DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s 07/24/2025 Amendments/Arguments, which directly amended claims 5, 7; and traversed the rejections of the claims of the 02/24/2025 Office Action are acknowledged.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crank (US 2003/0130771 which was cited in previous Office Action) in view of Schipper et al (US 2008/0068260).
PNG
media_image1.png
550
618
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
453
538
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
845
540
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
835
540
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Crank discloses in Fig 1-2, 3B, and 4B above a position information processing apparatus (i.e. airborne element) comprising:
a receiving device (i.e. GNSS receiver 3) capable of receiving a signal including a satellite signal (Fig 4B; [0058]-[0064]);
an accepting device (i.e. reads on GNSS receiver 3 in conjunction with programmable gate 4, RA/GPWS 5 and digital encoder 7) capable of repeatedly acquiring sequential information including a plurality of recording target information changeable with time, including position information obtained using a signal received by the receiving device (Fig 4B; [0058]-[0064]);
a recording device (i.e. reads on buffer system 9 of Fig 2 or GNSS buffer 80 of Fig 3B) capable of correlating and recording the accepted sequential information with time information ([0072]; [0154]),
wherein the accepting device capable of recording information relating to the satellite signal used as a basis of an operation of the position information and providing the information for authentication processing (Fig 4B; [0058]-[0064]), and
the accepting device is configured to detect at least one satellite signal from the signals received by the receiving device ([0058]-[0064]),
the accepting device capable of generating a reference signal on the basis of each of the plurality of signals, acquiring and accepting two or more pieces of position information on the basis of the generated reference signal and the signal received by the receiving device when a plurality of signals with the same PRN-ID are detected in a one-time detection performed by the accepting device ([0058]-[0064]),
the accepting device capable of acquiring position information when a single signal with the same PRN-ID is detected in the one-time detection performed by the accepting device ([0058]-[0064]), and
the recording device capable of recording the obtained position information indicating the mutually different positions when two or more pieces of the position information relating to mutually different positions are obtained ([0072]; [0154]).
Crank does not explicitly disclose the accepting device configured to detect at least one signal with a PRN-ID (Pseudorandom Noise Number ID) which is information that identifies a satellite, from the signals received by the receiving device as claimed. However, such detected signal(s) with a PRN-ID (Pseudorandom Noise Number ID) which is information that identifies a satellite is well known in the art of satellite navigation system as shown to be taught in the same field of endeavor by Schipper et al (i.e. “In GPS, the incoming digital bit sequence is a pseudorandom number bit sequence (PRN). Each GPS satellite has its own PRN. The GPS receiver generates its own bit sequence and then correlates it to the incoming PRN from the GPS satellite. The result of the correlation is a measured offset between the locally created bit sequence and the PRN from the satellite.”) ([0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Crank et al in view of Schipper et al by incorporating such the accepting device configured to detect at least one signal with a PRN-ID (Pseudorandom Noise Number ID) which is information that identifies a satellite, from the signals received by the receiving device as taught by Schipper et al to gain advantage of properly obtaining a satellite information and identification; and also since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
The statements of intended use or field of use (i.e. receives, acquires, correlates, records, provides, generates, accepts) are essentially method limitations or statements of intended or desired use. Thus, these claims as well as other statements of intended use do not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference. See In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641; In re Yanush, 177 USPQ 705; In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530; In re Casey, 512 USPQ 235; In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458; Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2nd 1647.
See MPEP § 2114 which states:
A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2nd 1647
Claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than functions. In re Danly, 120 USPQ 528, 531.
Apparatus claims cover what a device is not what a device does. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528.
As set forth in MPEP § 2115, a recitation in a claim to the material or article worked upon does not serve to limit an apparatus claim.
Applicant is suggested to amend the claims with language such as “arranged to” or “configured to” for positively reciting the claimed invention and for distinguishing the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of structure. However, such amendment to claims, if overcoming the prior arts, would require further consideration and/or search from the Examiner in order to determine the patentability of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6, Crank discloses a selecting and outputting device that (i.e. reads on decoder 14 of Fig 2 or decoder 79 of Fig 3B) capable of selecting and outputting probable information from the recorded position information when the recording device records the two or more pieces of the position information relating to the mutually different positions ([0071]; [0154]). While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
The statements of intended use or field of use (i.e. selects, outputs) are essentially method limitations or statements of intended or desired use. Thus, these claims as well as other statements of intended use do not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference. See In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641; In re Yanush, 177 USPQ 705; In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530; In re Casey, 512 USPQ 235; In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458; Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2nd 1647.
See MPEP § 2114 which states:
A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2nd 1647
Claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than functions. In re Danly, 120 USPQ 528, 531.
Apparatus claims cover what a device is not what a device does. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528.
As set forth in MPEP § 2115, a recitation in a claim to the material or article worked upon does not serve to limit an apparatus claim.
Applicant is suggested to amend the claims with language such as “arranged to” or “configured to” for positively reciting the claimed invention and for distinguishing the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of structure. However, such amendment to claims, if overcoming the prior arts, would require further consideration and/or search from the Examiner in order to determine the patentability of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, Crank discloses in Fig 1-2, 3B, and 4B above a position information processing apparatus (i.e. airborne element) comprising:
a receiving device (i.e. GNSS receiver 3) capable of receiving signals including a satellite signal (Fig 4B; [0058]-[0064]);
an accepting device (i.e. reads on GNSS receiver 3 in conjunction with programmable gate 4, RA/GPWS 5 and digital encoder 7) capable of repeatedly accepting sequential information including recording target of information changeable with time, and including position information obtained using the received satellite signal, the accepting device is configured to detect at least one satellite signal from the signals received by the receiving device, and the accepting device capable of generating a reference signal on the basis of each of the plurality of signals, and acquiring and accepting sequential information including two or more pieces of information indicating mutually different positions on the basis of the generated reference signal and the signal received by the receiving device when a plurality of signals with the same PRN-ID are detected in a one time detection performed by the accepting device, and the accepting device capable of acquiring position information on the basis of a reference signal generated based on the single signal and the signal received by the receiving device when a single signal with the same PRN-ID is detected in the one-time detection performed by the accepting device (Fig 4B; [0058]-[0064]); and
a recording device (i.e. reads on buffer system 9 of Fig 2 or GNSS buffer 80 of Fig 3B) capable of correlating and recording the accepted sequential information together with time information, and when, in the one-time detection, the plurality of signals with the same PRN-ID are detected in the signals received by the receiving device, the receiving device capable of recording information indicating that signals other than the satellite signal may be included in the received signals in correlation with the sequential information ([0072]; [0154]).
Crank does not explicitly disclose the accepting device configured to detect at least one signal with a PRN-ID (Pseudorandom Noise Number ID) which is information that identifies a satellite, from the signals received by the receiving device as claimed. However, such detected signal(s) with a PRN-ID (Pseudorandom Noise Number ID) which is information that identifies a satellite is well known in the art of satellite navigation system as shown to be taught in the same field of endeavor by Schipper et al (i.e. “In GPS, the incoming digital bit sequence is a pseudorandom number bit sequence (PRN). Each GPS satellite has its own PRN. The GPS receiver generates its own bit sequence and then correlates it to the incoming PRN from the GPS satellite. The result of the correlation is a measured offset between the locally created bit sequence and the PRN from the satellite.”) ([0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Crank et al in view of Schipper et al by incorporating such the accepting device configured to detect at least one signal with a PRN-ID (Pseudorandom Noise Number ID) which is information that identifies a satellite, from the signals received by the receiving device as taught by Schipper et al to gain advantage of properly obtaining a satellite information and identification; and also since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
The statements of intended use or field of use (i.e. receives, accepts, generates, acquires, correlates, records) are essentially method limitations or statements of intended or desired use. Thus, these claims as well as other statements of intended use do not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference. See In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641; In re Yanush, 177 USPQ 705; In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530; In re Casey, 512 USPQ 235; In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458; Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2nd 1647.
See MPEP § 2114 which states:
A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2nd 1647
Claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than functions. In re Danly, 120 USPQ 528, 531.
Apparatus claims cover what a device is not what a device does. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528.
As set forth in MPEP § 2115, a recitation in a claim to the material or article worked upon does not serve to limit an apparatus claim.
Applicant is suggested to amend the claims with language such as “arranged to” or “configured to” for positively reciting the claimed invention and for distinguishing the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of structure. However, such amendment to claims, if overcoming the prior arts, would require further consideration and/or search from the Examiner in order to determine the patentability of the claimed invention.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the prior art of Crank does not take spoof signals into account and therefore operates under the implicit assumption that only one satellite identifying information (PRN-ID) appears at the correlation peak. In other words, in Crank, a plurality of signals with the same satellite identifying information are not detected. Thus, Crank fails to teach or suggest “when a plurality of signals with the same satellite identifying information are detected in a one-time detection performed by the accepting device, the accepting device generates a reference signal on the basis of each of the plurality of signals, acquires and accepts two or more pieces of position information on the basis of the generated reference signal and the signal received by the receiving device” as claimed.
Examiner respectful disagrees because as stated above and in previous 02/24/2025 Office Action, the claims are replete with the statements or intended or desired use that are either essentially method limitations or statements or intended or desired use. Thus, these claims, as well as other statements of intended use do not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Therefore, the rejections based on the prior arts are still proper.
Also as stated above and in 02/24/2025 Office Action, Applicant is suggested to amend the claims with language such as “arranged to” or “configured to” for positively reciting the claimed invention and for distinguishing the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of structure. However, such amendment to claims, if overcoming the prior arts, would require further consideration and/or search from the Examiner in order to determine the patentability of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11,831,679 discloses methods, apparatus, and systems for detecting signals interfering with satellite signaling and determining a location of the interfering source. In one example aspect, a method for detecting a signal directed at interfering with satellite signaling includes receiving, by a receiving node, a signal from a signal source, the signal produced by the signal source disguised as a satellite signal; determining an estimated position of the receiving node based on an orbital position of the satellite and a characteristic of the signal; comparing the estimated position of the receiving node with a reference position of the receiving node; determining that the signal source is a spoofing source different than the satellite; and determine a location of the spoofing source in part based on the estimated position.
US 10,983,220 discloses systems and methods for performing spoofing detection and rejection including receiving, at a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) device having an antenna, a set of signals, identifying a questionable signal in the set of signals, and in accordance with a determination that the set of signals includes a subset of valid GNSS satellite signals, where the subset satisfies a minimum number of valid GNSS satellite signals and does not include the questionable signal, calculating an approximate position of the GNSS device based on the subset of valid GNSS satellite signals.
US 8,531,332 discloses an anti-spoofing detection system pertains to detecting counterfeit position location data transmitted by a counterfeit signal source, discarding those counterfeit signals and, where possible, establishing a position unaffected by the counterfeit signals.
US 7,605,751 discloses a method and systems for processing Global Positioning System (GPS) signals. The method includes determining if two signals or more signals with the same pseudorandom number bit sequence (PRN) are detected by a GPS receiver.
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 CHUONG P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 10:00-10:00 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, JACK KEITH can be reached at (571) 272-6878. 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.
/CHUONG P NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646