DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the Specification objection is overcome by the claim amendments (response pages 8-9), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has amended claim 1 line 3 and corresponding portions of claims 11 and 20 to read “integrated” instead of “at least partially integrated” and argued that support is found in Specification para. [0010] and Fig. 2. Examiner agrees that these portions of the Specification provide evidence that “integrated” as claimed is not new matter. However the Specification is still objected to because the term “integrated” does not appear in the Specification in the claimed context.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the proposed amendments are supported at paras. [0084], [0093], and [0230] and in Fig. 1D and 1G of the as-filed Specification (response page 10), Examiner agrees. Para. [0084] and Fig. 1D describe thirty-two different pulse encoding delays, and para. [0093] and Fig. 1G describe pulse delays as “the pulses can be considered as having a delay in either or both of time and phase” where the alternative “both” corresponds to the claim language “simultaneously encode respective encoding data associated with the ranging signal based on dynamic pulse start times and phases of the respective encoding data associated with the ranging signal”. However, the specification has been objected to because it does not provide antecedent basis for the terms used in the amended language.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Offermans does not teach “wherein the first pulse and the second pulses exhibiting respective encoding delays selected to simultaneously encode respective encoding data associated with the ranging signal based on dynamic pulse start times and phases of the respective encoding data associated with the ranging signal” (response page 11, 2nd paragraph), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Please see the rejection below for details.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Offermans appears to describe time-of-arrival ranging with data modulation via phase shifts or pulse positioning applied to separate pulse groups (response page 11, second paragraph), Examiner is unclear what portion of Offermans Applicant is referring to. Applicant has cited paras. [0004]-[0008], [0018]-[0022], and the abstract in support, but none of these appear to describe data modulation via phase shifts or pulse positioning applied to separate pulse groups. To the contrary, para. [0022] appears to describe the opposite: “In another implementation, randomization of the phase code may be used together with randomization of the transmission time of the timing pulses” (emphasis added).
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Offermans’ encoding delay is not used to encode multiple types of data simultaneously, such as timing and data (response page 11, second paragraph), Examiner is unclear what portion of the claim language Applicant is referring to. The claims recite “simultaneously encode respective encoding data associated with the ranging signal based on dynamic pulse start times and phases of the respective encoding data associated with the ranging signal”, but do not appear to recite multiple types of data simultaneously encoded.
Regarding Applicants argument that Offermans describes unified integration of ranging and data signals within the same pulse group, that is that the encoding delay does not simultaneously carry data and ranging information (response page 11, second paragraph), Examiner respectfully disagrees, as Offermans’ paras. [0041] and [0042] make it clear that both types of information are carried. Regarding data, para. [0041] states “the data channel generator 206 can support one or more Loran Data Channel (LDC) standards. For example, the data channel generator 206 can support one or both of the Tri-state pulse position modulation and 9.sup.th pulse modulation standards”. Regarding ranging information, para. [0042] states “Tri-state pulse position modulation modulates 6 out of 8 Loran pulses with a one (1) us modulation index, without noticeably affecting the timing or positioning performance of a user receiver” (emphasis added). The presence of data therefore does not preclude the ability to obtain range information.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Helwig does not teach or suggest the first pulse and the second pulses of the same pulse group exhibiting respective encoding delays selected to simultaneously encode respective encoding data of the ranging signal based on dynamic pulse start times and phases of the respective encoding data as claimed, but instead describes a signal structure in that data is transmitted through pulse position modulation and amplitude modulation on specific pulses within a pulse group, where the data channel is distinct from the ranging signal (response page 11, third full paragraph), Examiner is unsure which portion of Helwig Applicant is referring to. Applicant has cited pages 2-31 of Helwig in support of this argument, but none of these pages appear to describe “amplitude modulation”, for example. Further, Helwig has only been relied upon to provide inherent details of eLoran features described by Offermans.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Helwig is also missing aspects of unified integration of the ranging signal and the data signal within one pulse group, with no variable encoding delay present in Helwig which carries both ranging and data information, Helwig has not been relied upon to teach these features. Helwig has only been relied upon to provide inherent details of eLoran features described by Offermans.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Offermans and Helwig do not integrate range and data in the same pulse group, but do this separately, that is that Offermans doesn’t disclose that the pulses of the same pulse group serve dual purposes: providing timing for ranging while encoding data via deviations from nominal inter-pulse intervals (e.g. encoding delays) and phase variations (paragraph bridging pages 11-12 of the response), Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, Offermans’ paras. [0041] and [0042] makes it clear that ranging and data are provided by the same pulse group. Regarding data, para. [0041] states “the data channel generator 206 can support one or more Loran Data Channel (LDC) standards. For example, the data channel generator 206 can support one or both of the Tri-state pulse position modulation and 9.sup.th pulse modulation standards”, indicating that the pulses in a pulse group are modulated to provide data. Regarding range, para. [0042] states “Tri-state pulse position modulation modulates 6 out of 8 Loran pulses with a one (1) us modulation index, without noticeably affecting the timing or positioning performance of a user receiver”, indicating that ranging is not affected by the data modulation.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o): “While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to ensure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification.”
Correction of the following is required: The specification does not provide proper antecedent basis for:
the ranging signal and data signal being “integrated” as recited in amended claim 1 line 3, claim 11 line 3, and claim 20 line 3; and
“simultaneously” encoding data “based on dynamic pulse start times and phases” as recited in amended claim 1 lines 11-14, claim 11 lines 10-12, and claim 20 lines 10-12.
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 1-3, 5-12, 14-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Offermans (US 20190377055 A1, cited on IDS) in view of Helwig (“eLoran System Definition and Signal Specification Tutorial” pages 20-21).
Regarding claim 1, Offermans (US 20190377055 A1) teaches [NOTE: limitations added by amendment are underlined] an apparatus (Fig. 3; paras. [0066]-[0068]) comprising:
an antenna (302, 304, Fig. 3) to receive a signal including a ranging signal and a data signal, the ranging signal and the data signal integrated in a same pulse group, the ranging signal encoding timing information for one or more of positioning, navigation, and timing (para. [0042] “Loran group of eight pulses”, “9th pulse”, and “10th pulse” together comprise a pulse group; Fig. 2 “DATA” 208 and para. [0026] “timing signals” and “data”, where “timing signals” would be understood to meet the claimed “ranging signals” in view of para. [0124] “use the timing signal to determine one or all of time, longitude, or latitude”, indicating a ranging signal and data signal integrated in a same pulse group), the pulse group comprising:
a first pulse having a first start time (any one of the pulses in the “Loran group of eight pulses”, para. [0042]); and
second pulses subsequent to the first pulse, the second pulses respectively having a second start time (any plurality of the 9th, 10th, and six out of eight “Tri-state pulse position modulation” pulses taught in paras. [0042], [0045], [0062]-[0063] that are subsequent to the pulse identified as the first pulse comprise second pulses subsequent to the first pulse as claimed; see Helwig page 21, which shows the six Tri-state PPM pulses as comprising the third through eight pulses), wherein the second start time is an integer number of inter-pulse intervals plus an encoding delay after the first start time, the encoding delay is encoding data associated with the data signal (para. [0042] describes the 9th and 10th pulses as “pulse position modulated in 32 positions resulting in a raw five (5) bits of information per pulse”; the 9th pulse, for example, is eight inter-pulse intervals plus the encoding delay of the pulse position modulation after the start time of the first of the “Loran group of eight pulses”, seven inter-pulse intervals plus the encoding delay after the second, six inter-pulse intervals plus encoding delay after the third, etc., as shown on page 21 of Helwig in the “Ninth Pulse” line; the “Tri-state pulse position modulation” pulses taught in para. [0042] similarly meet the language as shown in the “Eurofix” line on page 21 of Helwig; Helwig further teaches “Eurofix and Ninth Pulse simultaneously applicable”, consistent with Offermans para. [0041]; the resulting data is necessarily “associated with the data signal”),
wherein the first pulse and the second pulses exhibiting respective encoding delays selected to simultaneously encode respective encoding data associated with the ranging signal based on dynamic pulse start times and phases of the respective encoding data associated with the ranging signal (para. [0042] “Tri-state pulse position modulation modulates 6 out of 8 Loran pulses with a one (1) us modulation index... This LDC provides a raw seven (7) bits of information per Loran group of eight pulses” and “9th pulse modulation adds an LDC pulse in the ninth timeslot (right after the standard eight pulses). The pulse is pulse position modulated in 32 positions resulting in a raw five (5) bits of information per pulse” teach at least dynamic pulse start times that encode data; however, in view of Applicant’s para. [0093] “FIG. 1G illustrates the start times and phases of thirty-two example symbols in a polar plot... because the pulses are periodic, the pulses can be considered as having a delay in either or both of time and phase” (emphasis added), any of the pulses can be considered to have both dynamic pulse times and phases; note also that Helwig page 24 shows the 32 different pulse positions taught by Offermans arranged in four groups of eight pulses, where the first and third groups have phase of 0deg, the second and fourth groups have phase of 180deg (phases best seen in color document at https://www.ursanav.com/wp-content/uploads/UrsaNav-ILA-40-eLoran-Signal-Specification-Tutorial.pdf), and all pulses have a respective time delay, indicating dynamic pulse start times and phases; Helwig page 24 “32 state PPM, 5 bits/GRI (3 bits phase, 2 bits envelope & phase)” indicated that data is simultaneously encoded based on pulse position (envelope) and phase; alternatively, the combination of the dynamic pulse position modulation taught in para. [0042], which provides dynamic pulse start times, and the phase modulation taught in para. [0070] “each transmitter site can have its own phase code to identify and each transmitter site 120 can be identified independently from any other transmitter site 120”, where the identifying code comprises encoded data and changes phase dynamically between 0 and 180 degrees from pulse to pulse as shown in Helwig p. 17, meets the language, as these are performed simultaneously, with each pulse group being both pulse position modulated and phase coded); and
a processor to obtain the data responsive to the encoding delay (312, 320, Fig. 3; para. [0067] “DSP 320 can also decode the data transmitted via the LDC”).
PNG
media_image1.png
720
960
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
806
1076
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
806
1076
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
790
1050
media_image4.png
Greyscale
page 24
Regarding independent claim 11, in addition to what has already been discussed with respect to claim 1, identifying the first and second pulses in some manner is inherent to obtaining data responsive to the encoding delay as taught by Offermans in para. [0067] “DSP 320 can also decode the data transmitted via the LDC”.
Regarding independent claim 20, in addition to what has already been discussed with respect to claim 1, determining a duration of encoding delay is inherent to obtaining data responsive to the encoding delay as taught by Offermans in para. [0067] “DSP 320 can also decode the data transmitted via the LDC”.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Offermans teaches wherein the processor to determine a duration of the encoding delay (inherent to decoding data in the pulse position modulated 9th pulse).
Regarding claim 3, Offermans teaches wherein the processor to obtain one or more bits of the data responsive to a duration of the encoding delay (“The pulse is pulse position modulated in 32 positions resulting in a raw five (5) bits of information per pulse” para. [0042]).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Offermans teaches wherein the processor to identify a transmitter of the ranging signal at least partially responsive to the inter-pulse intervals (paras. [0022], [0070] “identify”).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Offermans teaches wherein the first pulse encodes a first type of data (any of the first eight pulses can further be considered to encode ranging data of “a first type” in the sense described in Applicant’s paras. [0095]-[0096]; also see data modulated using tri-state modulation of third through eighth pulses as per para. [0042] “Tri-state pulse position modulation modulates 6 out of 8 Loran pulses with a one (1) us modulation index”, where data modulated using tri-state modulation can be considered “a first type of data”) and the second pulse encodes a second type of data (data modulated using modulation of the 9th pulse as per para. [0042] “9th pulse modulation adds an LDC pulse in the ninth timeslot (right after the standard eight pulses). The pulse is pulse position modulated in 32 positions resulting in a raw five (5) bits of information per pulse” can be considered “a second type of data”); and,
wherein the processor, at least partially responsive to an order of the first pulse and the second pulse in the pulse group and a pre-specified pulse-ordering scheme (para. [0042] describes a pulse-ordering scheme comprising the 8 Loran pulses followed by the 9th and 10th pulses) to:
identify the first pulse of the pulse group with the first type of data; and identify the second pulse of the pulse group with the second type of data (the processor necessarily uses the order of the pulses to identify those modulated using tri-state modulation, i.e. the first eight, and those modulated using 9th pulse modulation, i.e. the ninth, in order to decode the data as per para. [0067]).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Offermans teaches wherein the processor to calculate a time of transmission of the first pulse; and adjust the calculated time of transmission to account for a pre-specified dithering interval (para. [0086] “exact transmission times for transmitter A… can be determined according to … TA,I = TA nominal +Δprt A, i”, where Δprt A,i is a dithering interval according to para. [0079] “pseudo-random time offset”).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Offermans teaches wherein the processor to determine a location of the apparatus at least partially responsive to the adjusted calculated time of transmission (Fig. 8, esp. 830).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Offermans teaches wherein each of the first pulse and the second pulse respectively exhibits at least one of a positive-going phase or a negative-going phase (inherent to phase codes paras. [0022], [0070]); and wherein the processor to validate a transmitter of the signal by comparing phases of the first pulse and the second pulse with a pre-specified pulse-phase signature (para. [0022] “pre-configured”, “identify”).
Regarding claims 10, 19, and 22 Offermans teaches wherein the processor to determine a location of the apparatus at least partially responsive to the ranging signal (abstract “determine at least one of a time, a longitude, and a latitude”).
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.
Claims 4, 13, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Offermans (US 20190377055 A1) in view of Helwig (“eLoran System Definition and Signal Specification Tutorial” pages 20-21) as applied to claims 1, 11, and 20 above, and further in view of Mimura (US 20090232197 A1).
Regarding claims 4, 13, and 21 Offermans teaches wherein the apparatus comprises a memory (para. [0068] “memory”). Offermans does not teach wherein the memory stores a table, and wherein the processor to obtain one or more bits of the data responsive to a comparison between a duration of the encoding delay and an entry in the table. However some type of data structure relating data bits to encoding delay appears to be required in order to decode the pulse position modulated data as per para. [0067] (“DSP 320 can also decode the data transmitted via the LDC”).
Mimura, in analogous art, teaches an apparatus receiving a pulse position modulated signal (abstract “PPM” and “reception device”) wherein a processor of the apparatus obtains one or more bits of data responsive to a comparison between a duration of an encoding delay and an entry in a table (Fig. 2B, where bits of data are shown in the “Input data” column and a corresponding encoding delay is shown in the “Pulse position” column, in view of paras. [0136], [0137]; para. [0154]-[0155] teach a receiver using the table to obtain bits of data).
It would have been obvious to modify Offermans by implementing a table as taught by Mimura because the data bits must be obtained as a function of the encoding delay in some manner and Mimura’s table is a known method that could be used with predictable results. This is a matter of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, an exemplary rationale that supports a conclusion of obviousness, see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Swaszek (“Loran phase codes, revisited”) teaches, with respect to Loran, that “all master signals use one specific phase code and all secondary signals use another”.
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.
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