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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 13 January, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 13 January, 2026 is acknowledged and has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 January, 2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of a new ground of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 2, 6, 10, 16, 20, and 22 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “information of indicative of the bias” which contains typographical/ grammatical error(s).
Claim 6 recites “service data” which is suggested to be amended to “the service data” to clearly refer to limitation that was previously recited.
Claim 10 recites “information of indicative of the bias” which contains typographical/ grammatical error(s).
Claim 16 recites “information of indicative of the bias” which contains typographical/ grammatical error(s).
Claim 20 recites “service data” which is suggested to be amended to “the service data” to clearly refer to limitation that was previously recited.
Claim 22 recites “information of indicative of the bias” which contains typographical/ grammatical error(s).
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.
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(s) 2, 4, 6, 8-20, and 22 is/are 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.
Claim 2 recites “a rover station” which renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear whether this limitation references the same or different “one or more rover stations” as previously recited in claim 1 which claim 2 depends on.
Claim 4 recites “a rover station” which renders the claim indefinite for similar reason(s) as claim 2.
Claim 6 recites “a rover station” which renders the claim indefinite for similar reason(s) as claim 2.
Claim 8 recites “RTK” and “DGNSS” which renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear whether these abbreviations have alternate definitions. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these features in the claim. For purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the abbreviations “RTK” as ‘Real-Time Kinematic’ and “DGNSS” as ‘Differential Global Navigation Satellite System’.
Claim 9 recites “the bias in the location” which renders the claim indefinite, such that the scope of the claim could not be reasonably ascertainable by one of ordinary skill in the art. Specifically, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the bias” and “the location” in the claim.
Claim 10 recites “the bias in the location” which renders the claim indefinite for similar reason(s) as claim 9. Additionally, claim 10 recites “a rover station” which renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear whether this limitation references the same or different “one or more rover stations” as previously recited in claim 9 which claim 10 depends on.
Claim 11 recites “the bias in the location” which renders the claim indefinite for similar reason(s) as claim 9.
Claim 12 recites “a rover station” which renders the claim indefinite for similar reason(s) as claim 10.
Claim 14 recites “the determined bias in the location” which renders the claim indefinite for similar reason(s) as claim 9. Additionally, claim 14 recites “a rover station” which renders the claim indefinite for similar reason(s) as claim 10.
Claim 15 recites “the bias in the location” which renders the claim indefinite, such that the scope of the claim could not be reasonably ascertainable by one of ordinary skill in the art. Specifically, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the bias” and “the location” in the claim.
Claim 16 recites “a rover station” which renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear whether this limitation refers to the same or different “one or more rover stations” as previously recited in claim 15 which claim 16 depends on. Additionally, claim 16 recites “the bias in the location” which renders the claim indefinite for similar reason(s) as claim 15.
Claim 17 recites “the bias in the location” which renders the claim indefinite for similar reason(s) as claim 15.
Claim 18 recites “a rover station” which renders the claim indefinite for similar reason(s) as claim 16.
Claim 20 recites “the determined bias in the location” which renders the claim indefinite for similar reason(s) as claim 15. Additionally, claim 20 recites “a rover station” which renders the claim indefinite for similar reason(s) as claim 16.
Claim(s) 10-14, 16-20, and 22 is/are additionally rejected by virtue of their dependence on respective claim(s) 9 and 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) are directed to a system and a method and recite(s) judicial exceptions as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis below. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis below. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as explained in the Step 2B analysis below.
Independent claim(s) 1, 9, and 15:
Claim 1:
A method of determining a bias in a location of a base station of a satellite-based differential positioning system, the method comprising: obtaining a first Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) measurement taken by a GNSS receiver of the base station at a first time, wherein the first GNSS measurement comprises an ionosphere-free carrier phase combination; obtaining a second GNSS measurement taken by the GNSS receiver of the base station at a second time, wherein the second GNSS measurement comprises an ionosphere-free carrier phase combination; and determining the bias in the location of the base station based at least in part on a difference between the first GNSS measurement and the second GNSS measurement, wherein the satellite-based differential positioning system is configured to send service data associated with the base station to one or more rover stations.
Claim 9:
A device comprising: a transceiver; a memory; and one or more processing units communicatively coupled with the memory and transceiver, and configured to: obtain a first Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) measurement taken by a GNSS receiver of a base station for which a satellite-based differential positioning system is configured to send service data associated with the base station to one or more rover stations, wherein the first GNSS measurement is taken by the GNSS receiver of the base station at a first time, wherein the first GNSS measurement comprises an ionosphere-free carrier phase combination; obtain a second GNSS measurement taken by the GNSS receiver of the base station at a second time, wherein the second GNSS measurement comprises an ionosphere- free carrier phase combination; and determine the bias in the location of the base station based at least in part on a difference between the first GNSS measurement and the second GNSS measurement.
Claim 15:
An apparatus comprising: means for obtaining a first Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) measurement taken by a GNSS receiver of a base station for which a satellite-based differential positioning system is configured to send service data associated with the base station to one or more rover stations, wherein the first GNSS measurement is taken by the GNSS receiver of the base station at a first time, wherein the first GNSS measurement comprises an ionosphere-free carrier phase combination; means for obtaining a second GNSS measurement taken by the GNSS receiver of the base station at a second time, wherein the second GNSS measurement comprises an ionosphere-free carrier phase combination; and means for determining the bias in the location of the base station based at least in part on a difference between the first GNSS measurement and the second GNSS measurement.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 1 recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. Claim 9 recites a device, and therefore, is a machine/ manufacture. Claim 15 recites an apparatus, and therefore, is a machine/ manufacture. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis. Independent claim(s) 9 and 15 will not be evaluated separately because the claim(s) contain sufficiently the same limitations as those noted for claim 1 below.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes)?
Yes. Claim 1 recites “A method of determining a bias in a location of a base station of a satellite-based differential positioning system, the method comprising: obtaining a first Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) measurement taken by a GNSS receiver of the base station at a first time, wherein the first GNSS measurement comprises an ionosphere-free carrier phase combination; obtaining a second GNSS measurement taken by the GNSS receiver of the base station at a second time, wherein the second GNSS measurement comprises an ionosphere-free carrier phase combination; and determining the bias in the location of the base station based at least in part on a difference between the first GNSS measurement and the second GNSS measurement, wherein the satellite-based differential positioning system is configured to send service data associated with the base station to one or more rover stations.”
The focus of the claim (i.e., “determining the bias in the location of the base station based at least in part on a difference between the first GNSS measurement and the second GNSS measurement”) is on selecting certain information and analyzing it. These observations or evaluations are simply mathematical concepts (e.g., algorithms, spatial relationships, geometry). When given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the disclosure, “determining the bias in the location of the base station based at least in part on a difference between the first GNSS measurement and the second GNSS measurement” is simply selection and mathematical manipulation of data. Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from an abstract idea.
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional limitation(s) of “obtaining a first Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) measurement taken by a GNSS receiver of the base station at a first time, wherein the first GNSS measurement comprises an ionosphere-free carrier phase combination; obtaining a second GNSS measurement taken by the GNSS receiver of the base station at a second time, wherein the second GNSS measurement comprises an ionosphere-free carrier phase combination” and “wherein the satellite-based differential positioning system is configured to send service data associated with the base station to one or more rover stations” are recited at a high level of generality. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. The further limitation(s) are considered insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. The limitation(s) of “a GNSS receiver; base station; rover stations” represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on generic devices, and can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). The additional limitation(s) represent no more than mere attempt to recite a field in which the device is intended to be applied.
Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
Step 2 considers whether the claim provides limitations which amount to “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mathematical concept of claim 1.
The limitation(s) of “obtaining a first Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) measurement taken by a GNSS receiver of the base station at a first time, wherein the first GNSS measurement comprises an ionosphere-free carrier phase combination; obtaining a second GNSS measurement taken by the GNSS receiver of the base station at a second time, wherein the second GNSS measurement comprises an ionosphere-free carrier phase combination” and “wherein the satellite-based differential positioning system is configured to send service data associated with the base station to one or more rover stations” are recited in a manner that is well understood, generic and conventional. The additional recitation(s) do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation(s) are at a high level of generality and are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The limitation(s) are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not provide meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mathematical concept of claim 1 and does not state an inventive concept. The limitation(s) are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually.
Applicant’s disclosure does not provide evidence that the additional element(s) recited in claim 1 (i.e., the claim element(s) in addition to the abstract idea) is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This issue is explained by the Federal Circuit, as follows:
It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention “significantly more” than that ineligible concept. In Alice, the Supreme Court held that claims directed to a computer-implemented scheme for mitigating settlement risks claimed a patent-ineligible abstract idea. 134 S.Ct. at 2352, 2355—56. Some of the claims at issue covered computer systems configured to mitigate risks through various financial transactions. Id. After determining that those claims were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, the Court considered whether the recitation of a generic computer added “significantly more” to the claims. Id. at 2357. Critically, the Court did not consider whether it was well-understood, routine, and conventional to execute the claimed intermediated settlement method on a generic computer. Instead, the Court only assessed whether the claim limitations other than the invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it was directed were well-understood, routine and conventional. Id. at 2359-60. BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (2018) (emphases added).
Therefore, independent claim(s) 1, 9, and 15 are ineligible.
Claims 2-8, 10-14, 16-20, and 22:
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claims 2-8, and 22 recite a series of steps, and therefore, fall under a process. Claim(s) 10-14 recite a device, and therefore, fall under a machine/ manufacture. Claim(s) 16-20 recite an apparatus, and therefore, fall under a machine/manufacture. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis. Claim(s) 3-8, 10-14, 16-20, and 22 will not be evaluated separately because the claim(s) contain the same or sufficiently similar defects as those noted for claim 2 below.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the device of claim 1 which recites a mathematical concept (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from the abstract idea.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 2-8, 10-14, 16-20, and 22 are ineligible.
Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 1-20, and 22 are not patent-eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20, and 22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. However, the Examiner notes that there is a possibility the scope of the claims would be significantly changed after the claims are rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s), set forth in this Office action; thus, further search and consideration will be made after official amendment is filed on record.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the closest reference Talbot et al. (US 2010/0214162 A1) discloses methods and apparatus for determining a position of an antenna of a GNSS rover from observations of GNSS signals collected at the antenna over multiple epochs and from correction data for at least one of the epochs. A first-epoch rover position relative to a base location is determined for a first epoch using a single-differencing process based on one of (i) fixed carrier-phase ambiguities and (ii) a weighted average of carrier-phase ambiguity candidates which is converged to a predetermined threshold. A second-epoch rover position relative to a base location is determined for a second epoch using a single-differencing process. A second-epoch update of the first-epoch rover position relative to the base location is determined for the second epoch using a single-differenced delta phase process and the first-epoch rover position is combined with the second-epoch update to obtain a second-epoch delta phase rover position relative to a moving base location of the second epoch. The second-epoch delta phase rover position is selected as reliable if the second-epoch rover position is not based on one of (i) fixed carrier-phase ambiguities and (ii) a weighted average of carrier-phase ambiguity candidates which is converged to a predetermined threshold.
However, Applicant’s claim(s) also encompasses an invention that the prior art does not disclose, teach, or otherwise render obvious. Specifically, there is nothing in the prior art that would suggest modifying reference Talbot to have the missing elements without the improper use of hindsight, within the context of the claim as a whole. Specifically, nothing in the prior art would suggest that “a method of determining a bias in a location of a base station of a satellite-based differential positioning system, the method comprising: obtaining a first Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) measurement taken by a GNSS receiver of the base station at a first time, wherein the first GNSS measurement comprises an ionosphere-free carrier phase combination; obtaining a second GNSS measurement taken by the GNSS receiver of the base station at a second time, wherein the second GNSS measurement comprises an ionosphere-free carrier phase combination; and determining the bias in the location of the base station based at least in part on a difference between the first GNSS measurement and the second GNSS measurement, wherein the satellite-based differential positioning system is configured to send service data associated with the base station to one or more rover stations” as recited in claim 1 and as similarly recited in claims 9 and 15.
Furthermore, McGraw (US 7,570,204 B1) discloses a method of generating differentially-corrected smoothed pseudorange data in a differential global positioning system (DGPS) includes generating, at a base station, non-mode specific pseudorange and carrier phase correction data. The non-mode specific pseudorange and carrier phase correction data is then provided to a remote receiver. At the remote receiver, one of a plurality of specific smoothing modes of operation is selected for use in generating differentially-corrected smoothed pseudorange and carrier phase data. The differentially-corrected smoothed pseudorange and carrier phase data is then generated by the remote receiver using the selected one of the plurality of specific smoothing modes of operation, and as a function of the non-mode specific pseudorange and carrier phase correction data received from the base station.
Further still, Whitehead et al. (US 2007/0085734 A1) discloses a method and system for local computation of information to improve accuracy in a differential Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS). The method comprising: determining a current location of a reference receiver; comparing the current location with at least one stored location; if a resultant of the comparing is less than a selected threshold, identifying as a reference location the at least one stored location, which is closest to the current location; otherwise establishing the current location as the reference location and storing the current location. The method also includes computing the information from signals from one or more GNSS satellites the based on the reference location; and transmitting the information for reception by one or more remote receivers.
Within the context of Applicant’s claimed invention as a whole, the prior arts made of record individually or in any combination, failed to teach, render obvious, or fairly suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the combination of the claimed feature(s) of claim(s) 1, 9, and 15.
Dependent claim(s) 2-8, 10-14, 16-20, and 22 would be allowable by virtue of their dependence on respective claim(s) 1, 9, and 15.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pan et al. (CN 103163542 A) is cited as pertinent art for the disclosure overall, and specifically the details of an observation constant based method for detecting a gross error in global navigation system (GNSS) baseline solution. The method includes firstly calculating a difference value between a double-differenced carrier ionosphere-free combination value and an observation equation calculation value, then performing estimation by using difference values between double-differenced carrier ionosphere-free combination values and observation equation calculation values of prior two epochs to obtain a threshold value of a corresponding difference value of a current epoch, and finally judging whether a carrier observation value of the current epoch contains the gross error by comparing the threshold value with the observation value.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAILEY R LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4910. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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 J KELLEHER can be reached at (571) 272-7753. 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.
/Hailey R Le/Examiner, Art Unit 3648 February 20, 2026