DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Offermans “does not possess a pre-stored ‘schedule’ of intervals; it dynamically computes offsets using the PRG algorithm and seed” (response page 9, second paragraph), Examiner maintains that Offermans paras. [0068], [0083], and [0126] teach a pre-stored schedule of intervals for the reasons set forth in the rejection below.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the specification discusses examples of a dithering schedule in multiple forms (1)-(3) (response page 9, fourth paragraph), Examiner notes that paragraphs [0175]-[0178] of the as-filed specification are cited as evidence for (1) and (3), but do not appear to provide any discussion of the schedules. Examiner will assume that Applicant intended to refer to paras. [0179]-[0181]. Examiner further maintains that Offermans paras. [0068], [0083], and [0126] teach a pre-defined schedule in a manner consistent with Applicant’s form (2), a function accepting key and epoch number, as described in specification para. [0121] “the dithering schedule may include a function (e.g., an encryption algorithm) 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”.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that claim 12 explicitly recites “the dithering schedule comprising a pre-defined schedule of dithering intervals” (paragraph bridging pages 9-10 of the response), Examiner maintains that Offermans’ equation (1) comprises a pre-defined schedule of dithering intervals as understood in view of para. [0121] of Applicant’s specification “the dithering schedule may include a function (e.g., an encryption algorithm) 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”.
Offermans’ equation (1) in para. [0083] accepts as input an epoch number i and a pseudorandom number from pseudorandom number generator PRGM(i), and returns a pseudorandom, i.e. dithered, interval Δprt M, i :
PNG
media_image1.png
136
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner notes that Offermans para. [0020] also teaches a key – “the transmitter and the receiver can be equipped with a key, a seed of a pseudo-random generator, or parameters of another randomizing algorithm for determining transmission times of a transmitter”.
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 notes that a pseudo random number is a quantity that appears to be random but is produced by a deterministic process. The values produced by the Pseudo Random Generator (PRG) are therefore entirely predetermined by the seed value (“PRG seed”, para. [0083]). Because the values are predetermined, both transmitter and receiver are able to calculate the same offset Δprt M, i as described in para. [0083] “the pseudo-random time offset... can be calculated by the transmitter site ... [and] can also be calculated by a receiver”. Examiner therefore maintains that the offsets Δprt M, i comprise a “pre-defined schedule of dithering intervals” as claimed.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that, while para. [0121] of the as-filed specification states the schedule “may include a function”, this function is described as part of the schedule, not a substitute for it, and that the function “accept[s] as input the key and the epoch number and may return corrections for dithering for one or more transmitters for that epoch (paragraph bridging pages 9-10 of response), Examiner respectfully disagrees that para. [0121] distinguishes Applicant’s function from Offermans’ function, as both accept inputs and return dithering corrections.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Offerman’s seed is a general-purpose pseudo-random number generator that produces security-oriented random offsets, not “a schedule of dithering intervals”, and that Offermans does not use the word “schedule” and describes the offsets as generated values, not pre-defined intervals (response page 10, first full paragraph), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Offermans equation (1) provides a predetermined offset time Δprt M, i from the nominal time Tnominal of every transmitted pulse. Examiner maintains that one of ordinary skill would recognize this as a ”pre-defined schedule” as understood in view of Applicant’s specification para. [0121], regardless of whether Offermans uses the word “schedule”. Examiner further maintains, for the reasons discussed above, that the pseudo-random intervals Δprt M, i comprises pre-defined, dithered intervals.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that “under the Office’s logic, any stored deterministic algorithm would be a “schedule” of its outputs, rendering the phrase “store a dithering schedule, the dithering schedule comprising a pre-defined schedule of dithering intervals,” meaningless” (response page 10, second full paragraph), Examiner agrees that any stored deterministic algorithm would appear to provide a “schedule” of its outputs, given that the outputs are associated with events that occur at particular times, as Offerman’s algorithm provides. Examiner’s position is that Applicant’s phrase is broad, not that it is meaningless.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that claims 14 and 17 are independently allowable (response pages 10-11), Examiner agrees, and the rejections are withdrawn.
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, 15, 16, 18-22, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Offermans (US 20190377055 A1).
Regarding claims 12 and 26, 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 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 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 17 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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, RESHA DESAI can be reached on (571)270-7792. 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
Prosecution Insights