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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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.
Specification Objections
The disclosure is objected to under 37 CFR 1.71(a) because of the following informalities:
In ¶68, line 5, “who” should be replaced by –which--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carcanague (US 2020/0348422 A1) in view of Septentrio (Getting the most out of correction services with an agnostic receiver), and Drescher ‘730 (US 2016/0377730 A1).
In regard to claims 1 and 30, Carcanague discloses:
obtaining measurement information regarding carrier phase measurements (¶123; ¶129; ¶139) and a first measurement at a first epoch and a second measurement at a second epoch subsequent to the first epoch (¶145) [i.e. to determine the rate of change] by a first device (reference station 1, Fig. 4)], the measurements of radio frequency (RF) signals transmitted by a satellite (¶116);
responsive, at least in part, to a determination that there is no cycle slip between the first measurement at the first epoch and the second measurement at the second epoch, determining a change in an ionospheric error value from the first epoch to the second epoch based on a difference between the measurement information regarding the first measurement and the measurement information regarding the second measurement (¶126; ¶128; ¶145) [where measurements with a cycle slip are removed (¶126; ¶128), and thus the remaining measurements are measurements without a cycle slip]; and
outputting a RTK/PPP precise positioning engine (PPE) solution, the RTK/PPP PPE solution an indication of the change in the ionospheric error value (1521, output of 1523, Fig. 4; ¶141-143; ¶145; ¶208).
Carcanague fails to disclose [the carrier phase measurements and measurements at a first epoch and a second epoch being] a first dual-band carrier phase measurement and measurement information regarding a second dual-band carrier phase measurement, wherein: the first dual-band carrier phase measurement and the second dual-band carrier phase measurement are of radio frequency (RF) signals transmitted by a satellite using a first frequency band and a second frequency band; the first dual-band carrier phase measurement and the second dual-band carrier phase measurement each have a known integer ambiguity term.
Septentrio teaches that PPP-RTK corrections are SSR corrections (p. 2, lines 2-3). Thus, by using PPP-RTK, Carcanague is inherently using SSR.
Drescher ‘730 teaches determining an ionospheric delay using a first dual-band carrier phase measurement and measurement information regarding a second dual-band carrier phase measurement, wherein: the first dual-band carrier phase measurement and the second dual-band carrier phase measurement are of radio frequency (RF) signals transmitted by a satellite using a first frequency band and a second frequency band, the first dual-band carrier phase measurement and the second dual-band carrier phase measurement each have a known integer ambiguity term (¶90, lines 18-22; ¶140).
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 determination of ionospheric delay in Carcanague using a known method.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the ionospheric delay is determined.
In regard to claim 4, Carcanague further discloses:
compensating a time-variant component of ionosphere error of the solution based on the change in the ionospheric error value (ionospheric delay, ¶145); and
estimating a time-invariant component of ionosphere error of the solution (rate of change of ionospheric delay, ¶145).
In the combination, the solution is a SSR PPE solution.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carcanague, Septentrio, and, Drescher ‘730, as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Bird (US 2006/0267836 A1).
In regard to claim 8, Carcanague fails to disclose the reference station and the correction processing engine being a single device.
Bird teaches that it is known for a reference station and a correction processing engine being a single device [or may be separate devices] (¶49).
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 a single base station/correction processing engine for the separate base station and correction processing engine of the combination. 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 ways of configuring a network of references stations providing corrections, 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 configure the network of reference stations providing corrections.
Carcanague further discloses providing a determined position of the first device to:
a positioning engine of the first device,
a processor of the first device,
an application executed by the first device (¶139) [where the modeling engine is an application of the first device, where the first device is a single reference station/correction processing engine in the combination with Bird],
a user interface of the first device,
a second device, or
any combination thereof.
In regard to claim 9, the limitation recited is not required to be part of the claimed invention. Parent claim 8 teaches alternative limitations, i.e., "a positioning engine of the GNSS device, ... or any combination thereof". If a parent claim includes alternative limitations, and the reference teaches one of them, further limitations to the other alternatives 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, Carcanague teaches an application execute by the first device, as detailed in the rejection of claim 8, above. Claim 9 is based on another alternative/other alternatives, i.e., a second device.
Claim(s) 12, 15, 19-20, 23, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carcanague in view of Septentrio, Drescher ‘730 and Bird.
In regard to claim 12, Carcanague discloses:
a reference station (1600, Fig. 1A and 1C) comprising: a GNSS receiver; one or more memories; and one or more processors communicatively coupled with the GNSS receiver and the one or more memories (¶139) [where a GNSS receiver inherently includes and associated processor and memory], wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
obtain, via the GNSS receiver, measurement information regarding carrier phase measurements (¶123; ¶129; ¶139) and a first measurement at a first epoch and a second measurement at a second epoch subsequent to the first epoch (¶145) [i.e. to determine the rate of change] by a first device (reference station 1, Fig. 4)], the measurements of radio frequency (RF) signals transmitted by a satellite (¶116);
a corrections processing engine (1500, Fig. 1A and 1C; Fig. 3): responsive, at least in part, to a determination that there is no cycle slip between the first measurement at the first epoch and the second measurement at the second epoch, determining a change in an ionospheric error value from the first epoch to the second epoch based on a difference between the measurement information regarding the first measurement and the measurement information regarding the second measurement (¶126; ¶128; ¶145) [where measurements with a cycle slip are removed (¶126; ¶128), and thus the remaining measurements are measurements without a cycle slip]; and
output a RTK/PPP precise positioning engine (PPE) solution, the RTK/PPP PPE solution an indication of the change in the ionospheric error value (1521, output of 1523, Fig. 4; ¶141-143; ¶145; ¶208).
Carcanague fails to disclose [the carrier phase measurements and measurements at a first epoch and a second epoch being] a first dual-band carrier phase measurement and measurement information regarding a second dual-band carrier phase measurement, wherein: the first dual-band carrier phase measurement and the second dual-band carrier phase measurement are of radio frequency (RF) signals transmitted by a satellite using a first frequency band and a second frequency band; the first dual-band carrier phase measurement and the second dual-band carrier phase measurement each have a known integer ambiguity term; and the reference station and the correction processing engine being a single device.
Septentrio teaches that PPP-RTK corrections are SSR corrections (p. 2, lines 2-3). Thus, by using PPP-RTK, Carcanague is inherently using SSR.
Drescher ‘730 teaches determining an ionospheric delay using a first dual-band carrier phase measurement and measurement information regarding a second dual-band carrier phase measurement, wherein: the first dual-band carrier phase measurement and the second dual-band carrier phase measurement are of radio frequency (RF) signals transmitted by a satellite using a first frequency band and a second frequency band, the first dual-band carrier phase measurement and the second dual-band carrier phase measurement each have a known integer ambiguity term (¶90, lines 18-22; ¶140).
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 determination of ionospheric delay in Carcanague using a known method.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the ionospheric delay is determined.
Bird teaches that it is known for a reference station and a correction processing engine being a single device [or may be separate devices] (¶49).
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 a single base station/correction processing engine for the separate base station and correction processing engine of the combination. 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 ways of configuring a network of references stations providing corrections, 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 configure the network of reference stations providing corrections.
In regard to claim 23, Carcanague discloses:
means for obtaining measurement information regarding carrier phase measurements (¶123; ¶129; ¶139) and a first measurement at a first epoch and a second measurement at a second epoch subsequent to the first epoch (¶145) [i.e. to determine the rate of change] by a first device (reference station 1, Fig. 4)], the measurements of radio frequency (RF) signals transmitted by a satellite (¶116);
means for, responsive, at least in part, to a determination that there is no cycle slip between the first measurement at the first epoch and the second measurement at the second epoch, determining a change in an ionospheric error value from the first epoch to the second epoch based on a difference between the measurement information regarding the first measurement and the measurement information regarding the second measurement (¶126; ¶128; ¶145) [where measurements with a cycle slip are removed (¶126; ¶128), and thus the remaining measurements are measurements without a cycle slip]; and
means for outputting a RTK/PPP precise positioning engine (PPE) solution, the RTK/PPP PPE solution an indication of the change in the ionospheric error value (1521, output of 1523, Fig. 4; ¶141-143; ¶145; ¶208).
Carcanague fails to disclose [the carrier phase measurements and measurements at a first epoch and a second epoch being] a first dual-band carrier phase measurement and measurement information regarding a second dual-band carrier phase measurement, wherein: the first dual-band carrier phase measurement and the second dual-band carrier phase measurement are of radio frequency (RF) signals transmitted by a satellite using a first frequency band and a second frequency band; the first dual-band carrier phase measurement and the second dual-band carrier phase measurement each have a known integer ambiguity term; and the reference station and the correction processing engine being a single device.
Septentrio teaches that PPP-RTK corrections are SSR corrections (p. 2, lines 2-3). Thus, by using PPP-RTK, Carcanague is inherently using SSR.
Drescher ‘730 teaches determining an ionospheric delay using a first dual-band carrier phase measurement and measurement information regarding a second dual-band carrier phase measurement, wherein: the first dual-band carrier phase measurement and the second dual-band carrier phase measurement are of radio frequency (RF) signals transmitted by a satellite using a first frequency band and a second frequency band, the first dual-band carrier phase measurement and the second dual-band carrier phase measurement each have a known integer ambiguity term (¶90, lines 18-22; ¶140).
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 determination of ionospheric delay in Carcanague using a known method.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the ionospheric delay is determined.
Bird teaches that it is known for a reference station and a correction processing engine being a single device [or may be separate devices] (¶49).
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 a single base station/correction processing engine for the separate base station and correction processing engine of the combination. 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 ways of configuring a network of references stations providing corrections, 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 configure the network of reference stations providing corrections.
In regard to claim 15, Carcanague further discloses:
compensating a time-variant component of ionosphere error of the solution based on the change in the ionospheric error value (ionospheric delay, ¶145); and
estimating a time-invariant component of ionosphere error of the solution (rate of change of ionospheric delay, ¶145).
In the combination, the solution is a SSR PPE solution.
In regard to claims 19 and 28, Carcanague further discloses providing a determined position of the first device to:
a positioning engine of the first device,
a processor of the first device,
an application executed by the first device (¶139) [where the modeling engine is an application of the first device, where the first device is a single reference station/correction processing engine in the combination with Bird],
a user interface of the first device,
a second device, or
any combination thereof.
In regard to claim 20, the limitation recited is not required to be part of the claimed invention. Parent claim 19 teaches alternative limitations, i.e., "a positioning engine of the GNSS device, ... or any combination thereof". If a parent claim includes alternative limitations, and the reference teaches one of them, further limitations to the other alternatives 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, Carcanague teaches an application execute by the first device, as detailed in the rejection of claim 19, above. Claim 20 is based on another alternative/other alternatives, i.e., a second device.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carcanague, Septentrio, and Drescher ‘730, as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Robbins (US 2002/0198657 A1) and Dai (US 2010/0141510 A1).
The combination fails to disclose using the change in the ionospheric error value and a sum of delta geometry and delta clock values to determine a change in an ionospheric error value with respect to a single GNSS frequency band.
Robbins teaches using a change in a [dual frequency] ionospheric error value to determine a change in an ionospheric error value with respect to a single GNSS frequency band [in order to determine a corrected ionospheric error value with respect to a single GNSS frequency band to provide to a device with a single frequency receiver so the device with the single frequency receiver can correct for ionosphere error] (1240, 1245, Fig. 12; ¶106).
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 devices with single frequency receivers to correct for ionosphere error.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that allow devices with single frequency receivers can correct for ionosphere error.
Dai teaches [a first device that provides assistance data to a second device] using a sum of delta geometry and delta clock values [to send the second device the sum of delta geometry and delta clock values as assistance information] (¶40-41).
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 provide assistance information to a second device that can used assistance information to aid it in determining its position.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the second device can determine its position using the sum of delta geometry and delta clock values.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carcanague, Septentrio, Drescher ‘730, and Bird, as applied to claim 12, above, and further in view of Robbins (US 2002/0198657 A1) and Dai (US 2010/0141510 A1).
The combination fails to disclose using the change in the ionospheric error value and a sum of delta geometry and delta clock values to determine a change in an ionospheric error value with respect to a single GNSS frequency band.
Robbins teaches using a change in a [dual frequency] ionospheric error value to determine a change in an ionospheric error value with respect to a single GNSS frequency band [in order to determine a corrected ionospheric error value with respect to a single GNSS frequency band to provide to a device with a single frequency receiver so the device with the single frequency receiver can correct for ionosphere error] (1240, 1245, Fig. 12; ¶106).
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 devices with single frequency receivers to correct for ionosphere error.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that allow devices with single frequency receivers can correct for ionosphere error.
Dai teaches [a first device that provides assistance data to a second device] using a sum of delta geometry and delta clock values [to send the second device the sum of delta geometry and delta clock values as assistance information] (¶40-41).
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 provide assistance information to a second device that can used assistance information to aid it in determining its position.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the second device can determine its position using the sum of delta geometry and delta clock values.
Claim(s) 5, 31 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carcanague, Septentrio, and, Drescher ‘730, as applied to claims 1 and 30, above, and further in view of Cole (US 2023/0184956 A1).
In regard to claim 5, Carcanague further discloses outputting the indication of the change in the ionospheric error value comprises including information indicative of the change in the ionospheric error value (output of position from 1160, Fig. 2; Fig. 3-4; ¶57; ¶87; ¶145) [where the position that is output is the indication of the change in ionospheric error value in the GNSS measurements].
Cole teaches using a State Space Representation (SSR) precise positioning engine (PPE) solution using an extended Kalman filter (EKF) (¶34-35; ¶43; ¶51; ¶53) in order to increase the accuracy of the determined position (¶17), the determined position is based at least in part on the ionospheric error value and Satellite-Based Augmentation System (SBAS) information received by the first device (¶49) that also estimates an ambiguity term (¶49) [where ¶49 incorporates by reference Kleeman (US 2022/0107427 A1) via its application number 17/554397, where Kleeman (¶48) teaches GNSS corrections for determining the position is based at least in part on the ionospheric error value and Satellite-Based Augmentation System (SBAS) information received by a first device].
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 increase the accuracy of the determined position.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the accuracy of the determined position is increased.
In regard to claims 31 and 34, Carcanague further teaches the method without an ionosphere error state for position determination (¶145) [where determining an ionosphere error state is optional and thus there is an embodiment where it is not used (e.g. when rate of change of ionospheric delay is used instead)] for position determination (1160 output, 1160, Fig. 12) [where the corrections are ultimately used to determine the position of a local computing system].
Septentrio has shown that the PPE solution is an SSR PPE solution.
The combination fails to teach the method further comprises using an extended Kalman filter (EKF) in the processing of the corrections.
Cole teaches using a State Space Representation (SSR) precise positioning engine (PPE) solution using an extended Kalman filter (EKF) (¶34-35; ¶43; ¶51; ¶53) without an ionosphere error state (¶39; ¶49) [where it is options to derive corrections from ionospheric delay] in GNSS correcting and positioning in a dual-frequency positioning method/system (¶23) in order to increase the accuracy of the determined position (¶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 increase the accuracy of the determined position.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the accuracy of the determined position is increased.
Claim(s) 16 and 32-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carcanague, Septentrio, Drescher ‘730, and Bird, as applied to claims 12 and 23, above, and further in view of Cole (US 2023/0184956 A1).
In regard to claim 16, Carcanague further discloses outputting the indication of the change in the ionospheric error value comprises including information indicative of the change in the ionospheric error value (output of position from 1160, Fig. 2; Fig. 3-4; ¶57; ¶87; ¶145) [where the position that is output is the indication of the change in ionospheric error value in the GNSS measurements].
Cole teaches using a State Space Representation (SSR) precise positioning engine (PPE) solution using an extended Kalman filter (EKF) (¶34-35; ¶43; ¶51; ¶53) in order to increase the accuracy of the determined position (¶17), the determined position is based at least in part on the ionospheric error value and Satellite-Based Augmentation System (SBAS) information received by the first device (¶49) that also estimates an ambiguity term (¶49) [where ¶49 incorporates by reference Kleeman (US 2022/0107427 A1) via its application number 17/554397, where Kleeman (¶48) teaches GNSS corrections for determining the position is based at least in part on the ionospheric error value and Satellite-Based Augmentation System (SBAS) information received by a first device].
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 increase the accuracy of the determined position.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the accuracy of the determined position is increased.
In regard to claims 32-33, Carcanague further teaches the method without an ionosphere error state for position determination (¶145) [where determining an ionosphere error state is optional and thus there is an embodiment where it is not used (e.g. when rate of change of ionospheric delay is used instead)] for position determination (1160 output, 1160, Fig. 12) [where the corrections are ultimately used to determine the position of a local computing system].
Septentrio has shown that the PPE solution is an SSR PPE solution.
The combination fails to teach the method further comprises using an extended Kalman filter (EKF) in the processing of the corrections.
Cole teaches using a State Space Representation (SSR) precise positioning engine (PPE) solution using an extended Kalman filter (EKF) (¶34-35; ¶43; ¶51; ¶53) without an ionosphere error state (¶39; ¶49) [where it is options to derive corrections from ionospheric delay] in GNSS correcting and positioning in a dual-frequency positioning method/system (¶23) in order to increase the accuracy of the determined position (¶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 increase the accuracy of the determined position.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the accuracy of the determined position is increased.
The following reference(s) is/are also found relevant:
Horton (Demystifying GNSS Corrections), which teaches “Precise Point Positioning (PPP) relies on the transmission of a global correction model referred to as Space State Representation (SSR).” (p. 60, final ¶). Thus, by using PPP, Carcanague is inherently using SSR.
Parkinson (Global Positioning System: Theory and Applications), which teaches that the ionosphere delay/error varies over time (p. 49-51).
Fine (US 2022/0018969 A1), which teaches that an SSR ionosphere delay/error can be updated after a validity period (¶31).
Kleeman (US 2022/0107427 A1), incorporated-by-reference into Cole via its application number 17/554397 (Cole: ¶49), which teaches using an extended Kalman filter state that also estimates an ambiguity term (Kleeman: ¶48 and ¶50).
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 10, 21, and 29 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 10, in combination with the claim as a whole:
"sending the change in the ionospheric error value and a sum of delta geometry and delta clock values to a second device for determination of a change in the ionospheric error value with respect to a single GNSS frequency band".
quoted from claim 21, in combination with the claim as a whole:
"the one or more processors are configured to send the change in the ionospheric error value and a sum of delta geometry and delta clock values to a second device for determination of a change in an ionospheric error value with respect to a single GNSS frequency band".
quoted from claim 29, in combination with the claim as a whole:
"means for sending the change in the ionospheric error value and a sum of delta geometry and delta clock values to a second device for determination of a change in an ionospheric error value with respect to a single GNSS frequency band".
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
Applicant’s arguments on p. 11-15, with respect to the prior art rejection(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made.
Applicant argues that Carcanague does not output a rate of change of ionospheric delay. However, there is no such requirement in the claims. The claims require an output “indicative of the change in the ionospheric error value”. Thus, the output only needs to indicate the change in the ionospheric error value in some way. In the combination, if the value of the change in the ionospheric error value is different, this will lead to a different set of corrections. ¶145 states “The corrections generated by the correction generator 1523 preferably include corrections that correct for the effects of satellite orbit and clock error, satellite code and phase biases, atmospheric effects (e.g., ionospheric delay, rate of change of ionospheric delay, tropospheric delay such as zenith tropospheric delay, etc.)”.
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