DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s 03/02/2026 Amendments/Arguments, which directly amended claims 1, 8, 15; and traversed the rejections of the claims of the 10/02/2025 Office Action are acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faragher et al (US 2020/0264317 which was cited in previous Office Action in view of Faragher et al (US 2019/0011569 cited herein as ‘569’).
Faragher et al (Primary Reference)
PNG
media_image1.png
178
216
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
616
336
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, and similarly claims 1 and 15, Faragher et al disclose in Fig 12A an apparatus (i.e. controller/apparatus 800) for performing signal correlation within a signal processing system, comprising at least one processor (i.e. processor 810) and at least one non-transient computer readable medium for storing instructions (i.e. memory 820) that, when executed by the at least one processor ([0373]-[0379]), causes the apparatus to perform operations comprising:
receiving a plurality of signals (i.e. “receiving radio signals, including GNSS signals”) ([0067]) from a plurality of remote sources (i.e. remote resource, satellite) (Fig 16 above – step 101; [0037]; [0073]; [0255]; [0299]);
generating motion compensated correlation results using a determined receiver motion (i.e. via an inertial measurement unit (IMU)), the received signals (i.e. received signal) and a local signal derived from a local frequency source (i.e. “local signal generated by a local signal generator 8”) (Fig 16 above – steps 102, 103; [0067]-[0069]; [0074]);
phase compensating the motion compensated correlation results to produce phase compensated correlation results (i.e. phase-compensated correlation signals) using a plurality of phasor sequences (i.e. a set of phasors) that represent frequency error of the local frequency source (Fig 16 above – step 104; [0070]; [0075]; [0094]-[0101]); and
jointly analysing the phase compensated correlation results associated with the plurality of remote sources to determine a frequency related parameter of the local frequency source (Fig 16 above – step 105; [0076]-[0077]).
Faragher et al do not explicitly disclose wherein the phase compensating is performed at an interval that is a subset of a coherent integration period of a respective, received signal of the plurality of signals as claimed. ‘569’, while teaching phase compensating the motion compensated correlation results to produce phase compensated correlation results using a plurality of phasor sequences that represent frequency error of the local frequency source ([0098]-[0107]; [0139]-[0144]), also teaches in the same field of endeavor the phase compensating is performed at an interval that is a subset of a coherent integration period of a respective, received signal of the plurality of signals ([0098]-[0106]); (i.e. “Coherent integration is the summation of sequences of symbols in such a manner as to preserve the phase relationship of the input sequence throughout, such that sections of the sequence can be added together constructively in both amplitude and phase.”) ([0107]); (i.e. By performing the method 400 for each time period tn, corresponding to the sampling times of the digital signal 222 provided by the receiver 200, it is possible to generate a sequence of phasors {X(tn)}. Each phasor has the same duration as a sample of the digital signal 222 and there is the same number of phasors X(tn) in a motion-compensated phasor sequence 332 as there are samples of the digital signal 222 and samples of a correlation code 341. The correlation code 341 may be a series of sequential correlation code words, concatenated to match the duration of the digital signal 222 and the motion-compensated phasor sequence 332. Each phasor X(t) represents a phase compensation based upon the motion of the receiver at time t that is applied to a corresponding sample of the correlation code 341. In this way, the correlation code 341 becomes motion-compensated when the correlation code 341 is combined with the motion-compensated phasor sequence 332.”) ([0143]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faragher et al in view of ‘569’ to incorporate the phase compensating is performed at an interval that is a subset of a coherent integration period of a respective, received signal of the plurality of signals as taught by 569’ to gain the advantage of properly removing frequency error and compensating motion to improve positioning determination in a system, and since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Faragher et al disclose for each signal, the determined receiver motion includes an estimate of a component of motion of the determined receiver along a direct propagation path between a receiver and a remote source of the signal ([0008]; [0281]).
Regarding claims 3, 10, 17, Faragher et al disclose each phasor sequence has a length that is defined by an expected stability of the local frequency source ([0213]; [0239]; [0252]; [0279]; [0289]).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18, Faragher et al disclose the frequency related parameter of the local frequency source includes at least one of a frequency or frequency rate ([0008]; [0022]-[0026]).
Regarding claims 5-6, 12-13, and 19, Faragher et al disclose the phase compensating steps as claimed ([0176]; [0220]-[0230]; [0255]-[0260]).
Regarding claims 7, 14, and 20, Faragher et al the jointly analysing includes summing the phase compensated correlation results and identifying a common joint correlation value ([0230]).
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 12,429,601 discloses a system for determining a physical metric such as position. The system comprises a local signal generator configured to provide a local signal and a receiver configured to receive a signal having properties corresponding to those in a signal transmitted by a trusted remote source. An inertial measurement unit is configured to provide a measured or assumed movement of the receiver. A correlator is configured to provide a correlation signal by correlating the local signal with the received signal. A motion compensation unit is configured to provide motion compensation of at least one of the local signal, the received signal, and the correlation signal based on the measured or assumed movement. A signal analysis unit is configured to determine whether the received signal includes a component received in a direction that is different to a line-of-sight direction between the receiver and the trusted remote source, wherein the determination is based on the correlation signal. Finally, a metric determination unit or positioning unit is configured to determine a physical metric associated with the receiver, such as its position, based on the determination made by the signal analysis unit.
US 12,135,380 discloses a method for performing in a positioning, navigation, tracking, frequency-measuring, or timing system. The method comprises: providing first and second estimates of at least one system parameter during a first time period, wherein the at least one system parameter has a true value and/or true evolution over time during the first time period; providing a local signal; receiving, at a receiver, a signal from a remote source; providing a correlation signal by correlating the local signal with the received signal; providing amplitude and/or phase compensation of at least one of the local signal, the received signal and the correlation signal based on each of the first and second estimates so as to provide first and second amplitude-compensated and/or phase-compensated correlation signals corresponding to the first and second estimates of the at least one system parameter during the first time period, and; determining which of the first and second estimates is nearer the true value and/or true evolution over time of the at least one system parameter during the first time period, based on a comparison between the first and second amplitude-compensated and/or phase-compensated correlation signals.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUONG P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 10:00-10:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JACK KEITH can be reached at (571) 272-6878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHUONG P NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights