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.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)/6th ¶
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f)/6th ¶ (hereinafter 112(f)):
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd ¶:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd ¶ as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regard as the invention.
(a) Claim 6, line 3 recites the limitation "the ground stations". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
(b) Claim 7, the preamble recites "A positioning apparatus", but then the final limitation recites "wherein the phase difference calculation means and the base line vector calculation means are installed in either one of the second satellite or the positioning apparatus located on the ground". The sole reference back to the positioning apparatus, "the positioning apparatus located on the ground", makes it sound like the positioning apparatus is on the ground, but from the final limitation, the phase difference calculation means can also be on the satellite. Applicant might clarify the claim language with an amendment such as: "wherein the phase difference calculation means and the base line vector calculation means are installed in either one of the positioning apparatus located on the second satellite or the positioning apparatus located on the ground".
(a) In claim 8, the line before the final line recites the limitation "the receiving station". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
“We note that the patent drafter is in the best position to resolve the ambiguity in the patent claims, and it is highly desirable that patent examiners demand that applicants do so in appropriate circumstances so that the patent can be amended during prosecution rather than attempting to resolve the ambiguity in litigation.”, Halliburton Energy Services Inc. v. M-I LLC., 85 USPQ2d 1654 at 1663.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Montenbruck (A real-time kinematic GPS sensor for spacecraft relative navigation).
In regard to claim 1, Montenbruck discloses:
generating first observation data through observation of phases of a plurality of carrier waves transmitted from a plurality of transmitting stations in a first satellite (Remote satellite, Fig. 1; p. 436, ¶3);
generating second observation data through observation of the phases of the plurality of the carrier waves in a second satellite (Local satellite, Fig. 1; p. 436, ¶3);
performing phase difference calculation to calculate a phase difference of the plurality of the carrier waves observed in the first satellite and the second satellite using the first observation data and the second observation data, respectively (p. 436, ¶3: "differential ... phase" in line 5);
performing base line vector calculation to calculate a base line vector indicating relative positions of the first satellite and the second satellite based on the phase difference calculated by performing the phase difference calculation (p. 436, ¶3: "relative state vector" in line 6; Δr in Fig. 2; p. 438, ¶3); and
performing the phase difference calculation and the base line vector calculation by either one of (i) the second satellite (p. 436, ¶3, particularly lines 4-6) or (ii) a positioning apparatus located on the ground.
In regard to claim 7, Montenbruck discloses:
phase difference calculation means for performing phase difference calculation (p. 436, ¶3: "differential ... phase" in line 5) of a plurality of carrier waves observed in a first satellite and a second satellite using first observation data and second observation data, respectively, the first observation data being obtained through observation of phases of a plurality of carrier waves transmitted from a plurality of transmitting stations in the first satellite and the second observation data being obtained through observation of the phases of the plurality of the carrier waves in the second satellite (Remote satellite, Local satellite, Fig. 1; p. 436, ¶3); and
base line vector calculation means for calculating a base line vector indicating relative positions of the first satellite and the second satellite based on the phase difference calculated by the phase difference calculation means (p. 436, ¶3: "relative state vector" in line 6; Δr in Fig. 2; p. 438, ¶3),
wherein the phase difference calculation means and the base line vector calculation means are installed in either one of (i) the second satellite (p. 436, ¶3, particularly lines 4-6) or (ii) the positioning apparatus located on the ground.
In regard to claim 2, Montenbruck further discloses the carrier waves include carrier waves of different frequencies (p. 48, ¶1) [where an embodiment is disclosed in which desiring higher accuracy is achieved using a dual frequency receiver].
In regard to claim 4, the limitation recited is not required to be part of the claimed invention. Parent claim 1 teaches alternative limitations, i.e., (i) and (ii). 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, Montenbruck teaches (i), as detailed in the rejection of claim 1. Claim 4 is based on another alternative/other alternatives, i.e., (ii).
In regard to claim 5, Montenbruck further discloses:
the phase difference calculation and the base line vector calculation are performed by the second satellite (p. 436, ¶3, particularly lines 4-6), and
in the phase difference calculation, the phase difference is calculated using the first observation data transmitted from the first satellite and coordinates information indicating self-position of a satellite calculated using the second observation data acquired by the satellite (Differential Measurements, Single point positioning, Fig. 1; p. 436, ¶3; p. 437, ¶2; p. 444, ¶1).
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montenbruck, as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Cheung (A Trilateration Scheme for Relative Positioning).
In regard to claim 3, Montenbruck fails to disclose the plurality of the carrier waves are sent out from four or more ground stations installed at different locations.
Cheung teaches relative positioning with observations from GNSS satellites and positioning with observations from four or more ground stations installed at different locations are known alternatives (Fig. 2; abstract, lines 1-8; p. 2; ¶2).
Thus, these two elements were art-recognized equivalents at the time of the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute transmitters at ground-based stations for the GNSS transmitters of Montenbruck. Additionally, this 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 systems for transmitting positioning signals, 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 allowing the determination of the relative position.
In regard to claim 8, Montenbruck discloses:
a first satellite (Remote satellite, Fig. 1);
a second satellite (Local satellite, Fig. 1); and
at least four transmitting stations configured to transmit carrier waves to the first satellite and the second satellite (GPS satellite, Fig. 1) [where it is well known that GPS positioning involves using observations from four satellites],
wherein:
first observation data is generated through observation of the phases of the plurality of the carrier waves in the first satellite (Remote satellite, Fig. 1; p. 436, ¶3),
second observation data is generated through observation of the phases of the plurality of the carrier waves in the second satellite (Local satellite, Fig. 1; p. 436, ¶3),
phase difference calculation is performed to calculate a phase difference of the plurality of the carrier waves observed in the first satellite and the second satellite using the first observation data and the second observation data, respectively (p. 436, ¶3: "differential ... phase" in line 5),
base line vector calculation is performed to calculate a base line vector indicating relative positions of the first satellite and the second satellite based on the phase difference calculated by performing the phase difference calculation (p. 436, ¶3: "relative state vector" in line 6; Δr in Fig. 2; p. 438, ¶3), and
the phase difference calculation and the base line vector calculation are performed by either one of (i) the second satellite (p. 436, ¶3, particularly lines 4-6) or (ii) the receiving station located on the ground.
Montenbruck fails to disclose the at least four transmitting stations are set up on the ground.
Cheung teaches relative positioning with observations from GNSS satellites and positioning with observations from four or more ground stations installed at different locations are known alternatives (Fig. 2; abstract, lines 1-8; p. 2; ¶2).
Thus, these two elements were art-recognized equivalents at the time of the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute transmitters at ground-based stations for the GNSS transmitters of Montenbruck. Additionally, this 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 systems for transmitting positioning signals, 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 allowing the determination of the relative position.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montenbruck, as applied to claim 5, above, and further in view of Huang (CN 112564770 A).
Montenbruck fails to disclose the second satellite transmits information on the base line vector calculated by the positioning apparatus to ground stations.
Huang teaches a second satellite transmits information on the base line vector calculated by the positioning apparatus to a ground [where the ground station controls the satellite constellation] (p. 3, ¶3; p. 5, ¶10).
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 use multiple ground stations in controlling a satellite constellation so that each satellite is always in communication range of one of the ground stations no matter where the satellite is in its orbit.
The following reference(s) is/are also found relevant:
Koyama (Use of high-precision GPS in future spacecraft) [where all references are to the English translation], which teaches generating first observation data through observation of phases of a plurality of carrier waves transmitted from a plurality of transmitting stations in a first satellite (p. 5, ¶2);
generating second observation data through observation of the phases of the plurality of the carrier waves in a second satellite (p. 5, ¶2);
performing base line vector calculation to calculate a base line vector indicating relative positions of the first satellite and the second satellite based on the carrier phase observations (p. 2, final ¶); and
performing the base line vector calculation by the second satellite (p. 5, ¶2; left-hand figure under p. 5, ¶2); and
the carrier waves include carrier waves of different frequencies (p. 3, section 3.1, final ¶).
Shamoto (US 2009/0140916 A1), which teaches determining a relative position between objects based on a phase difference between phases measured at the objects (¶18).
Asher (US 2003/0176972 A1), which teaches generating first observation data through observation of phases of a plurality of carrier waves transmitted from a plurality of transmitting stations in a first satellite (Fig. 3; ¶34; ¶42);
generating second observation data through observation of the phases of the plurality of the carrier waves in a second satellite (Fig. 3; ¶34; ¶42);
performing phase difference calculation to calculate a phase difference of the plurality of the carrier waves observed in the first satellite and the second satellite using the first observation data and the second observation data, respectively (¶42);
performing base line vector calculation to calculate a base line vector indicating relative positions of the first satellite and the second satellite based on the phase difference calculated by performing the phase difference calculation (¶36; ¶40); and
performing the phase difference calculation and the base line vector calculation by the second satellite (¶28); and
the carrier waves include carrier waves of different frequencies (¶15).
Parkinson (Global Positioning System: Theory and Applications), which teaches that GPS positioning involves using observations from four satellites (p. 10, final ¶).
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.
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, Robert Hodge, can be reached at 571-272-2097. 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 3645
/F. H. M./
Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645