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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 USC 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Request of Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy (US 2005/0182530 A1) in view of Falchetti (Enhanced Link-16/GPS/INS Navigation Robust Tactical Navigation Resource for the Military) and Stanislavovich (RU 126476 U1).
In regard to claim 1, Murphy discloses an aircraft, comprising:
a mission computer (68, Fig. 2);
a Global Navigation Satellite System receiver, a GNSS receiver, with a first air interface and a first receiver (50, Fig. 2; ¶21, lines 1-11);
a data unit with and a second receiver (52, Fig. 2);
wherein the second receiver is distinct from the first receiver (52 is distinct from 50, Fig. 2);
wherein the first receiver in the GNSS receiver is configured to receive satellite signals from satellites, which enable determination of a signal propagation time between a respective satellite and the GNSS receiver, wherein the satellite signals can be used for determining a position value of the aircraft (¶21, lines 3-18);
wherein the first receiver in the GNSS receiver is configured to determine the signal propagation time between a respective satellite and the GNSS receiver by a pseudo range measurement on the satellite signals (¶21, lines 3-18).
wherein the GNSS receiver is configured to transmit the determined signal propagation time between the respective satellite and the GNSS receiver to the mission computer (¶21, lines 28-35);
wherein the data unit is configured to receive a correction term for applying to the satellite signals received from the GNSS receiver from a remote station and to transmit them to the mission computer (¶21, lines 24-35);
wherein the mission computer implements a function module which is configured to determine corrected satellite signals based on the satellite signals transmitted by the GNSS receiver to the mission computer and the correction term and to use the corrected satellite signals for determining a position value of the aircraft (¶21, lines 28-35);
wherein the GNSS receiver is configured to be used for navigation in the aircraft (¶8; ¶18; ¶21; ¶53);
wherein the function module in the mission computer is structurally separated from the GNSS receiver and the data unit (68 separated from 50 and 52, Fig. 2); and
wherein the mission computer, the GNSS receiver, and the data transmission unit form a decentralized architecture (68, 50, 52, Fig. 2).
Murphy fails to explicitly disclose the data unit with a second air interface, and fails to disclose the data unit is a data transmission unit that is configured to receive data via an encrypted, bidirectional communication path; wherein the data transmission unit is configured to transmit data between the aircraft and the remote station; wherein the first receiver is configured to receive encrypted satellite signals for determining a position of the aircraft and to decrypt the encrypted satellite signals; wherein the mission computer, the GNSS receiver, and the data transmission unit are each replaceable as structurally individual modules; and wherein the mission computer, the GNSS receiver, and the data transmission unit are configured to interact with each other such that each one thereof can be modified and replaced individually and independently of two others thereof, without any of the two others thereof being structurally affected when the one thereof is replaced or modified.
Falchetti teaches a data transmission unit (p. 1684, lines 24-26; p. 1691, Fig. 3, JTIDS on AIR to the right) with a second air interface (p. 1685, col. 2, line 51 to p. 1686, line 5; p. 1687, col. 1; p. 1691, Fig. 3, left antenna on AIR to the right), configured to receive data via an encrypted (p. 1685, col. 2, lines 33-36), bidirectional communication path (p. 1684, lines 24-26; p. 1685, col. 2, lines 12-18); wherein the data transmission unit is configured to transmit data between the aircraft and the remote station (p. 1685, col. 2, lines 12-18) [where the use of a Link-16 data transmission unit allows secure, high data rate, jam resistant communication (p. 1685, col. 2, lines 13-15)]; and
wherein the first receiver is configured to receive encrypted satellite signals for determining a position of the aircraft and to decrypt the encrypted satellite signals (p. 1685, col. 2, lines 46-48) [where the GPS P(Y)-code is encrypted].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include these features into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to for the communication using the data unit to be secure, high data rate, and jam resistant.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that secure, high data rate, jam resistant communication is established between the aircraft and the remote station.
Stanislavovich teaches:
a mission computer (1, Fig. 1; p. 3, ¶3), a GNSS receiver (2, Fig. 1; p. 3, ¶3; p. 5, ¶4), and a data transmission unit (4, Fig. 1; p. 3, ¶3; p. 5, ¶4) are each replaceable as structurally individual modules (p. 5, ¶4) [where, when 1 fails and is replaced (whether it is replaced alone or together with certain other components), since 2 and 4 are removable boards, they do not need to be replaced in the aircraft if they are working correctly]; and
wherein the mission computer, the GNSS receiver, and the data transmission unit are configured to interact with each other such that each one thereof can be modified and replaced individually and independently of two others thereof, without any of the two others thereof being structurally affected when the one thereof is replaced or modified (p. 5, ¶4) [where, when 1 fails and is replaced (whether it is replaced alone or together with certain other components), since 2 and 4 are removable boards, they do not need to be replaced in the aircraft if they are working correctly].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow the easy replacement of failed components in the system.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that failed components can be replaced while components that are still properly functioning are maintained.
In regard to claim 3, Murphy further discloses the GNSS receiver is configured to receive and process satellite signals from a satellite from a satellite navigation system selected from the group consisting of GPS, Galileo, Glonass, and Beidou (50, Fig. 2).
In regard to claim 4, Falchetti further teaches determining the signal propagation time between a respective satellite and the GNSS receiver by a pseudorange measurement and a carrier phase measurement on the satellite signals (p. 1686, col. 2, lines 1-5) [where code tracking is making code phase/pseudorange measurements and carrier tracking is making carrier phase measurements].
In regard to claim 7, Murphy further discloses the data transmission unit is configured to receive flight path-related data for the aircraft (¶48).
In regard to claim 9, Murphy further discloses the aircraft is a manned (p. 1684, Table 1) [where the F-14D, for example, is a manned aircraft] or unmanned (p. 1690, bullet point before the final bullet point on the page) military aircraft (p. 1684, lines 11-26 and Table 1).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy, Falchetti, and Stanislavovich, as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Brenner '765 (US 2014/0062765 A1).
Murphy fails to explicitly disclose [the detailed implementation of the mission computer/processor, including] the function module is implemented as a software module and is configured to be executed on the mission computer.
Brenner '765 teaches a mission computer/processor (202, Fig. 2A) including the function module is implemented as a software module and is configured to be executed on the mission computer (¶36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to implement the mission computer/processor of Murphy.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the mission computer/processor of Murphy is implemented.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy, Falchetti, and Stanislavovich, as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Ralphs (US 2015/0168560 A1).
Murphy further discloses a ground-based approach and landing system/GNSS correction system (¶21, lines 24-28).
Murphy fails to disclose the function module of the mission computer is configured as a remote station of the ground-based approach and landing system/GNSS correction system.
Ralphs teaches a mission computer is configured as a remote station of the GNSS correction system [in order to extend the coverage area of the system] (72, Fig. 3; ¶12; ¶28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to extend the coverage area of the GNSS correction system and provide greater accuracy position information to aircraft further away from the ground remote station.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that aircraft further away from the ground remote station can determine greater accuracy position information.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy, Falchetti, and Stanislavovich, as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Rossi (US 2020/0200540 A1).
In regard to claim 8, Falchetti further teaches the data transmission unit is configured to transmit data to the remote station (p. 1685, col. 2, lines 12-18) and/or to other aircraft (p. 1685, col. 2, lines 15-18; p. 1686, lines 2-5) [where p. 1686, lines 2-5 is clearly referring to communication between two aircraft using respective antennas].
Murphy and Falchetti fail to teach the data transmitted to the remote station are one or more elements from: an approach path chosen by the aircraft; corrected signal propagation times determined by the correction term.
Rossi teaches data transmitted to a remote station from an aircraft is an approach path chosen by the aircraft (¶10-13 and ¶19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to alert those associated with the ground station the approach path that the aircraft intends to follow.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that those associated with the ground station are alerted what the approach path is that the aircraft intends to follow.
The following reference(s) is/are also found relevant:
NAVSTAR GPS User Equipment Introduction, which teaches that carrier tracking involves measuring a carrier phase (p. 1-13, section 1.4.2.5, ¶1).
Stratton (US 5,781,151 A), which teaches a GNSS receiver making carrier phase measurements for carrier smoothing pseudorange measurements (col. 6, line 65 to col. 7, line 33).
Chongoushian (US 2020/0126435 A1), which teaches a Link-16 data transmission unit is configured to transmit data to other aircraft in order to avoid collisions (abstract).
Applicant is encouraged to consider these documents in formulating their response (if one is required) to this Office Action, in order to expedite prosecution of this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on p. 8, with respect to the objection, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments on p. 8-13, with respect to the prior art rejection(s) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
290
1042
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Murphy does not describe the components in Fig. 2 as functional components, but as structural components. Fig. 2 does not use functional labels such as Processing, GPS Reception, Communication, and Inertial Navigation. Fig. 2 uses structural labels such as Processor, GPS Receiver, Communication Component, Inertial Navigation System. ¶19 uses the same structural terms, describing the components as being "coupled" to the processor, which is a structural description. The only reference to function in ¶19 is the description that in another embodiments, instead of a separate Processor and Flight Management System, the two components can be replaced with only a Flight Management System, where the Flight Management System performs the functions that the Processor performs in the previous embodiment. Even in this embodiment, the mission computer would correspond to the Flight Management System, and would still be structurally separate from the GPS receiver and the Communication Component.
With respect to applicant's arguments about the components being replaced individually and independently, Stanislavovich has been added to show that this feature would have been obvious.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image2.png
286
1034
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
122
1042
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Firstly, "integrity" is not a feature in any of the claims, and thus the argument is moot. Secondly, Falchetti explicitly teaches the use of his system in an aviation system. Fig. 3 (right-side) and Fig. 4 (three different aircraft) explicitly illustrate the system being used in aviation systems. Fig. 3 explicitly illustrates the aircraft using the communication link. The paragraph before Fig. 4 explicitly describes the aircraft in Fig. 4 as using the communication link. Thirdly, Falchetti explicitly refers a Link-16 communication link providing differential corrections as providing integrity (p. 1685, lines 13-48). See also p. 1689, the paragraph under Table 4.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image4.png
134
1030
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, there is no requirement for compliance with aviation-specific certification and integrity requirements in any of the claims. Additionally, as detailed above, Falchetti explicitly uses his communication link in aviation.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image5.png
138
960
media_image5.png
Greyscale
However, there is no requirement in any claim about approval in air traffic. Further, Fig. 4 explicitly illustrates aircraft, in the air, using Falchetti's communication system.
In conclusion, applicant never acknowledges that Falchetti is explicitly using his communication system in aviation, nor does applicant ever even attempt to explain how applicant's arguments make sense in light of this fact.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fred H. Mull whose telephone number is 571-272-6975. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from approximately 9-5:30 Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 https://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Resha 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.
Fred H. Mull
Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/F. H. M./
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights