DETAILED ACTION
The amendment filed March 25, 2026 has been entered.
Claim 1-2, 6, 8-9, 13, 15-16, and 20 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 3/17/2026 has been acknowledged.
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) 1-4, 7-11, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Faragher et al (US 2019/0011569 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Faragher discloses a method for determining a frequency related parameter of a local frequency source within a receiver, comprising [0026]:
receiving, at an antenna of the receiver, a plurality of signals from a plurality of remote sources [0025 for receivers with antennas to receiver with antennas];
generating motion compensated correlation results using a determined motion of the antenna of the receiver, the received plurality of signals [0024, 0031, 0033],
and a local signal derived from the local frequency source [0026 for a local oscillator];
using predictive control to predict an effect on the frequency related parameter of the local frequency source [0026 for predicting phase];
caused by at least one sensed environmental condition affecting the stability of the local frequency source [0034-0035 for providing motions compensation and using motion module to provide a measured antenna movement, with 0086 for determining unstability in high acceleration and calculating oscillator offsets]
phase compensating the motion compensated correlation results to produce phase compensated correlation results using a plurality of phasor sequences that are based on the predicted effect on the frequency related parameter of the local frequency source [0032, 0034];
and jointly analysing the phase compensated correlation results associated with the plurality of remote sources to determine a frequency model for the local frequency source [0025-0026 and 0080].
Regarding Claim 8, Faragher discloses an apparatus for determining a frequency related parameter of a frequency source within a receiver, comprising [0025-0026]:
at least one processor and at least one memory for storing programs and instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, configures the apparatus to [0028 for server and software]:
receive, at an antenna of the receiver, a plurality of signals from a plurality of remote sources [0025 for receivers with antennas to receiver with antennas];
generate motion compensated correlation results using a determined motion of the antenna of the receiver [0024, 0031, 0033],
the received plurality of signals, and a local signal derived from the local frequency source [0026 for a local oscillator];
use predictive control to predict effect on the the frequency related parameter of the local frequency source [0026 for predicting phase];
caused by at least one sensed environmental condition affecting the stability of the local frequency source [0034-0035 for providing motions compensation and using motion module to provide a measured antenna movement, with 0086 for determining unstability in high acceleration and calculating oscillator offsets]
phase compensate the motion compensated correlation results to produce phase compensated correlation results using a plurality of phasor sequences that are based on the predicted effect on the frequency related parameter of the local frequency source [0032, 0034];
and jointly analyze the phase compensated correlation results associated with the plurality of remote sources to determine a frequency model for the local frequency source [0025-0026 and 0080].
Regarding Claim 15, Faragher discloses a system for determining a frequency related parameter of a frequency source within a receiver, comprising [0025-0026]:
a receiver including an antenna and a local frequency source [0025 for receivers with antennas to receiver with antennas];
at plurality of remote sources of a plurality of signals, the plurality of signals including at least one reference frequency signal [0030, 0037];
an apparatus including at least one processor and at least one memory for storing programs and instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, configures the apparatus to [0025]:
receive, at the antenna of the receiver, a plurality of signals from the plurality of remote sources 0025, and 0234];
generate motion compensated correlation results using a determined motion of the antenna of the receiver, the received plurality of signals [0024, 0031, 0033],
and a local signal derived from the local frequency source [0026 for a local oscillator];
use predictive control to predict an effect on the frequency related parameter of the local frequency source [0026 for predicting phase];
caused by at least one sensed environmental condition affecting the stability of the local frequency source [0034-0035 for providing motions compensation and using motion module to provide a measured antenna movement, with 0086 for determining unstability in high acceleration and calculating oscillator offsets]
phase compensate the motion compensated correlation results to produce phase compensated correlation results using a plurality of phasor sequences that are based on the predicted an effect on frequency related parameter of the local frequency source [0032, 0034];
and jointly analyze the phase compensated correlation results associated with the plurality of remote sources to determine a frequency offset of the local frequency source [0025-0026 and 0080].
Regarding Claim 2, Faragher discloses adjusting a frequency of the local frequency source based on at least one of the predicted effect on the frequency related parameter or the determined frequency model [0027 for predicting phase (frequency related parameter) for local oscillator].
Regarding Claim 3, 10, and 17, Faragher discloses at least one of the plurality of remote sources comprises a reference frequency and the frequency of the local frequency source is adjusted to coincide with the reference frequency [0080-0081].
Regarding Claim 4, 11, and 18, Faragher discloses predictive control comprises monitoring at least one of an environmental parameter of an environment in which the receiver is operating or an operating parameter of the receiver [0038 for using sensors (monitoring) receivers environment (barometric and geomagnetic bearings)].
Regarding Claim 7 and 14, Faragher discloses the frequency model comprises a frequency offset between a frequency of the local frequency source and a reference frequency of at least one of the signals from the plurality of the remote sources [0026-0027].
Regarding Claim 9 and 16, Faragher discloses the apparatus is further configured to: adjust a frequency of the local frequency source based on at least one of the predicted effect on the frequency related parameter or the determined frequency offset [0112-0113].
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.
Claims 5-6, 12-13, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faragher et al (US 2019/0011569 A1) in view of He (US 2013/0321048 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, 12, and 19, Faragher discloses the environmental parameter comprises [0038 for using sensors (monitoring) receiver’s environment (barometric and geomagnetic bearings)].
Faragher fails to explicitly teach at least one of a temperature of the environment in which the receiver is operating or a rate of change of the temperature of the environment in which the receiver is operating, and the operating parameter comprises a turning on or off of a component associated with the receiver.
He has a communication system comprises a crystal oscillator configured to output a reference clock (abstract) and teaches at least one of a temperature of the environment in which the receiver is operating or a rate of change of the temperature of the environment in which the receiver is operating, and the operating parameter comprises a turning on or off of a component associated with the receiver [0161-0164 for using temperature compensating algorithms].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the frequency oscillating techniques, as disclosed by Faragher, further including the temperature calculations as taught by He for calculating frequency errors due to temperature drift during operation of the GPS module [He, 0162].
Regarding Claim 6, 13, and 20, Faragher teaches using a machine learning model [0177, 0208]. However, Faragher fails to explicitly teach a frequency error related to the predicted effect on the frequency related parameter is determined using at least one of a machine learning model trained to determine a frequency error based on a change in at least one monitored parameter affecting the frequency of the local frequency source or a stored look up table that associates a frequency error with a change in at least one monitored parameter affecting the frequency of the local frequency source.
He has a communication system comprises a crystal oscillator configured to output a reference clock (abstract) and teaches a frequency error related to the predicted effect on the frequency related parameter is determined using at least one of a machine learning model trained to determine a frequency error based on a change in at least one monitored parameter affecting the frequency of the local frequency source or a stored look up table that associates a frequency error with a change in at least one monitored parameter affecting the frequency of the local frequency source [0140-0142 for using learning algorithm with temperature compensation and frequency].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the frequency oscillating techniques, as disclosed by Faragher, further including the temperature calculations as taught by He for calibrating the crystal resonator's frequency deviation versus temperature characteristic [He, 0142].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a
general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
In applicant’s arguments page 3, first paragraph of applicant’s arguments, the applicant states that Faragher fails to explicitly teach using predictive control to predict the frequency related parameter of the local frequency source. The examiner respectfully disagrees, Faragher teaches local oscillator offset determination module can calculate a vector that may include thousands of offset values [Faragher, 0015] and motion compensation can be provided by direct measurements, modelling/predicting/estimating behaviour [Faragher, 0106] together teaching open loop predictive modeling of the LO frequency/phase parameters over the coherent integration period without feedback from correlation results.
In applicant’s arguments page 3, third paragraph of applicant’s arguments, the applicant states that Faragher only using predictable as a first reference source. The examiner respectfully disagrees, Faragher states motion compensation can be provided by direct measurements modelling/predicting/estimating behaviour as well as thousands of offset values that can represent changes in the behaviour of the local oscillator over time [Faragher, 0015, 0106], both constituting predictive modelling of the frequency parameter rendering predictive control.
In applicant’s arguments page 3, third paragraph of applicant’s arguments, the applicant states that Faragher only using predictable as a first reference source. The examiner respectfully disagrees, Faragher states motion compensation can be provided by direct measurements modelling/predicting/estimating behaviour as well as thousands of offset values that can represent changes in the behaviour of the local oscillator over time [Faragher, 0015, 0106], both constituting predictive modelling of the frequency parameter rendering predictive control.
In applicant’s arguments page 5, second paragraph and page 7, second paragraph of applicant’s arguments, the applicant states that Faragher does not teach use predictive control to predict an effect on the frequency related parameter of the local frequency source caused by at least one sensed environmental condition affecting the stability of the local frequency source. The examiner respectfully disagrees, Faragher teaches the local oscillator is especially unstable during periods of high acceleration [Faragher, 0086] and sensed acceleration is an environmental condition furthermore Faragher also teaches the local oscillator together with the offset calculated by the local oscillator offset determination module. In this way, the accuracy of the local oscillator can be matched to the accuracy of the local oscillator of the reference source [Faragher, 0081] for teaching the LO stability drives the offset applied to the local signal generator.
The examiner acknowledges that this is a broader interpretation than Applicant’s. However, examiners are not only allowed to apply broad interpretations, but are required to do so, as it reduces the possibility that the claims, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. MPEP §2111. Patentability is determined by the “broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification” (MPEP §2111), not the narrowest reasonable interpretation. And Applicant does not have an explicit lexicographical statement in line with MPEP §2111.01
subsection IV requiring a specific interpretation of the relevant phrases which forces the examiner to interpret them only one way.
The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
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.
“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) See MPEP 2123.
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 SAMARINA MAKHDOOM whose telephone number is (703)756-1044. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Thursdays from 8:30 to 5:30 pm eastern time.
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, William Kelleher can be reached on 571-272-7753 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.
/SAMARINA MAKHDOOM/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights