determine the dithering interval at least partially responsive to the epoch number and the dithering schedule (paras. [0087]-[0088] “n… the number of NGRIs passed” and “n can be transmitted in the LDC”, where n is an epoch number used to determine the dithering interval according to equation (3) and LDC is the Loran Data Channel and comprises pulses as per para. [0094] “LDC data pulses”; these data pulses can be considered “timing pulses” in view of the last three lines of Applicant’s para. [0061] “the terms... ‘timing pulse’... may refer to pulses that may encode timing information”, as ‘n’ can be considered “timing information”).
Regarding claim 15, Offermans teaches wherein the antenna to receive a further ranging signal, the further ranging signal comprising a further pulse group the further pulse group delayed from a further nominal-pulse-group-start time by a further dithering interval (see further pulse groups 434, 436, 438 delayed by further dithering intervals Δprt X, i, Δprt Y, i, Δprt M, i).
Regarding claim 16, Offermans teaches wherein the processor to determine the dithering interval and the further dithering interval at least partially responsive to the dithering schedule (para. [0068] “memory”; “Pseudo Random Generator (PRG)” and “PRG seed”, para. [0083], provide a dithering schedule as claimed and are used to determine the dithering interval according to equation (1), where dithering intervals are determined for each transmitter X, Y, M, etc.).
Regarding claim 17, Offermans teaches wherein, according to the dithering schedule, the dithering interval and the further dithering interval have the same duration at least partially responsive to a chain-level dithering (para. [0129] “the transmitter sites in a GRO can use the same transmission key” indicates a chain-level dithering where dithering intervals will have a same duration).
Regarding claim 18, Offermans teaches wherein, according to the dithering schedule, the dithering interval and the further dithering interval have different durations at least partially responsive to a transmitter-level dithering (Fig. 4 Δprt X, i, Δprt Y, i, Δprt M, i show different dithering interval durations for different transmitters X, Y, M).
Regarding claim 19, Offermans teaches wherein the processor to: adjust the time of transmission to account for a first duration of the dithering interval (Δprt M, start in equation (1) of para. [0083]); and adjust the time of transmission to account for a second duration of the dithering interval (PRGM(i) * Δprt swing in equation (1) of para. [0083]).
Regarding claim 20, Offermans teaches wherein the first duration of the dithering interval comprises one or both of a chain-level dithering and a transmitter-level dithering (Δprt M, start in equation (1) of para. [0083]) and wherein the second duration of the dithering interval comprises masking dithering (PRGM(i) * Δprt swing in equation (1) of para. [0083]).
Regarding claim 21, Offermans teaches wherein the processor to determine a location of the device at least partially responsive to the ranging signal (830, Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 22, Offermans teaches wherein the processor to determine a location of the device at least partially responsive to the adjusted time of transmission (830, Fig. 8).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSI J GALT whose telephone number is (571)270-1469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM - 5PM 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, WILLIAM KELLEHER 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.
/CASSI J GALT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648