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 amendments filed 8/25/2025 have been entered. Claims 1-13 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see ‘Remarks Paragraph 1’, filed 8/25/2025, with respect to claims 12-13have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections of claims 12 and 13 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see ‘Remarks Paragraphs 2-4’, filed 8/25/2025, with respect to claims 1-6 have been fully considered. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation of “discrete RF transmissions” is indefinite in that the Examiner is unsure if the Applicant is using discrete as one transmission in an interval of time or a digitized signal versus an analog signal. Khalife possesses a LEO satellite which will break transmission with a receiver as it orbits the earth, meaning it transmits in an interval of time, and Khalife possesses a digitized signal (Section 3 Paragraph 1, “This section describes a receiver architecture for navigation with LEO satellites transmitting direct QPSK signals”). The Examiner found no mention of “discrete RF transmissions” nor “intermittent signals” nor “low duty-cycle signals” in the specification and therefore the added limitation is considered new matter. As such, the amendments to claim 1 do not put it in a state of allowance and claims 1-6 remain rejected. The Examiner has changed the rejection to claim 1 in response to the amendment as the Examiner is interpreting discrete as a transmission in an interval of time. Additionally, as ‘discrete’ is not clear and the interval of time is not specified the Examiner does not interpret Khalife’s use of a phase-lock loop as preventative of anticipating the limitations.
Applicant’s arguments, see ‘Remarks Paragraphs 5’, filed 2/25/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6 have been fully considered. The Examiner agrees that Weng does not anticipate the amendment if the Examiner uses the ‘transmission in an interval of time’ definition. However, the Examiner would like to note that a ‘signal of opportunity’ is not specifically disclosed in the claims
Applicant’s arguments, see ‘Remarks Paragraphs 6-7’, filed 2/25/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6 have been fully considered. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Khalife wants to use LEO satellites for navigation, to further this undertaking it would seem sensible to incorporate features from other working systems. A reference that has a constraint, that the instant application does not possess, does not prevent the reference from teaching on the instant application. The Examiner would recommend specifying the type of satellite used in the invention.
Applicant’s arguments, see ‘Remarks Paragraphs 8-10’, filed 2/25/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6 have been fully considered. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. For claims 7-13 the Applicant refers to the arguments for claims 1-6 but, with the documents the Examiner currently has, claim 7 has not been amended to include ‘discrete RF transmissions’ as such the original rejection stands. In regards to Riley the quotation from paragraph 0014 should include the surrounding text: “In one particular implementation, a method may comprise storing a first portion of information acquired from one or more sources in a first epoch, wherein the stored first portion of information may include non-pseudorange measurements for at least one of the sources and is not sufficient to compute a navigation solution; and comprising obtaining a second portion of information subsequent to the first epoch, enabling use of the stored first portion of information in computing the navigation solution. It should be understood, however, that this is merely an example implementation and that claimed subject matter is not limited to this particular implementation” where Riley states that the ‘not sufficient to compute a navigation solution’ does not reflect the bulk of the application only that specific embodiment. Additionally, Riley is added to Khalife to address the position fix limitation not navigation. The receiver being stationary or immobile does not invalidate that Riley discloses finding the position fix, and the level of specificity in claim 1 does not invalidate that claim 16 of Riley anticipates the position fix limitation as Riley’s claim 16 specifically states “navigation solution comprises a position fix of a mobile receiver.” Unfortunately, because of all of the above the Examiner does not evaluate the claims in their current state to be in condition for allowance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 discloses a “discrete RF transmission” limitation that is not mentioned in the specification. It is unclear if discrete is referring to a digital signal versus an analog signal, or if it is referring to a transmission made within a certain period of time. If it is the latter, the length of the time interval is unclear.
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 1 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. Claim 1 discloses a “discrete RF transmission” limitation that is not mentioned in the specification. It is unclear if discrete is referring to a digital signal versus an analog signal, or if it is referring to a transmission made within a certain period of time. If it is the latter, the length of the time interval is unclear. For the sake of examining the Examiner will use the interpretation of a transmission within a time interval.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khalife Joe J et al: "Receiver Design for Doppler Positioning with Leo Satellites", ICASSP 2019 - 2019 IEEE International Conference On Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), IEEE, 12 May 2019 (2019-05-12), pages 5506-5510, XP033565135, DOI: 10.1109/ICASSP.2019.8682554 in view of Weng (US 7936642 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Khalife discloses
A method for determining positioning, navigation and timing solutions for a ground-based device (Page 5506, Introduction, paragraph 3, lines 3-7, "1) design specialized receivers that can extract navigation observables from these signals, 2) develop navigation frameworks that can account for the unknown nature of the LEO satellite SOP states (namely clock bias, drift, and/or position and velocity), and 3) characterize their error budgets" where the receiver is on the ground) comprising the steps of: receiving a RF signal at the ground-based device corresponding to a plurality of discrete RF transmissions from a satellite (Page 5506, Introduction, paragraph 3, lines 3-4, "1) design specialized receivers that can extract navigation observables from these signals”; Page 5506 Abstract, “A receiver architecture to acquire and track LEO satellite signals and extract Doppler measurements to LEO satellites is discussed” where a LEO satellite will cycle through breaking transmission and transmitting multiple times as it orbits, so it will transmit within an interval of time); said RF signal exhibiting a Doppler effect (Page 5506, Introduction, paragraph 3, lines 7-12, "This paper tackles the first two challenges…by discussing a receiver architecture to extract Doppler measurements from such signals and proposing a framework for positioning with the LEO satellite Doppler measurements"); determining whether the RF signal is from a satellite of interest (Page 5506, Introduction, paragraph 4, lines 1-3, "Extracting Doppler measurements from QPSK signals transmitted by LEO satellites can be achieved through carrier synchronization” where the carrier synchronization confirms that the ground device is communicating with the correct satellite), a satellite of interest having known data enabling an estimation of a current position of the satellite (Page 5506, Introduction, paragraph 2, lines 15-16, "Using TLEs and orbit determination algorithms (e.g., SGP 4), the positions and velocities of these satellites can be known"); utilizing a received RF signal of the satellite of interest to collect observed Doppler measurements of the received RF signal and time of receipt of the RF signal (Page 5506, Introduction, paragraph 4, lines 1-3, "Extracting Doppler measurements from QPSK signals transmitted by LEO satellites can be achieved through carrier synchronization”; and Page 5506, Introduction, paragraph 4, lines 12-15, "An extended Kalman filter (EKF) is employed to simultaneously estimate the receiver's position and the difference between the receiver's and each of the LEO satellites' clock drifts" where comparing clock drift involves the time a signal is received); estimating the position of the satellite of interest as a function of the known data for the satellite of interest (Page 5507, 2.3 Pseudorange Rate Measurement Model, paragraph 1, lines 1-6, "The receiver produces pseudorange rate measurements to the l-th satellite, which can be related to the Doppler frequency at time-step k using [equation 1] where f_D is the measured Doppler frequency to the l-th satellite, f_c,t is the carrier frequency at which the l-th satellite is transmitting" where the pseudorange rate involves knowing the satellites position); and determining the position, navigation and timing solution for the ground based device as a function of the observed Doppler measurements, to enable an estimation of the current location of the receiver (Page 5506, Introduction, paragraph 3, lines 3-4, "1) design specialized receivers that can extract navigation observables from these signals” and Page 5506-5507, Model Description, paragraph 1, lines 2-7, "The receiver listens to multiple LEO satellite downlink channels, where direct QPSK signals are transmitted. The receiver makes Doppler frequency measurements to each of the available LEO satellites and uses these measurements along with altimeter measurements to estimate its position using and EKF").
Khalife does not disclose predicting Doppler measurements for the satellite of interest as a function of the known data.
Weng discloses
Predicting Doppler measurements for the satellite of interest as a function of the known data (Col 1, line 65-67, “The remote receiver then computes the AA data according to the position and time information in step S1010” which is the known data; and Col 1, line 67 - Col 2, line 4, "For example, the remote receiver predicts possible Doppler shifts for the satellite in view of the remote receiver. That is, the AA data at least comprises predicted Doppler shifts for the satellite in view of the remote receiver").
Khalife and Weng are considered analogous arts as they both concern navigation via a ground receiver communicating with a satellite. Khalife’s invention depends on the movement/orbits of the satellites. Knowledge of future movements (which involve future Doppler shifts), would improve the invention as it would not have to spend as much time and resources searching for the relevant satellites. As Weng notes, Col 2, lines 15-19, "the remote receiver acquires the satellite signals using the AA data [that has the predictions] within the range of the window so as to avoid from searching the satellite in the widest range (i.e. all the Doppler shifts and all the code phases)." Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Khalife with Weng to improve Khalife’s ability to find the satellites it is tracking through predictions. Additionally, future knowledge of a satellites’ movement would mitigate potential collisions which would assist in the continued operation of the invention.
