DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/amendments, see Page 11, line 17 to Page 13, line 18 filed 02/02/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and §112(b) rejections of claims 1-7 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and §112(b) rejections of claims 1-7 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's amendments and arguments, see Page 13, line 19 to Page 17, line 19 filed 02/02/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of claims 1, 8 and 15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 add “a memory, a processor coupled to the memory” and further limit the transformation module by explicitly stating it is a “software module”. The changes are at a high level of generality and reference generic computing equipment and techniques. These changes and the claims taken as a whole do not add significantly more to limit the claims such as to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract ideas. The applicant makes no changes to claims 8 and 15. The Applicant advances three arguments against the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of amended claim 1 and previously presented claims 8 and 15. A restatement of each argument with Examiner’s response follows:
Argument 1: If the specification sets forth an improvement to a computer and/or in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim should include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. However, the claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a).This standard, as set forth above, is illustrated in USPTO Example 4, which addresses GPS receiver technology. In that example, the Office found a claim to be patent-eligible where it recited processing techniques that improved the accuracy of a GPS receiver, despite involving mathematical operations, because the claim as a whole improved the functioning of a GPS-based positioning system. The USPTO concluded that such a claim is not directed to performing mathematical operations on a computer alone. Instead, the combination of elements impose meaningful limits in that the mathematical operations are applied to improve the existing technology of global positioning. The present claims are closely analogous. (Page 14, line 21 to Page 15 line 13)
Examiner’s Response: The key teaching of Example 4 Claim 1 is that the limitations placed on the mathematical models and operations resulting in a particular improvement is what makes the claim patentable.
The meaningful limitations placed upon the application of the claimed mathematical operations show that the claim is not directed to performing mathematical operations on a computer alone. Rather, the combination of elements impose meaningful limits in that the mathematical operations are applied to improve an existing technology (global positioning) by improving the signal-acquisition sensitivity of the receiver to extend the usefulness of the technology into weak-signal environments and providing the location information for display on the mobile device. (last paragraph page 12 of USPTO examples)
The claims of the instant application are not analogous to USPTO Example 4 in the relevant aspects for establishing subject matter eligibility. The Specification presents the solution in a conclusory manner in the selections presented by the applicant. The specification lacks the detail required to rely on an improvement to GNSS technology to meet the burden required to overcome the subject matter eligibility requirements on that basis alone.
The applicant cites, MPEP 2106.05(a), yet fails to meet the burden placed on the applicant once the examiner finds the disclosed invention does not present an improvement in the technology:
If the examiner concludes the disclosed invention does not improve technology, the burden shifts to applicant to provide persuasive arguments supported by any necessary evidence to demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the disclosed invention improves technology. Any such evidence submitted under 37 CFR 1.132 must establish what the specification would convey to one of ordinary skill in the art and cannot be used to supplement the specification (MPEP 2106.05(a))
The claimed invention presented in claims 1, 8 and 15 of the instant application do not present a specific solution to the problem presented. The portion of the specification cited by the applicant (Specification; Pg. 14, line 21 to Pg. 15, line13) does not present details of a solution and how it is an improvement over the art as required by MPEP 2106.05(a), the portion of the specification cited by the Applicant merely repeats Steps 310 and 315 of procedure 300 from Fig. 3.
Argument 2: Claim 1 recites a specific process that addresses well-known technical shortcomings in generation and utilization of navigation correction. Specifically, the claimed invention is directed to transforming a correction from one correction system so that the correction is compatible with and can be used with the corrections of a different correction system by a navigation receiver to implement a positioning technique. See Specification, page 21, lines 3 - 6. Stated a different way, the technical problem in the field of navigation corrections is that each correction system may set some of its parameters to arbitrary values. Because of this, the corrections from one correction system cannot simply be used with the corrections from a different correction system. As a result, reoccurrence of the convergence period is required. See Specification, page 4, lines 5 - 16 and page 26, lines 3 - 10. The claimed invention overcomes this technical problem by transforming a correction, that would not be compatible with a different correction system, to a value such that it can in fact be used with the corrections of the different correction system. See Specification, page 5, lines 10 - 15. By transforming the correction in the claimed manner so that it can be used with a different correction system, a receiver does not have to reset its filter, which in turn means that the reoccurrence of the convergence period is avoided. See Specification, page 27, lines 4 - 6. Therefore, the claims provide an improvement in the existing technological field of navigation systems. See Specification, page 20, lines 5 - 7, (Page 15, line 13 to Page 16 line 9)
Examiner’s Response: The solution to the problem presented in the instant application of the ‘transformation’ of GNSS corrections lacks the detail specified by MPEP 2106.04(d) in order to demonstrate subject matter eligibility through an improvement of technology as discussed in the response to Argument 1 above.
Argument 3: The described improvement, which is directly reflected in the limitations of claim 1, demonstrates that the claim integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Under MPEP § 2106.04(d), a practical application is established when the claimed invention improves a technology. Here, the present claims provide a specific technical solution to longstanding problems in navigation systems. Accordingly, the claims satisfy Step 2A, Prong Two of the subject matter eligibility analysis. The Claims are Statutory Under Step 2B (Page 16, lines 10-16)
Examiner’s Response: Stating an improvement demonstrates the integration of the abstract idea is not providing evidence or an argument as required by MPEP 2106.05(a).
Applicant's arguments filed 02/02/2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §102 rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. The Applicant advances two arguments against the 35 U.S.C. §102 rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Drescher (US 2016037730). A restatement of each argument with Examiner’s response follows:
Argument 1: In short, Drescher does not disclose a first correction system, e.g., a regional correction system, generating corrections by setting one or more parameters to arbitrary values, and a different correction system, e.g., a global correction system, generating corrections by setting one or more parameters to arbitrary values. Moreover, Drescher is directed to producing globally and regionally consistent correction information and does not disclose generating mutually incompatible corrections across correction systems. See, e.g., Drescher paragraphs [0058]-[0059]. B) (Page 19, lines 15-21)
Examiner’s Response: The applicant misunderstands the work of Drescher. The applicant makes statements concerning the teachings of Drescher and cites paragraphs, but the cited paragraphs do not support the Applicant’s statements. [0058]-[0059] is a statement of one embodiment, Fig. 4, presented by Drescher to generate regional corrections, corrections which do not rely on global corrections. Fig. 6 is the relevant embodiment that reads on the claims of the instant application. The Applicant is focusing on one embodiment and disregarding the relevant disclosures of: [0070] and [0164] of generating residuals between the regional and global corrections, the ‘delta’ of the instant application and using the residuals to transform the correction.
Argument 2: Based on the Applicant's review, Drescher is silent regarding solving a system of at least two equations as claimed. Specifically, Drescher does not disclose solving a system of at least two equations using corrections that are independently generated from each other by setting parameters to arbitrary values to calculate an estimated value. Further, Drescher does not disclose using such an estimated value, calculated from solving the claimed system of equations, to transform a correction so that it is compatible with corrections that it was initially incompatible with. Drescher simply fails to disclose these claimed features.) (Page 20, lines 9-16)
Examiner’s Response: The Applicant’s second argument is a statement of their understanding and does not present an argument. The portions of Drescher cited in the 102 rejection of claim 1, cites 3 equations involving a residual (delta value) see [0145] (The advantage of this approach is that network ionosphere corrections generated from the ambiguity-reduced observations are compatible with the orbit, clock, bias, and ionosphere information provided by a suitable correction stream as for example described in references [3], [4] and [5]. Therefore, the global ionosphere model can be replaced by a regional ionosphere model generated from the network ionosphere corrections or from the ambiguity-reduced observations respectively.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without adding significantly more to the abstract idea itself.
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216(2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217-18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices {Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas {Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594-95 (1978)); and mental processes {Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” {Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” {id. at 184 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267-68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour {Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Supreme Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 192 (“We view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract... is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, . . . and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent- eligible application.”, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].”” Id. ((alteration in the original) quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requiring] generic computer implementation” fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of § 101. USPTO’s January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“Memorandum”). Under Step 2A of that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well- understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Analysis
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim 1 recites a system to perform a series of steps to generate transformed navigation corrections. Thus, the claim is a machine and/or manufacture, and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claims 8 recites a method for generating transformed navigation corrections. Thus, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claims 15 recites the same steps as claim 1 stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium such that they are executable by one or more computing devices. The claim is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium, which is a manufacture, and thus a statutory category of invention
Step 2A, Prong One – Recitation of Judicial Exception
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, we evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. For abstract ideas, Prong One represents a change as compared to prior guidance because we here determine whether the claim recites mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes.
As set forth above, claims 1, 8, and 15 recite a judicial exception since the claims set forth a plurality mathematical concepts accomplished through a series of mathematical operations performed by a generic processor. as defined at least by the claimed steps of:
generate navigation corrections by executing a first correction algorithm that sets one or more first parameters to arbitrary values;
solve, using the generated navigation corrections with the independently generated reference corrections, a system of at least two equations for observations, wherein the solving calculates an estimated delta value; and
transform a selected generated navigation correction by adjusting the selected generated navigation correction by the estimated delta value to generate a transformed navigation correction, wherein the transformed navigation correction is compatible with the independently generated reference corrections.
The step of “generate navigation corrections by executing a first correction algorithm” falls under the mathematical calculations category of mathematical concepts which are abstract ideas.
The step of “solve … a system of at least two equations for observations, wherein the solving calculates an estimated delta value” is a set of mathematical operations as well. Solving a system of two equations is a basic mathematical operation.
The step of “transform a selected generated navigation correction by adjusting the selected generated navigation correction by the estimated delta value to generate a transformed navigation correction” may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. This reduces again to basic mathematical operations to calculate values and then perform a consistency check.
Therefore, such steps of “generate navigation corrections by executing a first correction algorithm”, “solve … a system of at least two equations for observations” and “transform a selected generated navigation correction” are mathematical calculations or mental observations/evaluations which fall within the “mental processes” and “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
Since the claims recite an abstract idea, the analysis proceeds to Prong Two to determine whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two – Practical Application
If a claim recites a judicial exception, in Prong Two, we next determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not directed to the judicial exception. This evaluation requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not directed to the judicial exception.
The only additional claim element in claims 1, 8 and 15 is “receive, from a different navigation correction system, independently generated reference corrections that are generated by the different navigation correction system that executes a second correction algorithm that sets one or more second parameters to arbitrary values, wherein the navigation corrections are incompatible with the independently generated reference corrections”. This additional claim element is used as a tool to perform the generic processor functions of receiving data and performing an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer devices such as a memory and processor. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further, claims 1, 8, 15 recite the method as being performed by a computer processor. The computer processor is recited at a high level of generality. The computer processor is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving data and perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic processor computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Step 2B – Inventive Concept
For Step 2B of the analysis, it is determined whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field or "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981).
As stated above, claims 1, 8, and 15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15 the additional claim element is “receive, from a different navigation correction system, independently generated reference corrections that are generated by the different navigation correction system that executes a second correction algorithm that sets one or more second parameters to arbitrary values, wherein the navigation corrections are incompatible with the independently generated reference corrections”. This claim element is performing the generic computer function of receiving data, sending data, and perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic devices. As will be explained below, the navigation corrections described in the instant application are well established, routine, and conventional within the field of precision GNSS technology.
The courts have ruled that using a computer to receive and transmit data over a network is routine and conventional (BuySAFE v. Google, Inc.; also see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)). Additionally, the courts have rules that storing and retrieving information in memory is routine and conventional (Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93)
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The application of the abstract idea using generic computer components does not transform the claim into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea and does not result in an improvement in the functioning of the computer or another technology. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
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, 8-9, 11-12, 15-16, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Drescher et al. (US PG Pub. 20160377730), hereinafter Drescher.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood and/or based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, Drescher discloses a navigation correction system ([0171] In one embodiment, schematically illustrated by FIG. 11, an apparatus 200 is provided for generating regional correction information to be used by, or for the benefit of, at least one navigation satellite system (NSS) receiver.), comprising:
A memory;
a processor coupled to the memory ([0188] NSS receivers may include… processor units,… one or more central processing units (CPU), one or more memory units (RAM, ROM, flash memory, or the like),);
the processor executing a correction transformation software module, the correction transformation software module when executed by the processor configured to:
generate navigation corrections ([0043] FIG. 3 is a flowchart of a method according to one embodiment of the invention. The method is carried out by a computer or set of computers for generating regional correction information to be used to correct observations of at least one global or regional NSS receiver) by executing a first correction algorithm ([0059] FIG. 4 is a flowchart of an exemplary step s50 of generating regional correction information in a method according to one embodiment of the invention.) that sets one or more first parameters to arbitrary values ([0052] The regional correction information comprises, … and (ii) its coefficients, hereinafter referred to as “regional ionospheric delay coefficients”.);
receive, from a different navigation correction system ([0069] FIG. 6 is a flowchart of a method in one embodiment of the invention, which, in addition to generating the regional correction information as described with reference to FIG. 3, comprises the following additional step s70.), independently generated reference corrections ([0070] In step s70, additional correction information (“global correction information”) is used in at least one of steps s30 to s50 as described above. The global correction information may also be sent to the NSS receiver(s)) that are generated by the different navigation correction system ([0047] The precise satellite information typically originates from observations made by a global network of reference stations. Optionally, a global ionosphere model is also obtained, which is applicable both within and outside the region of interest.) that executes a second correction algorithm ([0164] Reference [5] describes an approach to derive accuracy information for a global ionosphere correction model based on GNSS parameter estimation residuals;) that sets one or more second parameters to arbitrary values ([0164] i.e. the residuals are obtained from the computation of the GNSS parameter estimation which was done to determine a global ionosphere correction model.), wherein the navigation corrections are incompatible with the independently generated reference corrections;
solve, using the generated navigation corrections with the independently generated reference corrections, a system of at least two equations for observations ([0062] In (sub-)step s53, receiver ionospheric-phase biases for each reference station are estimated based on a residual quantity which is obtained by subtracting the estimated CRSLM from the geometric-free phase linear combination values which are additionally ambiguity resolved and further reduced by the satellite ionospheric-phase bias from the precise satellite information. See in that respect equations (8), (11) and (12) and their corresponding explanations.), wherein the solving calculates an estimated delta value (Equation 15; resASHA is the difference, or delta, between the regional and global ionospheric delays);
transform a selected generated navigation correction by adjusting the selected generated navigation correction ([0070] In step s70, additional correction information (“global correction information”) is used in at least one of steps s30 to s50 as described above.) by the estimated delta value ([0062] In (sub-)step s53, receiver ionospheric-phase biases for each reference station are estimated based on a residual quantity which is obtained by subtracting the estimated CRSLM from the geometric-free phase linear combination values which are additionally ambiguity resolved and further reduced by the satellite ionospheric-phase bias from the precise satellite information. See in that respect equations (8), (11) and (12) and their corresponding explanations.) to generate a transformed navigation correction, wherein the transformed navigation correction is compatible with the independently generated reference corrections ([0079] Therefore, the regional correction information (representing regional ionosphere correction models) can be regarded as a regional augmentation to the global correction information. Furthermore, since the regional correction information is absolute and consistent with the biases of the correction stream described in references [3] and [4], a smooth transition between the global and the regional ionosphere model (represented respectively by the global and regional correction information) is possible.).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood and/or based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, Drescher discloses the navigation correction system of claim 1, wherein the correction transformation software module when executed by the processor is further configured to: broadcast, over one or more communication networks, the transformed navigation correction to one or more navigation receivers ([0056] In step s60, the regional correction information is sent to the NSS receiver(s) and/or to apparatus(es) in charge of processing observations from NSS receiver(s), for example for use in PPP applications.).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood and/or based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, Drescher discloses the navigation correction system of claim 1, wherein the transformed correction is a transformed ionospheric correction ([0052] In step s50, the regional correction information is generated based on the computed geometric-free phase linear combination values. The regional correction information comprises, for each of the plurality of NSS satellites, (i) at least one mathematical function, each of which being hereinafter referred to as “regional ionospheric delay function”, and (ii) its coefficients, hereinafter referred to as “regional ionospheric delay coefficients”.).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood and/or based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, Drescher discloses the navigation correction system of claim 4, wherein the estimated delta value is an estimated delta ionospheric value (Equation 15; resASHA is the difference, or delta, between the regional and global ionospheric delays) and the selected generated navigation correction is a generated ionospheric correction ([0021] The regional correction information is then generated based on the computed geometric-free phase linear combination values, wherein the regional correction information comprises, for each of the NSS satellites, at least one mathematical function (each hereinafter referred to as “regional ionospheric delay function”) and its coefficients (hereinafter referred to as “regional ionospheric delay coefficients”), and the correction transformation software module when executed by the processor is further configured to: subtract the estimated delta ionospheric value from the generated ionospheric correction to generate a transformed ionospheric correction that is the transformed navigation correction ([0062] In (sub-)step s53, receiver ionospheric-phase biases for each reference station are estimated based on a residual quantity which is obtained by subtracting the estimated CRSLM from the geometric-free phase linear combination values which are additionally ambiguity resolved and further reduced by the satellite ionospheric-phase bias from the precise satellite information. See in that respect equations (8), (11) and (12) and their corresponding explanations.).
Regarding claim 8, Drescher discloses a method for generating transformed navigation corrections, the method comprising:
generate navigation corrections ([0043] FIG. 3 is a flowchart of a method according to one embodiment of the invention. The method is carried out by a computer or set of computers for generating regional correction information to be used to correct observations of at least one global or regional NSS receiver) by executing a first correction algorithm ([0059] FIG. 4 is a flowchart of an exemplary step s50 of generating regional correction information in a method according to one embodiment of the invention.) that sets one or more first parameters to arbitrary values ([0052] The regional correction information comprises, … and (ii) its coefficients, hereinafter referred to as “regional ionospheric delay coefficients”.);
receive, from a different navigation correction system ([0069] FIG. 6 is a flowchart of a method in one embodiment of the invention, which, in addition to generating the regional correction information as described with reference to FIG. 3, comprises the following additional step s70.), independently generated reference corrections ([0070] In step s70, additional correction information (“global correction information”) is used in at least one of steps s30 to s50 as described above. The global correction information may also be sent to the NSS receiver(s)) that are generated by the different navigation correction system ([0047] The precise satellite information typically originates from observations made by a global network of reference stations. Optionally, a global ionosphere model is also obtained, which is applicable both within and outside the region of interest.) that executes a second correction algorithm ([0164] Reference [5] describes an approach to derive accuracy information for a global ionosphere correction model based on GNSS parameter estimation residuals;) that sets one or more second parameters to arbitrary values ([0164] i.e. the residuals are obtained from the computation of the GNSS parameter estimation which was done to determine a global ionosphere correction model.), wherein the navigation corrections are incompatible with the independently generated reference corrections;
solve, using the generated navigation corrections with the independently generated reference corrections, a system of at least two equations for observations ([0062] In (sub-)step s53, receiver ionospheric-phase biases for each reference station are estimated based on a residual quantity which is obtained by subtracting the estimated CRSLM from the geometric-free phase linear combination values which are additionally ambiguity resolved and further reduced by the satellite ionospheric-phase bias from the precise satellite information. See in that respect equations (8), (11) and (12) and their corresponding explanations.), wherein the solving calculates an estimated delta value (Equation 15; resASHA is the difference, or delta, between the regional and global ionospheric delays);
transform a selected generated navigation correction by adjusting the selected generated navigation correction ([0070] In step s70, additional correction information (“global correction information”) is used in at least one of steps s30 to s50 as described above.) by the estimated delta value ([0062] In (sub-)step s53, receiver ionospheric-phase biases for each reference station are estimated based on a residual quantity which is obtained by subtracting the estimated CRSLM from the geometric-free phase linear combination values which are additionally ambiguity resolved and further reduced by the satellite ionospheric-phase bias from the precise satellite information. See in that respect equations (8), (11) and (12) and their corresponding explanations.) to generate a transformed navigation correction, wherein the transformed navigation correction is compatible with the independently generated reference corrections ([0079] Therefore, the regional correction information (representing regional ionosphere correction models) can be regarded as a regional augmentation to the global correction information. Furthermore, since the regional correction information is absolute and consistent with the biases of the correction stream described in references [3] and [4], a smooth transition between the global and the regional ionosphere model (represented respectively by the global and regional correction information) is possible.).
Regarding claim 9, Drescher discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising: broadcasting, by the navigation correction system over one or more communication networks, the transformed navigation correction to one or more navigation receivers ([0056] In step s60, the regional correction information is sent to the NSS receiver(s) and/or to apparatus(es) in charge of processing observations from NSS receiver(s), for example for use in PPP applications.).
Regarding claim 11, Drescher discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the transformed correction is a transformed ionospheric correction ([0052] In step s50, the regional correction information is generated based on the computed geometric-free phase linear combination values. The regional correction information comprises, for each of the plurality of NSS satellites, (i) at least one mathematical function, each of which being hereinafter referred to as “regional ionospheric delay function”, and (ii) its coefficients, hereinafter referred to as “regional ionospheric delay coefficients”.).
Regarding claim 12, Drescher discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the estimated delta value is an estimated delta ionospheric value (Equation 15; resASHA is the difference, or delta, between the regional and global ionospheric delays) and the selected generated navigation correction is a generated ionospheric correction ([0021] The regional correction information is then generated based on the computed geometric-free phase linear combination values, wherein the regional correction information comprises, for each of the NSS satellites, at least one mathematical function (each hereinafter referred to as “regional ionospheric delay function”) and its coefficients (hereinafter referred to as “regional ionospheric delay coefficients”), and the correction transformation module is further configured to: subtract the estimated delta ionospheric value from the generated ionospheric correction to generate a transformed ionospheric correction that is the transformed navigation correction ([0062] In (sub-)step s53, receiver ionospheric-phase biases for each reference station are estimated based on a residual quantity which is obtained by subtracting the estimated CRSLM from the geometric-free phase linear combination values which are additionally ambiguity resolved and further reduced by the satellite ionospheric-phase bias from the precise satellite information. See in that respect equations (8), (11) and (12) and their corresponding explanations.).
Regarding claim 15, Drescher discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium having software encoded thereon, the software when executed by one or more computing devices operable to:
generate navigation corrections ([0043] FIG. 3 is a flowchart of a method according to one embodiment of the invention. The method is carried out by a computer or set of computers for generating regional correction information to be used to correct observations of at least one global or regional NSS receiver) by executing a first correction algorithm ([0059] FIG. 4 is a flowchart of an exemplary step s50 of generating regional correction information in a method according to one embodiment of the invention.) that sets one or more first parameters to arbitrary values ([0052] The regional correction information comprises, … and (ii) its coefficients, hereinafter referred to as “regional ionospheric delay coefficients”.);
receive, from a different navigation correction system ([0069] FIG. 6 is a flowchart of a method in one embodiment of the invention, which, in addition to generating the regional correction information as described with reference to FIG. 3, comprises the following additional step s70.), independently generated reference corrections ([0070] In step s70, additional correction information (“global correction information”) is used in at least one of steps s30 to s50 as described above. The global correction information may also be sent to the NSS receiver(s)) that are generated by the different navigation correction system ([0047] The precise satellite information typically originates from observations made by a global network of reference stations. Optionally, a global ionosphere model is also obtained, which is applicable both within and outside the region of interest.) that executes a second correction algorithm ([0164] Reference [5] describes an approach to derive accuracy information for a global ionosphere correction model based on GNSS parameter estimation residuals;) that sets one or more second parameters to arbitrary values ([0164] i.e. the residuals are obtained from the computation of the GNSS parameter estimation which was done to determine a global ionosphere correction model.), wherein the navigation corrections are incompatible with the independently generated reference corrections;
solve, using the generated navigation corrections with the independently generated reference corrections, a system of at least two equations for observations ([0062] In (sub-)step s53, receiver ionospheric-phase biases for each reference station are estimated based on a residual quantity which is obtained by subtracting the estimated CRSLM from the geometric-free phase linear combination values which are additionally ambiguity resolved and further reduced by the satellite ionospheric-phase bias from the precise satellite information. See in that respect equations (8), (11) and (12) and their corresponding explanations.), wherein the solving calculates an estimated delta value (Equation 15; resASHA is the difference, or delta, between the regional and global ionospheric delays);
transform a selected generated navigation correction by adjusting the selected generated navigation correction ([0070] In step s70, additional correction information (“global correction information”) is used in at least one of steps s30 to s50 as described above.) by the estimated delta value ([0062] In (sub-)step s53, receiver ionospheric-phase biases for each reference station are estimated based on a residual quantity which is obtained by subtracting the estimated CRSLM from the geometric-free phase linear combination values which are additionally ambiguity resolved and further reduced by the satellite ionospheric-phase bias from the precise satellite information. See in that respect equations (8), (11) and (12) and their corresponding explanations.) to generate a transformed navigation correction, wherein the transformed navigation correction is compatible with the independently generated reference corrections ([0079] Therefore, the regional correction information (representing regional ionosphere correction models) can be regarded as a regional augmentation to the global correction information. Furthermore, since the regional correction information is absolute and consistent with the biases of the correction stream described in references [3] and [4], a smooth transition between the global and the regional ionosphere model (represented respectively by the global and regional correction information) is possible.).
Regarding claim 16, Drescher discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15, the software when executed by the one or more computing devices further operable to: broadcast, over one or more communication networks, the transformed navigation correction to one or more navigation receivers ([0056] In step s60, the regional correction information is sent to the NSS receiver(s) and/or to apparatus(es) in charge of processing observations from NSS receiver(s), for example for use in PPP applications.).
Regarding claim 18, Drescher discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15, wherein the transformed correction is a transformed ionospheric correction ([0052] In step s50, the regional correction information is generated based on the computed geometric-free phase linear combination values. The regional correction information comprises, for each of the plurality of NSS satellites, (i) at least one mathematical function, each of which being hereinafter referred to as “regional ionospheric delay function”, and (ii) its coefficients, hereinafter referred to as “regional ionospheric delay coefficients”.).
Regarding claim 19, Drescher discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 18, wherein the estimated delta value is an estimated delta ionospheric value (Equation 15; resASHA is the difference, or delta, between the regional and global ionospheric delays) and the selected generated navigation correction is a generated ionospheric correction ([0021] The regional correction information is then generated based on the computed geometric-free phase linear combination values, wherein the regional correction information comprises, for each of the NSS satellites, at least one mathematical function (each hereinafter referred to as “regional ionospheric delay function”) and its coefficients (hereinafter referred to as “regional ionospheric delay coefficients”), and the correction transformation module is further configured to: subtract the estimated delta ionospheric value from the generated ionospheric correction to generate a transformed ionospheric correction that is the transformed navigation correction ([0062] In (sub-)step s53, receiver ionospheric-phase biases for each reference station are estimated based on a residual quantity which is obtained by subtracting the estimated CRSLM from the geometric-free phase linear combination values which are additionally ambiguity resolved and further reduced by the satellite ionospheric-phase bias from the precise satellite information. See in that respect equations (8), (11) and (12) and their corresponding explanations.).
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 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drescher in view of Xianglin (US PG Pub. 20160077213), hereinafter Xianglin.
Regarding claim 3, as best understood and/or based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, and similarly claims 10 and 17, Drescher discloses the navigation correction system of claim 1, the method of claim 8 and the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15, wherein the transformed correction is used with the independently generated reference corrections ([0052] In step s50, the regional correction information is generated based on the computed geometric-free phase linear combination values.) when implementing a precise point positioning (PPP) algorithm ([0056] In step s60, the regional correction information is sent to the NSS receiver(s) and/or to apparatus(es) in charge of processing observations from NSS receiver(s), for example for use in PPP applications.). Drescher fails to explicitly disclose that the specific algorithm used is a PPP with ambiguity resolution algorithm.
However, Xianglin teaches a navigation correction system and method implementing a precise point positioning ([0008] The present invention seeks to provide an improved and alternative method and system for Precise Point Positioning systems for both global and regional use using Global Navigation Satellite Systems, especially for real-time kinematic calculations.) with ambiguity resolution algorithm ([0009] According to the present invention, a method according to the preamble defined above is provided, the method comprising calculating PPP-IAR corrections based on observation data for n satellites at one or more reference stations a with a known location, using a functional model.).
Drescher and Xianglin are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of GNSS navigation correction technology. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Drescher to incorporate the teachings of Xianglin by substituting the PPP algorithm of Drescher with the PPP with ambiguity resolution algorithm of Xianglin to improve the accuracy of the navigation correction system and method as taught by Drescher ([0013] The phase observations are ambiguous by the ambiguity term which is a product of an unknown integer number and the wavelength of the carrier signal… Another possibility is to fix them to their integer values by corresponding methods and introduce them in the GNSS parameter estimation. By doing so, the number of unknowns is reduced drastically and the accuracy of the positioning result, the fixed solution, is better than the float solution). Additionally, the additional corrections required for the PPP with ambiguity resolution algorithm of Xianglin are compatible with techniques that address ionospheric corrections ([009] The present invention embodiments focus on providing of hardware delays (i.e. PPP-IAR corrections) of the network side to the mobile side without exclusion of using ionosphere and troposphere corrections in a small region. This does particularly meet the needs of precise positioning of offshore users, as the ionosphere and troposphere corrections are site-dependent, which limit to use them for larger scale of region.).
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drescher in view of Segal et al. (WO 2022015744), hereinafter Segal.
Regarding claim 6, as best understood and/or based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, and similarly claims 13 and 20, Drescher discloses the navigation correction system of claim 1, the method of claim 8 and the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15, wherein (1) the navigation correction system is a regional navigation correction system (Fig. 6; [0069] FIG. 6 is a flowchart of a method in one embodiment of the invention, which, in addition to generating the regional correction information as described with reference to FIG. 3, comprises the following additional step s70.), (2) the navigation corrections are regional navigation corrections ([0056] In step s60, the regional correction information is sent to the NSS receiver(s) and/or to apparatus(es)), (3) the different navigation correction system is a global navigation correction system ([0047] The precise satellite information typically originates from observations made by a global network of reference stations.), and (4) the independently generated reference corrections are global navigation corrections ([0070] In step s70, additional correction information (“global correction information”) is used in at least one of steps s30 to s50 as described above.). Drescher fails to disclose (1) the navigation correction system is a first regional navigation correction, (2) the navigation corrections are first regional navigation corrections, (3) the different navigation correction system is a second regional navigation correction system, and (4) the independently generated reference corrections are second regional navigation corrections, or (1) the navigation correction system is a first sub-network of an overall navigation correction system, and (2) the different navigation correction system is a second sub-network of the overall navigation correction system.
However, Segal teaches a method and system for GNSS navigation correction (Abstract; A system or method for generating GNSS corrections can include receiving satellite observations associated with a set of satellites at a reference station, determining atmospheric corrections valid within a geographical area.) with (1) the navigation correction system is a first regional navigation correction (Fig. 4; 1100 geographic tile), (2) the navigation corrections are first regional navigation corrections ([0032] Each correction 1000 is preferably associated with (e.g., validated in, accurate within, transmitted within, etc.) at least one tile 1100 (e.g., regions such as of a tiled map, geographic area, unique geographic area, etc.).), (3) the different navigation correction system is a second regional navigation correction system, and (4) the independently generated reference corrections are second regional navigation corrections ([0029] The corrections are preferably used to correct one or more satellite observations. The corrections can correspond to individual satellites, sets of satellites, satellite constellations, satellite frequencies, every satellite, reference stations, and/ or to any data source. For example, the corrections can be used to correct the satellite observations for atmospheric effects.), or (1) the navigation correction system is a first sub-network of an overall navigation correction system ([0039] As shown for example in FIG. 4, each tile 1100 preferably includes a validity region 1200 and a transmission region 1400. The validity region 1200 preferably corresponds to the region over which the correction(s) are valid and/ or accurate such that the correction can be used to determine the receiver position.), and (2) the different navigation correction system is a second sub-network of the overall navigation correction system ([0039] The validity region is preferably identical to the tile (e.g., the same size as the tile), but can be a subset of and/or superset of the tile).
Drescher and Segal are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of GNSS navigation correction technology. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Drescher in view of Segal to incorporate alternative structures for relating the correction system to the different correction system as taught by Segal to gain the advantage of improved navigation correction for receivers moving between regions ([0016] This enables the adjoining region’s corrections to be determined when the receiver enters the adjoining geographic region, even though the receiver has not received a tile addressed to said region (e.g., due to update lag or connectivity issues).); and also 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).
Claims 7 and 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drescher in view of He et al. (He, X., Zhang, X., “Characteristics Analysis of BeiDou Melbourne-Wübbena Combination.” In: Sun, J., Liu, J., Fan, S., Lu, X. (eds) China Satellite Navigation Conference (CSNC) 2015 Proceedings: Volume III. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, vol 342. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. (2015)), hereinafter He.
Regarding claims 7, as best understood and/or based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, and similarly claim 14, Drescher discloses the navigation correction system of claim 1 and method for generating transformed navigation corrections of claim 8. Additionally, Drescher discloses that there are alternative linear combinations of GNSS observables that are used to correct for difference sources of error ([0014] Artificial observations can also be computed from the original ones by forming linear combinations. This is true both for the code and phase observations. These linear combinations have different properties compared to the original observations. Popular linear combinations include: the Melbourne-Wuebbena (MW) linear combination, the widelane linear combination, the geometric-free linear combination (also called ionospheric linear combination) and the ionospheric-free linear combination (also called geometric linear combination).). Drescher fails to teach wherein the estimated delta value is an estimated delta integer ambiguity value and the selected generated navigation correction is a generated integer ambiguity correction, and the correction transformation software module when executed by the processor is further configured , along with the method, to: subtract the estimated delta integer ambiguity value from the generated integer ambiguity correction to generate a transformed integer ambiguity correction that is the transformed navigation correction.
However, He teaches that it is known in the art that the Melbourne-Wübbena combination of GNSS observables are the linear combinations that can be used to estimate integer ambiguity (Page 32, lines 28-32; Melbourne-Wübbena (MW) [7, 12] combinations eliminates both geometrical terms and first-order ionospheric delay, which plays an important role in GNSS precise positioning. In TurboEdit algorithm [2], MW combination is used for cycle slip detection. With regarding to long baseline relative positioning or PPP AR (ambiguity resolution), it is also used for WL (Wide-Lane) ambiguity resolution.). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize the MW combination as taught by He, since such a modification would yield the predictable result of a navigation correction for integer ambiguity through the use of the MW combination as a alternative to the geometric-free linear combination used by Drescher for estimating ionospheric corrections.
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.
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 JOHN BS ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4145. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm 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.
/JBSA/Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights