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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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) 1-5, 9, and 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cookman (US 2020/0096647 A1) in view of Lee (WO 03/005055 A1) and Bloebaum (US 2002/0098849 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Cookman discloses a user receiver (12, Fig. 1) comprising:
a first receiver configured to receive a first signal from a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) satellite (¶20) [SPS receiver];
a second receiver configured to receive a second signal from a second receiver device separate from the user device and separate from the GNSS satellite (¶7; ¶26; ¶39; ¶62) [where the external aiding/assistance information provider corresponds to the second receiver device; and where the external aiding/assistance information provider may be a non-specified source other than a base station]; and
processing circuitry (60, Fig. 3; ¶28) configured to
receive a secondary code boundary corresponding to a secondary code in the first signal based on the time tagged satellite information of the second signal (¶7; ¶26; ¶62) [where bit-edge timing provides the secondary code boundary when Galileo is the chosen GNSS, since in Galileo the primary code length, the secondary code length, and the data bit length are all equal and synchronized with the each other (see Abraham (US 2007/0274374 A1), ¶26), i.e., it is inherent based on the design of Galileo signals],
receive a primary code based on a secondary code boundary (¶7; ¶41) [where a primary code has an SPS data signal/data bits modulated thereon, and thus the code being referred to as being coherently integrated is a primary code]; and
output a geographic position of the user device based on the coherent integration of the primary code (12, Fig. 1; ¶41) [where the Office takes Official Notice that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it well known before the effective filing date of the invention to output the determined position on the device display].
Cookman fails to disclose the second signal comprising time tagged satellite information from a second receiver device; and the second receiver device is a navigating user device.
Lee teaches a second signal [comprising aiding information further] comprising time tagged satellite information from a second receiver device (p. 32, line 11 to p. 33, line 4; p. 53, lines 3-8).
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 ensure that the aiding data being used from the second signal corresponds to the navigation data of the first signal, and to prevent signal loss from occurring.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being the aiding data being used from the second signal corresponds to the navigation data of the first signal, and that signal loss is prevented.
Bloebaum teaches a navigating user device/second receiver device transmitting aiding/assistance information to a user device (¶17).
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 user device to access the assistance information even when out of range of a fixed assistance provider, or whose communication link with the fixed assistance provider is disrupted. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to the art for other sources of assistance information based on the explicit suggestion of Cookman (¶39).
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the user device is provided the assistance information by the navigating user device.
In the combination, the aiding/assistance information is information indicative of the secondary code boundary.
In regard to claim 2, Cookman further discloses the processing circuitry is configured to correlate the primary code with a replica primary code locally generated at the user device prior to performing the coherent integration (88, Fig. 4; ¶41).
In regard to claim 3, Cookman further discloses the processing circuitry is configured to determine a time of arrival (TOA) of the first signal at the user device (¶29; ¶41).
In regard to claim 4, the limitation(s) recited is not required to be part of the claimed invention. Parent claim 3 teaches alternative limitations, i.e., (a) determining TOT, (b) determining TOA, and (c) determining both TOT and TOA. If a parent claim includes alternative limitations, and the reference teaches one of them, further limitations to the other alternative(s) in dependent claims are not required limitations. See Ex parte Werner, Appeal 2019-001448, Application No. 15/109,888, March 23, 2020, 15 pages. Here, Cookman teaches (b), as detailed in the rejection of claim 3. Claim 4 is based on another alternative/other alternatives, i.e., (c).
However, it is noted that Cookman teaches this feature, where ¶41 teaches determining a distance between the user device and the GNSS satellite based on the time difference, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it well known before the effective filing date of the invention that the TOT used to determine the time difference/time of travel is read from the GNSS signal broadcast by the satellite.
In regard to claim 5, the limitation(s) recited is not required to be part of the claimed invention. As detailed above, claim 4 is not required to be a part of the claimed invention, and claim 5 further limits claim 4 by referring to "the distance" determined in claim 4.
However, it is noted that Lee teaches this feature, where p. 43, lines 12-13 teaches the use of four satellites to determine the geographic position of the user receiver.
In regard to claim 9, Bloebaum further teaches a user device transmitting a signal indicative of aiding/assistance information to an additional user device separate from the navigating user device and the GNSS satellite (¶17) [where a cell phone that receives aiding/assistance information from a second cell phone can then transmit that aiding/assistance information to a third cell phone].
In the combination, the aiding/assistance information is information indicative of the secondary code boundary.
In regard to claim 12, Cookman discloses one or more tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable media storing instructions thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, are configured to cause the one or more processors (¶64-66) of a user device (12, Fig. 1) to:
receive a first signal from a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) satellite via a first antenna and a first receiver coupled to the first antenna (¶20);
receive a second signal from a navigating user device separate from the user device and separate from the GNSS satellite via a second antenna and a second receiver coupled to the second antenna (¶7; ¶26; ¶38; ¶62) [where the external aiding information provider corresponds to the second receiver device];
receive a secondary code boundary corresponding to a secondary code in the first signal based on the time tagged satellite information of the second signal (¶7; ¶26; ¶62) [where bit-edge timing provides the secondary code boundary when Galileo is the chosen GNSS, since in Galileo the primary code length, the secondary code length, and the data bit length are all equal and synchronized with the each other (see Abraham, ¶26), i.e., it is inherent based on the design of Galileo signals];
receive a primary code of the first signal based on the secondary code boundary (¶41) [where a primary code has an SPS data signal/data bits modulated thereon, and thus the code being referred to as being coherently integrated is a primary code]; and
output a geographic position of a user device based on coherent integration of the primary code (94, Fig. 4; ¶4; 12, Fig. 1; ¶41) [where the Office takes Official Notice that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it well known before the effective filing date of the invention to output the determined position on the device display].
Cookman fails to disclose the second signal comprising time tagged satellite information from a second receiver device; and the second receiver device is a navigating user device.
Lee teaches a second signal [comprising aiding information further] comprising time tagged satellite information from a second receiver device (p. 32, line 11 to p. 33, line 4; p. 53, lines 3-8).
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 ensure that the aiding data being used from the second signal corresponds to the navigation data of the first signal, and to prevent signal loss from occurring.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being the aiding data being used from the second signal corresponds to the navigation data of the first signal, and that signal loss is prevented.
Bloebaum teaches a navigating user device/second receiver device transmitting aiding/assistance information to a user device (¶17).
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 user device to access the assistance information even when out of range of a fixed assistance provider, or whose communication link with the fixed assistance provider is disrupted. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to the art for other sources of assistance information based on the explicit suggestion of Cookman (¶39).
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the user device is provided the assistance information by the navigating user device.
In the combination, the aiding/assistance information is information indicative of the secondary code boundary.
In regard to claim 13, Cookman further discloses:
determine a time of arrival (TOA) of the first signal at the user device based on the coherent integration (¶29; ¶41);
determine a distance between the GNSS satellite and the user device based on a time difference a TOT and the TOA (¶41);
where the Office takes Official Notice that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it well known before the effective filing date of the invention that the TOT used to determine the time difference/time of travel is read from the GNSS signal broadcast by the satellite, which would be determined from the received signal after the signal was acquired through the coherent integration.
In regard to claim 14, Lee further teaches to determine the geographic position of the user device based on a first GNSS satellite, a second GNSS satellite, a third GNSS satellite, and a fourth GNSS satellite (p. 43, lines 12-13) [where four satellites may be used].
In the combination, the measurement made for each satellite is a distance measurement.
In regard to claim 15, Lee further teaches removing a carrier wave corresponding to the first signal (30, 32, Fig. 1).
In regard to claim 16, Bloebaum further teaches a user device transmitting a signal indicative of aiding/assistance information to an additional user device separate from the navigating user device and the GNSS satellite (¶17) [where a cell phone that receives aiding/assistance information from a second cell phone can then transmit that aiding/assistance information to a third cell phone].
In the combination, the aiding/assistance information is information indicative of the secondary code boundary.
In regard to claim 17, Cookman further discloses correlating the primary code of the first signal with a replica primary code (88, Fig. 4; ¶41) [where a primary code has an SPS data signal/data bits modulated thereon, and thus the code being referred to as being coherently integrated is a primary code].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cookman, Lee, and Bloebaum, as applied to claim 4, above, and further in view of Murphy (US 5,736,960 A).
Cookman, Lee, and Bloebaum fail to teach determining the geographic position of the user device based on the distance, a second distance between the user device and a second GNSS satellite, a third distance between the user device and a third GNSS satellite, and a GNSS synchronized atomic clock.
Murphy teaches determining the geographic position of the user device based on the distance, a second distance between the user device and a second GNSS satellite, a third distance between the user device and a third GNSS satellite, and a GNSS synchronized atomic clock (abstract).
Replacing positioning using measurements from four satellites with positioning using measurements from three satellites and an atomic clock is a simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to perform the same function and obtain predictable results. Because both elements are known ways of determining the position of a user device, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one for the other to achieve the predictable result of determining the position of the user device.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cookman, Lee, and Bloebaum, as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Abraham (US 2007/0274374 A1).
Cookman, Lee, and Bloebaum fail to teach wiping off a carrier wave corresponding to the first signal prior to removing the secondary code from the first signal based on the secondary code boundary and prior to performing the coherent integration.
Abraham teaches wiping off a carrier wave corresponding to the first signal (302, Fig. 3; ¶33) [where the RF frequency corresponding to the carrier wave is removed] prior to removing the secondary code from the first signal based on the secondary code boundary and prior to performing the coherent integration (309, Fig. 3; ¶26; ¶41-42; ¶44; ¶55) [where Abraham teaches receiving a primary code by removing a secondary code from a first [Galileo GNSS] signal based on a secondary code boundary in order to allow coherent integration past a single epoch; and where the pilot component is the signal modulate by the secondary code, and the data component is the signal modulated by the primary code and the data message].
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 coherent integration for longer than a single epoch when that is necessary to acquire the satellite.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that a weak signal strength satellite may be acquired through coherent integration of longer than one epoch.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cookman, Lee, and Bloebaum, as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Ogaja (Calculation of Satellite Position from Ephemeris Data).
Cookman further discloses GNSS signal acquisition based on the coherent integration [, where the position of the user device is determined based on a distance from the satellite to the user device, which is based on a time of travel of the acquired GNSS signal] (134, 136, Fig. 6; ¶21; ¶41; ¶50-51) [where coherent integration allows acquisition for weak signals that otherwise would not be able to be acquired].
Cookman, Lee, and Bloebaum fail to explicitly teach identifying a location of the GNSS satellite [based on GNSS signal acquisition, which is] based on the coherent integration.
Ogaja teaches that a location of the GNSS satellite is determined based on broadcast ephemeris (p. 170, ¶2; Table A3-2) [where broadcast ephemeris is broadcast by the GNSS satellite and read at the receiver from the signal acquired from the GNSS satellite].
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 translate the distance between the satellite and the user device into the position of the user device.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the position of the user device is determined.
Thus, in the combination, a location of the GNSS satellite is based on GNSS signal acquisition, which is based on the coherent integration, meaning the location of the GNSS satellite is ultimately, indirectly, based on the coherent integration.
Claim(s) 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cookman (US 2020/0096647 A1) in view of Lee (WO 03/005055 A1), Abraham (US 2007/0274374 A1), and Bloebaum (US 2002/0098849 A1).
In regard to claim 21, Cookman discloses:
receiving a first signal from a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) satellite via a first antenna and a first receiver coupled to the first antenna of a user device (16 to 12, Fig. 1; ¶20);
receiving a second signal comprising space satellite information from an additional device separate from the user device and separate from the GNSS satellite via a second antenna and a second receiver coupled to the second antenna of the user device (¶7; ¶26; ¶38; ¶62) [where the external aiding information provider corresponds to the second receiver device];
determining, via processing circuitry of the user device (60, Fig. 3; ¶28) and based on the satellite information of the second signal, a secondary code boundary corresponding to a secondary code in the first signal (¶7; ¶26; ¶62) [where bit-edge timing provides the secondary code boundary when Galileo is the chosen GNSS, since in Galileo the primary code length, the secondary code length, and the data bit length are all equal and synchronized with the each other (see Abraham (US 2007/0274374 A1), ¶26), i.e., it is inherent based on the design of Galileo signals]; and
performing, via the processing circuitry, a coherent integration on the primary code (¶7; ¶41).
Cookman fails to disclose the second signal comprising time tagged space satellite information from the additional device; the additional device is a navigating user device; isolating, via the processing circuitry, a primary code of the first signal based on the secondary code boundary; and the coherent integration on the primary code over more than one period of the primary code.
Lee teaches a second signal [comprising aiding information further] comprising time tagged space satellite information from the additional device (p. 32, line 11 to p. 33, line 4; p. 53, lines 3-8).
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 ensure that the aiding data being used from the second signal corresponds to the navigation data of the first signal, and to prevent signal loss from occurring.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being the aiding data being used from the second signal corresponds to the navigation data of the first signal, and that signal loss is prevented.
Abraham teaches isolating, via the processing circuitry, a primary code of the first signal based on the secondary code boundary (¶26; ¶44; ¶55); and coherent integration on the primary code over more than one period of the primary code (¶26; ¶44; ¶55).
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 coherent integration for longer than a single epoch when that is necessary to acquire the satellite.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that a weak signal strength satellite may be acquired through coherent integration of longer than one epoch.
Bloebaum teaches a navigating user device/additional device transmitting aiding/assistance information to a user device (¶17).
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 user device to access the assistance information even when out of range of a fixed assistance provider, or whose communication link with the fixed assistance provider is disrupted. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to the art for other sources of assistance information based on the explicit suggestion of Cookman (¶39).
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the user device is provided the assistance information by the navigating user device.
In the combination, the aiding/assistance information is information indicative of the secondary code boundary.
In regard to claim 22, Cookman further discloses outputting, via the processing circuitry, a geographic position of the user device based on coherent integration on the primary code (12, Fig. 1; ¶41) [where the Office takes Official Notice that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it well known before the effective filing date of the invention to output the determined position on the device display].
In regard to claim 23, Lee further teaches the second signal comprises local clock correction data (100, Fig. 2-3; 156, Fig. 4; p. 22, line 16 to p. 23, line 1).
In the combination, the secondary code boundary in the first signals is based on the time tagged satellite information and the local clock correction data of the second signal since the time tagged satellite information gives timing information to determine the boundary, and the local clock correction is used to determine the time of time of the first receiver (local clock time) in order to compare the timing information with.
The following reference(s) is/are also found relevant:
Goldberg (US 2015/0288416 A1), which teaches that respective GNSS satellites broadcast a primary code that is unique to that satellite, and may broadcast a secondary code that is unique to that satellite (¶24).
Garcia (Coherent vs. Noncoherent Integration a Deal of Gain for GPS Weak Signal Acquisition), which teaches coherent integration resulting in acquisition of a GNSS signal (section I).
Basch (US 2004/0167713 A1), which teaches performing non-coherent integration prior to performing coherent integration (Fig. 2).
Parkinson (Global Positioning System: Theory and Applications, vol. I), which teaches that four measurements are required to determine a GNSS position, to solve for the four unknowns, latitude, longitude, altitude, and correction to the receiver clock (section III A, p. 10-11).
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. 7-11, with respect to the prior art rejection(s) have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
With regard to claim 1, applicant argues that the references do not teach:
PNG
media_image1.png
116
1010
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 12, applicant argues that the references do not teach:
PNG
media_image2.png
88
1008
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 21, applicant argues that the references do not teach:
PNG
media_image3.png
122
1014
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, in view of the claim amendments to these limitations, a new ground(s) of rejection is made.
With regard to claim 1, applicant argues that the references do not teach:
PNG
media_image4.png
58
1008
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 12, applicant argues that the references do not teach:
PNG
media_image5.png
66
1008
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 21, applicant argues that the references do not teach:
PNG
media_image6.png
90
1004
media_image6.png
Greyscale
However, this language was previously in the claim and was addressed in the previous rejection. Applicant has not explained why applicant feels this limitation patentably distinguishes the claim from what is taught by the combination (i.e. what is incorrect about how the previous rejection addresses this limitation). According to 37 CFR 1.111(b): “A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section.”
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