Regarding claim 2, Khalife further discloses
The method of claim 1, wherein a relative velocity of the satellite of interest is estimated from the known data for the satellite of interest (Page 5506, Introduction, paragraph 3, lines 3-7, “1) design specialized receivers that can extract navigation observables from these signals, 2) develop navigation frameworks that can account for the unknown nature of the LEO satellite SOP states (namely clock bias, drift, and/or position and velocity), and 3) characterize their error budgets”; Page 5506, Introduction, paragraph 2, lines 15-16, "Using TLEs and orbit determination algorithms (e.g., SGP 4), the positions and velocities of these satellites can be known").
Regarding claim 3, Khalife further discloses
The method of claim 2, wherein the known data for the satellite of interest includes two line element data (Page 5506, Introduction, paragraph 2, lines 15-16, "Using TLEs and orbit determination algorithms (e.g., SGP 4), the positions and velocities of these satellites can be known").
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Khalife and Weng discloses
The method of claim 1. Khalife does not disclose predicting future Doppler measurements.
Weng discloses
Developing a predicted set of Doppler measurements as a function of current location of the ground based device and the known information (Figure Col 1, line 30-34, “The orbit determination technology and satellite trajectory prediction can be implemented by using a plenty of ranging observations from reference ground network stations, which can be simply referred to as ground observations”).
Khalife and Weng are considered analogous arts as they both concern navigation via a ground receiver communicating with a satellite. Khalife’s invention depends on the movement/orbits of the satellites. Knowledge of future movements (which involve future Doppler shifts), would improve the invention as it would not have to spend as much time and resources searching for the relevant satellites. As Weng notes, Col 2, lines 15-19, "the remote receiver acquires the satellite signals using the AA data [that has the predictions] within the range of the window so as to avoid from searching the satellite in the widest range (i.e. all the Doppler shifts and all the code phases)." Additionally, as the invention is used for navigation, the position of the ground device will also be required. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Khalife with Weng to improve Khalife’s ability to find the satellites it is using for navigation purposes. Additionally, future knowledge of a satellites’ movement would mitigate potential collisions which would assist in the continued operation of the invention.
Regarding claim 5, Khalife further discloses
The method of claim 1, further comprising the step of providing a clock, the clock outputting a current time, and the method further comprising selecting data to estimate which satellites of interest may be in view to the receiver at the current time (Page 5506, Introduction, paragraph 4, lines 1-7, “Extracting Doppler measurements from QPSK signals transmitted by LEO satellites can be achieved through carrier synchronization…However, since these signals are being used opportunistically, one cannot assume that the receiver and satellites' clocks are synchronized. Therefore, the receiver's and satellite transmitters' clock drifts must be accounted for” where accounting for the clock drift requires a current/up-to-date clock and carrier signal synchronization, and its success, determines which satellites are in view of the receiver).
Regarding claim 6, Khalife further discloses
The method of claim 3, further comprising the step of periodically updating the known data (Page 5506, Introduction, paragraph 2, lines 11-14, “Moreover, the Keplerian elements parameterizing the orbits of these LEO satellites are made publicly available by the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and are updated daily in the two-line element (TLE) files”).
Claims 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khalife Joe J et al: "Receiver Design for Doppler Positioning with Leo Satellites", ICASSP 2019 - 2019 IEEE International Conference On Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), IEEE, 12 May 2019 (2019-05-12), pages 5506-5510, XP033565135, DOI: 10.1109/ICASSP.2019.8682554 (designated Khalife for the rest of the document) in view of Weng (US 7936642 B1) further in view of Riley (US 20110298658 A1).
Regarding claim 7,
A ground based device having a system for determining a positioning navigation and timing solution (Page 5506, Introduction, paragraph 3, lines 3-7, "1) design specialized receivers that can extract navigation observables from these signals, 2) develop navigation frameworks that can account for the unknown nature of the LEO satellite SOP states (namely clock bias, drift, and/or position and velocity), and 3) characterize their error budgets" where the receiver is on the ground), the system comprising; a satellite observation engine receiving RF signals from a satellite of interest (Page 5506, Introduction, paragraph 3, lines 3-4, "1) design specialized receivers that can extract navigation observables from these signals” where the receiver performs the same function as the satellite observation engine) and isolating and identifying one or more transmissions of interest therefrom as observations (Page 5506, Introduction, paragraph 4, lines 1-3, "Extracting Doppler measurements from QPSK signals transmitted by LEO satellites can be achieved through carrier synchronization” where focusing on the carrier frequency ignores noise form other non-relevant satellites and the carrier synchronization confirms that the ground device is communicating with the correct satellite); and a LEO PNT service receiving the observations from the satellite observation engine, Doppler measurements and time of receipt (Page 5506, Introduction, paragraph 3, lines 3-7, “1) design specialized receivers that can extract navigation observables from these signals, 2) develop navigation frameworks that can account for the unknown nature of the LEO satellite SOP states (namely clock bias, drift, and/or position and velocity), and 3) characterize their error budgets”; Page 5506, Introduction, paragraph 3, lines 7-12, “This paper tackles the first two challenges…by discussing a receiver architecture to extract Doppler measurements from such signals and proposing a framework for positioning with the LEO satellite Doppler measurements
Khalife does not disclose a closed loop service that stores known satellite information regarding the satellite of interest; a Doppler prediction engine that utilizes the satellite information stored in the closed loop service for each observed satellite and constructs a set of predicted Doppler measurements for satellites from which signals are received. Khalife also does not disclose determining a position fix for the receiver.
Weng discloses
A closed loop service that stores known satellite information regarding the satellite of interest (Figure 1, element 37; Col 1, line 67 - Col 2, line 4, "For example, the remote receiver predicts possible Doppler shifts for the satellite in view of the remote receiver. That is, the AA data at least comprises predicted Doppler shifts for the satellite in view of the remote receiver" where the receiver is using data collected from satellites for predictions and the AA data, which requires the data to be stored on the memory. So the receiver performs the same functions and is tantamount to the closed loop service); a Doppler prediction engine that utilizes the satellite information stored in the closed loop service for each observed satellite and constructs a set of predicted Doppler measurements for satellites from which signals are received (Abstract, “The input/output (I/O) interface is used for obtaining at least one satellite navigation message for a satellite”; Figure 1, element 37; Col 1, line 67 - Col 2, line 4, "For example, the remote receiver predicts possible Doppler shifts for the satellite in view of the remote receiver. That is, the AA data at least comprises predicted Doppler shifts for the satellite in view of the remote receiver" where the receiver is tantamount to the doppler prediction engine).
Riley discloses
Determining a position fix for the receiver (Claim 16, “The method of claim 1, wherein said navigation solution comprises a position fix of a mobile receiver”).
Khalife and Riley are considered analogous arts as they both concern navigation via a ground receiver communicating with a satellite. The purpose of Khalife’s invention is navigation but it does not explicitly disclose a position fix. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Khalife with Riely to add in a position fix so that it can make sure the position of the receiver is as accurate as possible.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Khalife, Weng and Riley disclose
The ground based device of claim 7. Khalife does not disclose, by itself, that there is a closed loop service storing the known satellite information about the satellite of interest.
Weng discloses
A closed loop service that stores known satellite information regarding the satellite of interest (Figure 1, element 37; Col 1, line 67 - Col 2, line 4, "For example, the remote receiver predicts possible Doppler shifts for the satellite in view of the remote receiver. That is, the AA data at least comprises predicted Doppler shifts for the satellite in view of the remote receiver" where the receiver is using data collected from satellites for predictions and the AA data, which requires the data to be stored on the memory. So, the receiver performs the same functions and is tantamount to the closed loop service)
Khalife and Weng are considered analogous arts as they both concern navigation via a ground receiver communicating with a satellite. Khalife’s invention depends on the movement/orbits of the satellites and calculates orbits and positions. Khalife does not explicitly mention memory but in order to perform those calculation it would require to store the data somewhere. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Khalife with Weng to explicitly add memory for calculations and making predictions of orbits.
Regarding claim 9, Khalife further discloses
The ground based device of claim 7, where in the known information is two line element information (Page 5506, Introduction, paragraph 2, lines 11-14, “Moreover, the Keplerian elements parameterizing the orbits of these LEO satellites are made publicly available by the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and are updated daily in the two-line element (TLE) files”).
Regarding claim 10, Khalife further discloses
The ground based device of claim 8, wherein the closed loop service receives updated information from a remote source and updates the known satellite information as a function thereof (Page 5506, Introduction, paragraph 2, lines 11-14, “Moreover, the Keplerian elements parameterizing the orbits of these LEO satellites are made publicly available by the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and are updated daily in the two-line element (TLE) files”).
Regarding claim 11, Khalife further discloses
The ground based device of claim 7, further comprising a satellite selection function tuning the system to the specific frequencies for one or more satellites of interest (Page 5506, Introduction, paragraph 4, lines 1-3, "Extracting Doppler measurements from QPSK signals transmitted by LEO satellites can be achieved through carrier synchronization” where the carrier synchronization confirms that the ground device is communicating with the correct satellite).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Khalife, Weng and Riley disclose
The ground based device of claim 7, further comprising satellite information from an outside source (Page 5506, Introduction, paragraph 2, lines 11-14, “Moreover, the Keplerian elements parameterizing the orbits of these LEO satellites are made publicly available by the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and are updated daily in the two-line element (TLE) files”) and determines a position of the satellite of interest (Page 5506, Introduction, paragraph 2, lines 15-16, “Using TLEs and orbit determination algorithms (e.g., SGP 4), the positions and velocities of these satellites can be known”). Khalife, by itself, does not disclose a LEO satellite prediction engine receiving observations from the satellite observation engine.
Weng discloses
A LEO satellite prediction engine receiving observations from the satellite observation engine (Col 1, line 67 - Col 2, line 4, "For example, the remote receiver predicts possible Doppler shifts for the satellite in view of the remote receiver. That is, the AA data at least comprises predicted Doppler shifts for the satellite in view of the remote receiver" where the receiver is tantamount to the doppler prediction engine and observation engine as described in claim 7).
Khalife and Weng are considered analogous arts as they both concern navigation via a ground receiver communicating with a satellite. Khalife’s invention depends on the movement/orbits of the satellites. Knowledge of future movements (which involve future Doppler shifts), would improve the invention as it would not have to spend as much time and resources searching for the relevant satellites. As Weng notes, Col 2, lines 15-19, "the remote receiver acquires the satellite signals using the AA data [that has the predictions] within the range of the window so as to avoid from searching the satellite in the widest range (i.e. all the Doppler shifts and all the code phases)". Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Khalife with Weng to improve Khalife’s ability to find the satellites it is tracking through predictions. Additionally, future knowledge of a satellites’ movement would mitigate potential collisions which would assist in the continued operation of the invention.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Khalife, Weng and Riley disclose
The ground based device of claim 12. Khalife, by itself, does not disclose a closed loop service storing the known satellite information about the satellite of interest, Khalife, by itself, does not disclose the Doppler prediction engine receives the known information from the closed loop service, and constructs a set of predicted Doppler measurements for all satellites for which signals are received.
Weng discloses
A closed loop service storing the known satellite information about the satellite of interest , and wherein the Doppler prediction engine receives the known information from the closed loop service, and constructs a set of predicted Doppler measurements for all satellites for which signals are received (Abstract, “The input/output (I/O) interface is used for obtaining at least one satellite navigation message for a satellite”; and Col 1, line 67 - Col 2, line 4, "For example, the remote receiver predicts possible Doppler shifts for the satellite in view of the remote receiver. That is, the AA data at least comprises predicted Doppler shifts for the satellite in view of the remote receiver" where the receiver is tantamount to both the closed loop service and the prediction engine, and therefore shares the same data, and predicts Doppler measurements).
Khalife and Weng are considered analogous arts as they both concern navigation via a ground receiver communicating with a satellite. Khalife’s invention depends on the movement/orbits of the satellites. Knowledge of future movements (which involve future Doppler shifts), would improve the invention as it would not have to spend as much time and resources searching for the relevant satellites. As Weng notes, Col 2, lines 15-19, "the remote receiver acquires the satellite signals using the AA data [that has the predictions] within the range of the window so as to avoid from searching the satellite in the widest range (i.e. all the Doppler shifts and all the code phases)." Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Khalife with Weng to improve Khalife’s ability to find the satellites it is tracking through predictions. Additionally, future knowledge of a satellites’ movement would mitigate potential collisions which would assist in the continued operation of the invention.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Weng (US-20090135061-A1) discloses using satellites in communication with a ground receiver for navigation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER D DOZE whose telephone number is (571)272-0392. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:40am - 5:40pm 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, Vladimir Magloire 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.
/PETER DAVON DOZE/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648