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 amendment filed 15 September, 2025 is acknowledged and has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 15, and 20 have been considered but are moot in view of a new ground of rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9-11, 15-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao et al. (US 2006/0097914 A1 previously cited “RAO”), in view of Yu et al. (US 2023/0213658 A1 newly cited “YU”).
Regarding claim 1, RAO (Examiner’s note: What RAO does not disclose is ) discloses a method, comprising:
determining that a measure of the signal strength detector 42 compares the signal strength to a selected PLL transition threshold to determine a loop preference [0034 & FIGS. 1-2])
and opening a tracking loop on a third channel of the Global Navigation Satellite System receiver (the loop preference is the AFC loop [RAO 0034], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1). It is further noted that as illustrated in FIG. 2, specifically switch 52, when the loop preference is AFC logic, the PLL logic (which corresponds to the claimed “tracking loop”) is open.
However, RAO does not disclose a measure of combined signal strength; the measure of combined signal strength being a measure of a signal strength on a first channel of a Global Navigation Satellite System receiver and measure of a signal strength on a second channel of the Global Navigation Satellite System receiver.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, YU relates to a navigation module for a mobile object. The navigation module includes one or more processors, a satellite receiver to receive satellite navigation signals from a plurality of satellites, and a plurality of channel tracking loops [0008]. Specifically, YU teaches that a tracking module 2222, sometimes called the satellite signal tracking module, which tracks GNSS satellite signals (e.g., using a plurality of channels) [0036] and a summing unit 412 combines (e.g., sums) the amplitude of IQs from multiple active channels to create a normalization signal 405 [0077].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of RAO to include the teachings of YU, in order to mitigate the tracking degradation results from clock micro jumps (also called clock resets, or clock jumps), a set of IQ measurements from multiple channels can be used (e.g., by clock tracking loop) to extract the common carrier misalignment (the clock error), as recognized by YU.
Regarding claim 2, RAO/ YU discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the third channel is the first channel (transitions between the AFC loop and the phase lock loop in the GPS signal channel 20, or in certain cases the other GPS signal channels 22-31 [RAO 0041]).
Regarding claim 3, RAO/ YU discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising opening a tracking loop on the second channel (transitions between the AFC loop and the phase lock loop in the GPS signal channel 20, or in certain cases the other GPS signal channels 22-31 [RAO 0041]).
Regarding claim 9, RAO/ YU discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining that the measure of combined signal strength is greater than the threshold (the signal strength detector 42 compares the signal strength to a selected PLL transition threshold to determine a loop preference [RAO 0034 & FIGS. 1-2], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1); (a summing unit 412 combines (e.g., sums) the amplitude of IQs from multiple active channels to create a normalization signal 405 [YU 0077], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1); and closing the tracking loop on the third channel (transitions between the AFC loop and the phase lock loop in the GPS signal channel 20, or in certain cases the other GPS signal channels 22-31 [RAO 0041]).
Regarding claim 10, RAO/ YU discloses the method of claim 9, wherein: the third channel is the first channel (transitions between the AFC loop and the phase lock loop in the GPS signal channel 20, or in certain cases the other GPS signal channels 22-31 [RAO 0041]); and the method further comprises closing the tracking loop on the second channel (transitions between the AFC loop and the phase lock loop in the GPS signal channel 20 [RAO 0041]).
Regarding claim 11, RAO/ YU discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the opening of the tracking loop is in response to the determining that the measure of combined signal strength is less than the threshold (the signal strength detector 42 compares the signal strength to a selected PLL transition threshold to determine a loop preference. When the signal strength is less than the PLL transition threshold, the loop preference is the AFC loop [RAO 0034]). It is further noted that as illustrated in FIG. 2, specifically switch 52, when the loop preference is AFC logic, the PLL logic is open.
Regarding claim 15, RAO discloses a Global Navigation Satellite System receiver (a GPS receiver 10 [0027]), comprising: one or more processors (a GPS navigation processor 34 [0027]); and a memory storing instructions (Examiner’s note: The memory is inherent in RAO’s system) which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause performance of:
determining that a measure of the signal strength detector 42 compares the signal strength to a selected PLL transition threshold to determine a loop preference [0034 & FIGS. 1-2])
and opening a tracking loop on a third channel of the Global Navigation Satellite System receiver (the loop preference is the AFC loop [RAO 0034], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1). It is further noted that as illustrated in FIG. 2, specifically switch 52, when the loop preference is AFC logic, the PLL logic (which corresponds to the claimed “tracking loop”) is open.
However, RAO does not disclose a measure of combined signal strength; the measure of combined signal strength being a measure of a signal strength on a first channel of a Global Navigation Satellite System receiver and measure of a signal strength on a second channel of the Global Navigation Satellite System receiver.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, YU relates to a navigation module for a mobile object. The navigation module includes one or more processors, a satellite receiver to receive satellite navigation signals from a plurality of satellites, and a plurality of channel tracking loops [0008]. Specifically, YU teaches that a tracking module 2222, sometimes called the satellite signal tracking module, which tracks GNSS satellite signals (e.g., using a plurality of channels) [0036] and a summing unit 412 combines (e.g., sums) the amplitude of IQs from multiple active channels to create a normalization signal 405 [0077].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of RAO to include the teachings of YU, in order to mitigate the tracking degradation results from clock micro jumps (also called clock resets, or clock jumps), a set of IQ measurements from multiple channels can be used (e.g., by clock tracking loop) to extract the common carrier misalignment (the clock error), as recognized by YU.
Claims 16-17 correspond to respective claims 2-3 sufficiently in scope and therefore are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 20, RAO discloses a Global Navigation Satellite System receiver (a GPS receiver 10 [0027]), comprising: means for processing (a GPS navigation processor 34 [0027]); and a memory storing instructions which, when executed by the means for processing (Examiner’s note: The memory is inherent in RAO’s system), cause performance of:
determining that a measure of the signal strength detector 42 compares the signal strength to a selected PLL transition threshold to determine a loop preference [0034 & FIGS. 1-2])
and opening a tracking loop on a third channel of the Global Navigation Satellite System receiver (the loop preference is the AFC loop [RAO 0034], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1). It is further noted that as illustrated in FIG. 2, specifically switch 52, when the loop preference is AFC logic, the PLL logic (which corresponds to the claimed “tracking loop”) is open.
However, RAO does not disclose a measure of combined signal strength; the measure of combined signal strength being a measure of a signal strength on a first channel of a Global Navigation Satellite System receiver and measure of a signal strength on a second channel of the Global Navigation Satellite System receiver.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, YU relates to a navigation module for a mobile object. The navigation module includes one or more processors, a satellite receiver to receive satellite navigation signals from a plurality of satellites, and a plurality of channel tracking loops [0008]. Specifically, YU teaches that a tracking module 2222, sometimes called the satellite signal tracking module, which tracks GNSS satellite signals (e.g., using a plurality of channels) [0036] and a summing unit 412 combines (e.g., sums) the amplitude of IQs from multiple active channels to create a normalization signal 405 [0077].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of RAO to include the teachings of YU, in order to mitigate the tracking degradation results from clock micro jumps (also called clock resets, or clock jumps), a set of IQ measurements from multiple channels can be used (e.g., by clock tracking loop) to extract the common carrier misalignment (the clock error), as recognized by YU.
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RAO, in view of YU, and further in view of Zhou et al. (US 2012/0075142 A1 previously cited “ZHOU”).
Regarding claim 12, RAO/ YU discloses the method of claim 11. However, RAO/ YU does not disclose wherein the opening of the tracking loop is further in response to freewheeling mode being enabled.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, ZHOU teaches that a signal strength test can be applied. If the very low-pass filtered signal power is smaller than a certain proportion (e.g., a scaling threshold) of that of the noise power, then a significant receiving signal loss is declared. In that case, the AFC loop can be changed to a "coast" state. In this coast state, the AFC loop can be opened, thereby allowing the rate portion (i.e. the integrate memory part) of the loop to slowly decay. If no signal recovery is detected within a predetermined time in the coast state, then the current channel can be dropped [0097]. Examiner’s note: Claim 12 recites a method. Limitation “the opening of the tracking loop is further in response to freewheeling mode being enabled” contains contingent claim language. See MPEP 2111.04. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. In this case, the method claim requires step A (i.e. “the opening of the tracking loop”) if a first condition (i.e. “freewheeling mode being enabled”) happens. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of a method claim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of RAO to include the teachings of ZHOU, because doing so would avoid degradation of AFC discriminator performance and improve system accuracy, as recognized by ZHOU.
Regarding claim 13, RAO/ YU/ ZHOU discloses the method of claim 12, further comprising enabling freewheeling mode, in response to: detecting a set period of strong signals, or receiving an instruction to enable freewheeling mode (a signal strength test can be applied. If the very low-pass filtered signal power is smaller than a certain proportion (e.g., a scaling threshold) of that of the noise power, then a significant receiving signal loss is declared. In that case, the AFC loop can be changed to a "coast" state. In this coast state, the AFC loop can be opened, thereby allowing the rate portion (i.e. the integrate memory part) of the loop to slowly decay. If no signal recovery is detected within a predetermined time in the coast state, then the current channel can be dropped [ZHOU 0097], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 12). Examiner’s note: Claim 13 recites a method. Limitation “enabling freewheeling mode, in response to: detecting a set period of strong signals, or receiving an instruction to enable freewheeling mode” contains contingent claim language. See MPEP 2111.04. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. In this case, the method claim requires step A (i.e. “enabling freewheeling mode”) if a first condition (i.e. “detecting a set period of strong signals, or receiving an instruction to enable freewheeling mode”) happens. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of a method claim.
Regarding claim 14, RAO/ YU/ ZHOU discloses the method of claim 12, further comprising disabling freewheeling mode, in response to detecting a set period of weak signals (a signal strength test can be applied. If the very low-pass filtered signal power is smaller than a certain proportion (e.g., a scaling threshold) of that of the noise power, then a significant receiving signal loss is declared. In that case, the AFC loop can be changed to a "coast" state. In this coast state, the AFC loop can be opened, thereby allowing the rate portion (i.e. the integrate memory part) of the loop to slowly decay. If no signal recovery is detected within a predetermined time in the coast state, then the current channel can be dropped [ZHOU 0097], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 12). Examiner’s note: Claim 14 recites a method. Limitation “disabling freewheeling mode, in response to detecting a set period of weak signals” contains contingent claim language. See MPEP 2111.04. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. In this case, the method claim requires step A (i.e. “disabling freewheeling mode”) if a first condition (i.e. “detecting a set period of weak signals”) happens. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of a method claim.
Claim(s) 4 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RAO, in view of YU, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2017/0276795 A1 previously cited “CHEN”).
Regarding claim 4, RAO/ YU discloses the method of claim 1. However, RAO/ YU does not disclose wherein the measure of combined signal strength is an average of a plurality of quantities including the measure of signal strength on the first channel and the measure of signal strength on the second channel.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, CHEN teaches calculating an average value of the signal amplitudes of all channels, which may be taken as a state vector of the tracking loop [0049].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of RAO to include the teachings of CHEN, because doing so would help improve tracking precision, as recognized by CHEN.
Claim 18 corresponds to claim 4 sufficiently in scope and therefore is similarly rejected.
Claim(s) 5 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RAO, in view of YU, and further in view of Komaili et al. (US 2015/0091754 A1 previously cited “KOMAILI”).
Regarding claim 5, RAO/ YU discloses the method of claim 1. However, RAO/ YU does not disclose wherein the measure of signal strength on the first channel is based on signal energy in an early tap, a prompt tap, and a late tap for the first channel.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, KOMAILI teaches that the local reference waveform includes tap delays 410-416, where tap delays 410-412 are denoted as early taps, tap delay 413 is denoted as prompt tap, and tap delays 414-416 are denoted as late taps [0058]. KOMAILI further teaches generating a correlation vector based on the correlation output for each of the specified number of taps, and wherein the correlation vector comprises power calculations based on different de-spreading codes [claim 12].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of RAO to include the teachings of KOMALI, because doing so would enhance the system’s ability to accurately track satellite signals under various conditions.
Claim 19 corresponds to claim 5 sufficiently in scope and therefore is similarly rejected.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RAO, in view of YU, and further in view of Yang (US 7,471,241 B1 previously cited “YANG”).
Regarding claim 6, RAO discloses the method of claim 1. However, RAO does not disclose wherein the measure of signal strength on the first channel is based on signal energy in a lower frequency tap, a center tap, and a higher frequency tap for the first channel.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, YANG teaches that the processing steps 68, 72, and 74 produces the estimated impulse response for a particular Doppler frequency. This operation is repeated for a number of Doppler values [col. 13, lines 20-23]. YANG further teaches generating a two-dimensional map of the signal channel transmission power as function of the delay time (pseudo range) and Doppler frequency (range rate). Since this time-frequency map covers the Doppler frequency shift and code phase over a large area, any satellite signal of reasonable strength can be captured [col. 13, lines 31-37].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of RAO to include the teachings of YANG, because doing so would enable system to operate in very high dynamics. The interpolated values for time and frequency can be averaged over a longer time period to smooth out noise, as recognized by YANG.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RAO, in view of YU, and further in view of Tapucu et al. (US 2023/0350075 A1 previously cited “TAPUCU”).
Regarding claim 7, RAO/ YU discloses the method of claim 1. However, RAO/ YU does not disclose wherein the measure of signal strength on the first channel is based on a maximum signal energy among taps of channel in-phase and quadrature data for the first channel.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, TAPUCU teaches to determine signal strength (via estimate of peak power and noise floor). The next stage of peak parameter estimator (PPE) 235 uses the I/Q stream-based algorithms (process 354) to further refine the peak parameter estimates found in multi-peak report (MPR) 250 [0068].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of RAO to include the teachings of TAPUCU, because doing so would improve accuracy in navigation solution, as recognized by TAPUCU.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RAO, in view of YU and TAPUCU, and further in view of Lennen (US 2019/0257953 A1 previously cited “LENNEN”).
Regarding claim 8, RAO/ YU/ TAPUCU discloses the method of claim 7. However, RAO/ YU/ TAPUCU does not disclose wherein the measure of signal strength on the first channel is based on the maximum signal energy adjusted by noise normalization.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, LENNEN teaches that data preprocessing is used to remove the variation caused by different carrier to noise density “CNO”, by removing the noise term using delay offset correlators. The data preprocessing also normalizes the maximum correlation amplitude to 1 [0049].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of RAO to include the teachings of LENNEN, because doing so would be beneficial in focusing on the area of the correlation window where multipath is most likely to occur, as recognized by LENNEN.
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.
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 October 27, 2025
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648