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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 13, 17-19, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Srinivasan (US 2023/0095394 A1).
In regard to claim 13, Srinivasan discloses a satellite signal processing method, comprising:
measuring signal conditions of satellite positioning signals received using a first receive chain configured to receive and output satellite positioning signals in a first frequency band and a second receive chain configured to receive and output satellite positioning signals in a second frequency band (670, Fig. 6; ¶49; 750, Fig. 7);
determining whether the measured signal conditions meet positioning performance criteria and elevations of satellite vehicles acquired using the first receive chain or the second receive chain (750, Fig. 7);
[the measured signal conditions failing to meet the positioning performance criteria (750, Fig. 7 resulting in NO)].
In the method of Srinivasan, in an embodiment when the result of 750, Fig. 7 is NO, the condition of the measured signal conditions meeting positioning performance criteria does not occur, and thus the final step of the claim does not occur. According to Ex parte Schulhauser (Appeal 2013-007847, Application No. 12/184020, 22 pages), when a condition in a method claim is not met, the corresponding step need not be addressed. See also MPEP 2111.04 II.
Thus, the limitations addressed above have been shown to be anticipated by Srinivasan.
In regard to claim 17, in the method of Srinivasan, in an embodiment when the result of 750, Fig. 7 is NO, the condition of the measured signal conditions meeting positioning performance criteria in line 5 does not occur, and thus the step of the claim does not occur. According to Ex parte Schulhauser (Appeal 2013-007847, Application No. 12/184020, 22 pages), when a condition in a method claim is not met, the corresponding step need not be addressed. See also MPEP 2111.04 II.
In regard to claim 18, in the method of Srinivasan, in an embodiment when the result of 750, Fig. 7 is NO, the condition of the measured signal conditions meeting positioning performance criteria in lines 6-7 does not occur, and thus the step of the claim does not occur. According to Ex parte Schulhauser (Appeal 2013-007847, Application No. 12/184020, 22 pages), when a condition in a method claim is not met, the corresponding step need not be addressed. See also MPEP 2111.04 II.
In regard to claim 19, in the method of Srinivasan, in an embodiment when the result of 750, Fig. 7 is NO, the condition of the measured signal conditions meeting positioning performance criteria in line 3 does not occur, and thus the step of the claim does not occur. According to Ex parte Schulhauser (Appeal 2013-007847, Application No. 12/184020, 22 pages), when a condition in a method claim is not met, the corresponding step need not be addressed. See also MPEP 2111.04 II.
In regard to claim 21, Srinivasan further discloses
measuring signal conditions of the satellite positioning signals in the first frequency band and the second frequency band over at least a first time interval (750, Fig. 7);
determining whether the measured signal conditions over at least the first time interval meet the positioning performance criteria (750, Fig. 7); and
causing, based on the measured signal conditions over the at least first time interval failing to meet the positioning performance criteria, the first receive chain to change from being duty cycled to being continuously ON over at least a second time interval (795 to 710 to 720 to 740 to 750 to 730 to 732 to 733, Fig. 7).
In regard to claim 22, Srinivasan further discloses causing the first receive chain to change, between a beginning of the second time interval and an end of the second time interval, from being duty cycled to being continuously ON (795 to 710 to 720 to 740 to 750 to 730 to 732 to 733 to 710, Fig. 7) [where each time interval as claimed is completely arbitrary and can be defined in any way, such as each subsequent time interval beginning/each previous time interval ending whenever step 710 begins. In that case, step 733 occurs before looping to step 710, and thus the change from being duty cycled to being continuously ON occurs before the end of the second time interval at following step 710].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, 9-10, 25, and 28 is/are allowed.
Reasons for Allowance/Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance/allowable subject matter:
The references cited, alone or in combination, do not teach or make obvious the following limitation(s):
quoted from claim 1, in combination with the claim as a whole:
"cause, based on the measured signal conditions meeting the positioning performance criteria and elevations of satellite vehicles acquired using the first receive chain or the second receive chain, the first receive chain to duty cycle between being ON, for first ON times, and being OFF, for first OFF times, and the second receive chain to duty cycle between being ON, for second ON times, and being OFF, for second off times, such that each of the first ON times of the first receive chain at least partially overlaps with at least a corresponding one of the second ON times of the second receive chain; and cause, based on the [same] measured signal conditions meeting the positioning performance criteria, the first receive chain to duty cycle and the second receive chain to be continuously ON between at least two consecutive ON times of the first receive chain".
quoted from claim 25, in combination with the claim as a whole:
"means for causing, based on the measured signal conditions meeting the positioning performance criteria, the first receive chain to duty cycle between being ON, for first ON times, and being OFF, for first OFF times, and the second receive chain to duty cycle between being ON, for second ON times, and being OFF, for second off times, such that each of the first ON times of the first receive chain at least partially overlaps with at least a corresponding one of the second ON times of the second receive chain; and means for causing, based on the [same] measured signal conditions meeting the positioning performance criteria, the first receive chain to duty cycle and the second receive chain to be continuously ON between at least two consecutive ON times of the first receive chain".
quoted from claim 28, in combination with the claim as a whole:
"cause, based on the measured signal conditions meeting the positioning performance criteria, the first receive chain to duty cycle between being ON, for first ON times, and being OFF, for first OFF times, and the second receive chain to duty cycle between being ON, for second ON times, and being OFF, for second off times, such that each of the first ON times of the first receive chain at least partially overlaps with at least a corresponding one of the second ON times of the second receive chain; and cause, based on the [same] measured signal conditions meeting the positioning performance criteria, the first receive chain to duty cycle and the second receive chain to be continuously ON between at least two consecutive ON times of the first receive chain".
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance".
Response to Arguments
The specification objection(s) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments on p. 9-10, with respect to the prior art rejection(s) of claims 1, 5-7, 9-10, 25, and 28 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection(s) of these claims have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments on p. 9-10, with respect to the rejection(s) over claims 13, 17-19, and 21-22 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: "In Srinivasan, the path to making a receive chain continuously ON (step 733) occurs when measured signal conditions fail to meet positioning performance criteria. Claim 1, however, recites that 'based on the measured signal conditions meeting the positioning performance criteria ... the second receive chain to be continuously ON'". However, as detailed in the previous rejection, the "causing" limitation, which includes the requirement "based on the measured signal conditions meeting the positioning performance criteria ... the second receive chain to be continuously ON", does not occur when the performance criteria is not met (where the performance criteria is not met in Srinivasan when there is a NO output from 750, Fig. 7). Thus, applicant's argument is not an argument for the patentability of claim 13.
It is noted that if claim 13, line 6 were amended to replace "whether" with --that--, claim 13 would be allowable. However, applicant would also have to amend/address claims 21-22, where claim 21 includes a limitation where the performance criteria is not met, and where claim 22 depends upon claim 21.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
/BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights