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
Applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 01/26/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant's amendments overcome the objections to the specification.
Claims 1-9 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1: Applicant argues that the combination of Anderson et al. (‘382) and Basnayake et al. (‘976) fails to teach the claim element:
“the at least one processor being configured to execute instructions that control the source node to establish, via the second wireless interface, a first wireless link with the at least one receiver node using the first wireless communications protocol”
Specifically, Applicant contends that Basnayake’s teaching at [0039] – “Electronic processing device 30 controls wireless communication signal transceiver 42 to scan for wireless communication signals” – does not establish that the processor (1) controls a source node including a second wireless interface, (2) to establish a first wireless link with the at least one receiver node, or (3) using the first wireless communications protocol. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive for the following reasons:
The combination of Anderson et al. (‘382) in view of Basnayake et al. (‘976) teaches all elements of the disputed claim limitation, including the establishment of a wireless link between nodes.
Anderson et al. (‘382) teaches: A multi-receiver device with a microprocessor-based controller that handles data transfers between subsystems and controls wireless communications ([0035]: “The GNSS receiver Subsystem (GRS) 301 is a low-power commercial GPS chipset connected to the microprocessor-based controller 302 via a data bus 308” and [0038]: “The controller 302 is a low-power commercial microprocessor which handles data transfers between subsystems as well as providing a computation platform” and [0036]: “The beacon receiver subsystem (BRS) 304 is a low-power commercial WLAN or Wireless receiver connected to the microprocessor-based controller 302 via a data bus 308”).
Basnayake et al. (‘976) teaches the missing processor control elements for establishing wireless links and transferring satellite data: Basnayake explicitly teaches a processor-controlled process for establishing wireless communication links between satellite navigation devices, Fig. 5:
[0050]: “At step 60, satellite navigation device 26 is paired with local portable wireless device 50 in implementations where such pairing is required or permitted”
[0051]: “At step 62, satellite navigation device 26 scans for local portable wireless device 50. In some implementations, satellite navigation device 26 only scans for wireless device (or devices) 50 to which it has previously been paired”
[0052]: “At step 64, satellite navigation device 26 transmits a wireless communication signal interrogating for local portable wireless device 50”
[0053]: “At step 66, satellite navigation device 26 receives wireless communication signal 48 containing satellite related data from local portable wireless device 50”
[0039]: “Electronic processing device 30 is also communicatively connected via lead or bus 40 to a wireless communication signal transceiver 42. Electronic processing device 30 controls wireless communication signal transceiver 42 to scan for wireless communication signals. Wireless communication signal transceiver 42 is further configured to forward the satellite related data to electronic processing device 30”
PNG
media_image1.png
746
502
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 13 of Basnayake: “The satellite navigation device of claim 10, wherein the electronic processing device is further configured to control the wireless communication signal transmitter to transmit an interrogation signal”
[0046]: “In yet another implementation, satellite navigation device 26 may be paired with a specific portable wireless device and may be configured to receive satellite related data only from that device or from other devices with which satellite navigation device 26 has been paired”
The combination of Anderson and Basnayake teaches that an electronic processing device (processor) controls a wireless communication transceiver to: (1) scan for wireless devices ([0051], [0039]), (2) transmit interrogation signals to initiate communication ([0052], Claim 13), (3) pair with specific devices to establish a secure link ([0050], [0046]), and (4) receive satellite configuration data over the established wireless link ([0053], [0039]).
These steps collectively constitute “establishing a wireless link” between a source node (the portable wireless device providing satellite data) and a receiver node (the satellite navigation device receiving the data) using a wireless communications protocol. The processor controls this entire process through the wireless interface.
Applicant’s assertion that “nothing in this sentence or paragraph establishes that the processor controls a source node…to establish…a first wireless link with the at least one receiving node” ignores the broader teaching of Basnayake when read as a whole. Patent claims are not evaluated in a vacuum nor by the a singular reference in a combination, but rather in view of what the prior art in combination as a whole teaches. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
The claimed element does not recite any specific method or protocol for “establishing” a wireless link beyond processor control via the wireless interface using a wireless communications protocol. Basnayake’s teaching of processor-controlled scanning, interrogation signaling, pairing, and data reception constitutes establishing a wireless link under a wireless communications protocol (Bluetooth, WiFi, DSRC, etc.). See Basnayake [0020]-[0022], [0046].
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Anderson’s multi-receiver system with processor-controlled wireless communication capabilities with Basnayake’s teaching of processor-controlled establishment of wireless links for transferring satellite data. One would have been motivated to do so because Anderson identifies the need for improved GNSS performance through multiple receivers ([0019]: “For increased performance, more than 2 receivers can be used in parallel”) and includes wireless communication capabilities ([0036]: “WLAN or Wireless receiver”), while Basnayake demonstrates that processor-controlled wireless transfer of satellite configuration data accelerates GNSS initialization ([0026]: “satellite navigation devices can wirelessly communicate with portable wireless devices and can download the ephemeris data directly from these portable wireless devices”). A person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success because both references operate in the field of GNSS positioning systems, Anderson demonstrates multi-receiver device architecture with wireless communication and processor control, and Basnayake demonstrates successful processor-controlled wireless links for satellite data transfer that reduce GNSS startup time.
Applicant’s argument that the cited teaching does not explicitly map to each sub-element of the claimed limitation does not overcome the rejection. The test for obviousness is not whether the references explicitly describe the claimed invention in the same or similar wording, but whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of the references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (US 2012/0194382 A1) in view of Basnayake et al. (US 2011/0068976 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Anderson et al. (‘382) in view of Basnayake et al. (‘976) teaches:
A system for wireless initialization of GNSS receivers, the system comprising: ([0019]: “The LDP is a multi-receiver device. The GNSS receiver is nominally used for location estimation”),
at least one receiver node configured to track one or more GNSS satellites and to provide a navigation output, the at least one receiver node including a first wireless interface configured for wireless communications according to a first wireless communications protocol; ([0035]: “The GNSS receiver Subsystem (GRS) 301 is a low-power commercial GPS chipset connected to the microprocessor-based controller 302 via a data bus 308” and [0036]: “The beacon receiver subsystem (BRS) 304 is a low-power commercial WLAN or Wireless receiver connected to the microprocessor-based controller 302 via a data bus 308”),
and a source node including a second wireless interface configured for wireless communications according to the first wireless communications protocol, ([0036]: “The beacon receiver subsystem (BRS) 304 is a low-power commercial WLAN or Wireless receiver”),
Anderson et al. (‘382) does not explicitly teach, but Basnayake et al. (‘976) teaches a data storage device configured to store GNSS configuration data, the GNSS configuration data including information to be used by the at least one receiver node to initialize the at least one receiver node for navigational operation, ([0024]: “Examples of satellite related data include ephemeris data and almanac data”),
Anderson et al. (‘382) does not explicitly teach, but Basnayake et al. (‘976) teaches and at least one processor coupled to the first wireless interface and to the data storage device, ([0036]: “Electronic processing device 30 may be any suitable computer, microprocessor or the like that is configured to execute software applications and/or subroutines” and [0039]: “Electronic processing device 30 is also communicatively connected via lead or bus 40 to a wireless communication signal transceiver 42”),
Anderson et al. (‘382) does not explicitly teach, but Basnayake et al. (‘976) teaches the at least one processor being configured to execute instructions that control the source node to establish, via the second wireless interface, a first wireless link with the at least one receiver node using the first wireless communications protocol, ([0039]: “Electronic processing device 30 controls wireless communication signal transceiver 42 to scan for wireless communication signals”),
and transfer the GNSS configuration data to the at least one receiver node over the first wireless link. ([0039]: “The local memory 303 is used to store Almanac and Ephemeris data from the GRS 301 as well as beacon information determined by the BRS 304”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the multi-receiver positioning system of Anderson et al. (‘382) with the wireless GNSS data transfer and processor control capabilities of Basnayake et al. (‘976). One would have been motivated to do so because Anderson describes a need for improved GNSS positioning performance [0019]: “The LDP is a multi-receiver device … For increased performance, more than 2 receivers can be used in parallel to allow concurrent GNSS and multiple terrestrial beacon sampling” and teaches a multi-receiver device with wireless communication capabilities [0036]: “WLAN or Wireless receiver”, while Basnayake teaches the missing elements of automated processor control for wireless data transfer [0039]: “Electronic processing device 30 controls wireless communication signal transceiver 42”and wireless transfer of satellite configuration data to accelerate GNSS initialization ([0026]: “satellite navigation devices can wirelessly communicate with portable wireless devices and can download the ephemeris data directly from these portable wireless devices”). A person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success because both references operate with GNSS positioning systems that can benefit from shared satellite data, Anderson demonstrates the feasibility of multi-receiver device architecture with wireless communication, Basnayake shows that automated wireless transfer of satellite data successfully reduces positioning startup time, and combining Anderson’s multi-receiver performance enhancement approach with Basnayake’s automated wireless data transfer would provide initialization benefits to all receivers in Anderson’s system.
Regarding Claim 3, Anderson et al. (‘382) in view of Basnayake et al. (‘976) teaches the system of claim 1,
wherein the at least one receiver node includes a plurality of GNSS receivers, ([0019]: “For increased performance, more than 2 receivers can be used in parallel to allow concurrent GNSS and multiple terrestrial beacon sampling” and [0035]: “The GNSS receiver Subsystem (GRS) 301” with [0036]: “The beacon receiver subsystem (BRS) 304”),
Anderson et al. (‘382) does not explicitly teach, but Basnayake et al. (‘976) teaches and wherein the source node is configured to establish the first wireless link with each of the plurality of GNSS receivers and to transfer the GNSS configuration data to the plurality of GNSS receivers substantially simultaneously ([0026]: “satellite navigation devices can wirelessly communicate with portable wireless devices and can download the ephemeris data directly from these portable wireless devices”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the multi-receiver system of Anderson et al. (‘382) to receive GNSS configuration data wirelessly as taught by Basnayake et al. (‘976). One would have been motivated to do so because Anderson teaches a device with multiple receivers including GNSS receivers ([0019]: “more than 2 receivers can be used in parallel”), and Basnayake demonstrates that wireless transfer of satellite configuration data can accelerate GNSS initialization ([0026]: “satellite navigation devices can wirelessly communicate with portable wireless devices and can download the ephemeris data”). A person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Anderson’s multiple receiver architecture is specifically designed for enhanced performance, and Basnayake shows that providing satellite data to GNSS receivers improves their initialization speed, making the combination beneficial for all receivers in Anderson’s multi-receiver device.
Regarding Claim 6, Anderson et al. (‘382) in view of Basnayake et al. (‘976) teaches the system of claim 1.
Anderson et al. (‘382) does not explicitly teach, but Basnayake et al. (‘976) teaches wherein the first wireless link is a short-range communication link having a maximum communication range of about 200 meters ([0022]: “DSRC is an acronym which stands for dedicated short range communications” and [0021]: “the term “local portable wireless device” refers to a portable wireless device that is located near enough to a satellite navigation device to be able to engage in wireless communications”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the wireless link of Anderson et al. (‘382) as a short-range communication link as taught by Basnayake et al. (‘976). One would have been motivated to do so because Anderson describes wireless communication between nearby devices ([0036]: “WLAN or Wireless receiver”), and Basnayake demonstrates successful short-range communications for satellite data transfer ([0022]: “dedicated short range communications”). A person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success because both references involve wireless transfer of satellite data between nearby devices, and implementing Anderson’s wireless communication as short-range would conserve power and reduce interference while maintaining the proven data transfer capabilities.
Regarding Claim 7, Anderson et al. (‘382) in view of Basnayake et al. (‘976) teaches the system of claim 1.
Anderson et al. (‘382) does not explicitly teach, but Basnayake et al. (‘976) teaches wherein, to establish the first wireless link with the at least one receiver node, the source node is configured to pair with the at least one receiver node ([0046]: “satellite navigation device 26 may be paired with a specific portable wireless device and may be configured to receive satellite related data only from that device” and [0050]: “satellite navigation device 26 is paired with local portable wireless device 50 in implementations where such pairing is required or permitted”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement pairing functionality in Anderson et al. (‘382) as taught by Basnayake et al. (‘976). One would have been motivated to do so because Anderson describes wireless communication between specific devices ([0036]: “WLAN or Wireless receiver connected to the microprocessor-based controller 302”), and Basnayake teaches that pairing ensures secure and reliable data transfer between specific devices ([0046]: “satellite navigation device 26 may be paired with a specific portable wireless device”). A person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Basnayake demonstrates that pairing is a proven method for establishing secure connections between satellite navigation devices, and pairing would enhance the security and reliability of Anderson’s wireless communication system.
Regarding Claim 8, Anderson et al. (‘382) in view of Basnayake et al. (‘976) teaches the system of claim 1.
Anderson et al. (‘382) does not explicitly teach, but Basnayake et al. (‘976) teaches wherein the GNSS configuration data includes satellite almanac data corresponding to a geographic location of the source node and the at least one receiver node ([0024]: “Examples of satellite related data include ephemeris data and almanac data” and [0004]: “The second category of navigation data, the ‘almanac’, contains information relating to the general system health and rough orbits of all the satellites in the constellation”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include satellite almanac data in the satellite data stored by Anderson et al. (‘382) as taught by Basnayake et al. (‘976). One would have been motivated to do so because Anderson teaches storage of satellite data ([0039]: “The local memory 303 is used to store Almanac and Ephemeris data from the GRS 301”), and Basnayake demonstrates that almanac data is a standard and essential component of satellite navigation systems ([0024]: “Examples of satellite related data include ephemeris data and almanac data”). A person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Anderson already stores satellite data for its GNSS receivers, and including almanac data would enhance the positioning capabilities using the same proven data storage mechanism without technical complications.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (US 2012/0194382 A1) in view of Basnayake et al. (US 2011/0068976 A1) and further in view of Wu et al. (US 2021/0022155 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Anderson et al. (‘382) in view of Basnayake et al. (‘976) and further in view of Wu et al. (‘155) teaches the system of claim 1.
Anderson et al. (‘382) does not explicitly teach, but Wu et al. (‘155) teaches wherein the source node is a GNSS receiver comprising a full duplex transceiver ([0045]: “FIG. 2 illustrates an exemplary embodiment of a device 200, in which a GNSS receiver 220 and/or one or more RAT transceivers 210 are used in conjunction in a device to enable full duplex communication of the GNSS receiver and the RAT transceivers” and [0050]: “To enable full duplex operation of GNSS Receiver 220 and (e.g., concurrently with) RAT transceivers 210, several hardware components may be used”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the multi-receiver system of Anderson et al. (‘382) with full duplex transceiver capabilities as taught by Wu et al. (‘155). One would have been motivated to do so because Anderson teaches a device with GNSS receivers and wireless communication capabilities ([0019]: “The LDP is a multi-receiver device” and [0036]: “WLAN or Wireless receiver”), and Wu specifically addresses enabling simultaneous GNSS reception and wireless transmission ([0050]: “To enable full duplex operation of GNSS Receiver 220”). A person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Wu demonstrates that full duplex GNSS operation is technically feasible and successfully enables concurrent satellite reception and wireless transmission, which would enhance Anderson’s multi-receiver system functionality.
Claims 4, 5, and 9 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (US 2012/0194382 A1) in view of Basnayake et al. (US 2011/0068976 A1) and further in view of Army Contracting Command. (2018, October 17). Army wants small, lightweight wireless communications module. Military Aerospace Electronics. https://www.militaryaerospace.com/computers/article/16726766/army-wants-small-lightweight-wireless-communications-module-to-connect-warfighter-wearable-electronics.
Regarding Claim 4, Anderson et al. (‘382) in view of Basnayake et al. (‘976) teaches the system of claim 1.
Anderson et al. (‘382) does not explicitly teach, but Army Military Aerospace article (2018) teaches wherein the first wireless communications protocol is a secure protocol (Pgs. 002-003: “Officials of the Army Contracting Command at Fort Belvoir, Va., issued a source-sought notice on Tuesday (W909MY-19-R-0002) for the Secure Intra-Soldier Wireless Module … The trick, however, is to provide wireless data links that are secure from enemy attempts to intercept or jam these wireless links among the soldier's field gear.” ).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement secure wireless communication protocols for the satellite data transfer in Anderson et al. (‘382) as taught by Army Military Aerospace article (2018). One would have been motivated to do so because Anderson involves wireless communication capabilities of sensitive positioning data ([0036]: “WLAN or Wireless receiver”) and [0039]: “store Almanac and Ephemeris data”), and the Army article identifies the specific need for secure wireless protocols in portable electronic systems (Pg. 002: “secure small, lightweight wireless communications module to tie together wearable electronics on the individual infantry warfighter without eavesdropping or interference from the enemy”). A person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in securing the invention of Anderson et al. (‘382) for sensitive positioning data, because implementing security protocols for wireless data transmission was known in the art, and adding security protocols would enhance the wireless communication capabilities for portable device-to-device communication applications.
Regarding Claim 5, Anderson et al. (‘382) in view of Basnayake et al. (‘976) and further in view of Army Military Aerospace article (2018) teaches the system of claim 1.
Anderson et al. (‘382) does not explicitly teach wherein the first wireless link is one of an ultra-wideband radio frequency link (though such wireless protocols would be obvious implementations for the wireless communication described),
Anderson et al. (‘382) does not explicitly teach, but Army Military Aerospace article (2018) teaches or a wireless link configured according to an intra-soldier wireless (ISW) protocol (Pg. 003: “Intra-soldier wireless (ICW) technology seeks to link pieces of the infantry warfighter’s kit, such as wearable computers, radios, and electro-optical rifle sights without cumbersome cabling and connectors”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the wireless communication of Anderson et al. (‘382) using ISW protocol as taught by Army Military Aerospace article (2018). One would have been motivated to do so because Anderson requires wireless communication for its multi-receiver system ([0036]: “WLAN or Wireless receiver”), and the Army article identifies ISW as a solution for secure, short-range wireless communication between portable electronic devices (Pg. 001: “secure small, lightweight wireless communications module to tie together wearable electronics”). A person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the Army article demonstrates that ISW technology was specifically developed for portable device-to-device wireless communication applications, which would be suitable for Anderson’s multi-receiver positioning system.
Regarding Claim 9, Anderson et al. (‘382) in view of Basnayake et al. (‘976) and further in view of Army Military Aerospace article (2018) teaches the system of claim 1.
Anderson et al. (‘382) does not explicitly teach, but Army Military Aerospace article (2018) teaches wherein, for transfer over the first wireless link, the GNSS configuration data is encrypted using AES-256 bit encryption (Pg. 004: “Army researchers envision a wireless communications module able to support AES-256 bit encryption that can enable soldier systems developers to address emerging requirements for small low-power intra-soldier wireless systems”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement AES-256 bit encryption for the satellite data transfer in Anderson et al. (‘382) as taught by Army Military Aerospace article (2018). One would have been motivated to do so because Anderson involves wireless communication of positioning data ([0036]: “WLAN or Wireless receiver” and [0039]: “store Almanac and Ephemeris data”), and the Army article identifies the specific need for AES-256 encryption in wireless systems that transfer data between portable electronic devices (Pg. 001: “secure small, lightweight wireless communications module” and Pg. 004: “Army researchers envision a wireless communications module able to support AES-256 bit encryption”). A person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the Army article demonstrates that AES-256 encryption was specifically developed for and proven effective in wireless systems that transfer sensitive data between portable devices, which is exactly the type of wireless data transfer system described in Anderson, and implementing encryption would enhance security without interfering with the fundamental wireless communication mechanism.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REMASH R GUYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-0115. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Resha H Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/REMASH R GUYAH/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights