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 .
Applicant’s 12/17/2025 Amendments/Arguments, which directly traversed the rejections of the claims of the 10/22/2025 Office Action are acknowledged.
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 1-9, 11-19, 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Large et al (IDS reference US 2014/0184442) in view of Kleeman (US 2021/0333735 which was cited in previous Office Action(s)).
Large et al
PNG
media_image1.png
564
392
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kleeman
PNG
media_image2.png
722
536
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, and similarly claims 1, 21, 28, Large et al discloses in Fig 2 above a computer server (i.e. correction services 221 in conjunction with a cellular network 222) for providing reference station correction data for Real-Time Kinematic (RTK) or Differential Global Navigation Satellite System (DGNSS) corrections (i.e. “The overall service is often referred to as Differential GPS, or DGPS.”) ([0073]), the computer server comprising a transceiver (i.e. inherently disclosed since Fig 2 shows two way communications between cellular network 222 and cellular device 200) and configured to:
obtain the reference station correction data from each reference station of a plurality of reference stations (i.e. reference stations 220), wherein, for each reference station, the reference station correction data comprises data based on one or more measurements taken by a GNSS receiver at the respective reference station (i.e. “Improvements in GNSS/GPS positioning may be obtained by using reference stations with a fixed receiver system to calculate corrections to the measured pseudoranges in a given geographical region. Since the reference station is located in a fixed environment and its location can be determined very precisely via ordinary survey methods, a processor associated with the Reference Station GNSS/GPS receivers can determine more precisely what the true pseudoranges should be to each satellite in view, based on geometrical considerations. Knowing the orbital positions via the GPS almanac as a function of time enables this process, first proposed in 1983, and widely adopted ever since. The difference between the observed pseudorange and the calculated pseudorange for a given Reference station is called the pseudorange correction. A set of corrections for all the global navigation satellites 202 in view is created second by second, and stored, and made available as a service, utilizing GPS/GNSS reference stations 220 and correction services 221. The pseudoranges at both the cellular device 200 GPS receiver 107 and those at the reference stations 220 are time-tagged, so the corrections for each and every pseudorange measurement can be matched to the local cell phone pseudoranges.”) ([0073]);
send, via the transceiver, the reference station correction data to one or more mobile devices in the predetermined area (i.e. “…using reference stations with a fixed receiver system to calculate corrections to the measured pseudoranges in a given geographical region”) ([0073]), the reference station correction data including reference station correction data from the plurality of reference stations (i.e. “In FIG. 2, one or more correction services 221 convey these corrections via a cellular network 222, or the Internet 223. Internet 223 is in turn coupled with a local Wi-Fi network 224 which can convey the corrections to cellular device 200 via Wi-Fi transceiver 214. Alternatively, cellular network 222 can convey the corrections to cellular device 200 via cellular transceiver 211.”) ([0073]).
Large et al do not explicitly disclose the computer server further comprising: a memory; and one or more processing units communicatively coupled with the transceiver and the memory and configured to perform the functions as claimed. However, it is well known in the telecommunication art that the computer server typically includes a memory and one or more processing units communicatively coupled with the transceiver and the memory and configured to perform the desired functions (i.e. such well known server can be found in US 2021/0333735 to Kleeman (i.e. computing system of Fig 2 above) ([0005]; [0135]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a well-known computer server comprising a memory and one or more processing units communicatively coupled with the transceiver and the memory and configured to perform the desired functions in the server of Large et al for performing the functions as claimed since such server is well known in the art.
In addition, Large et al do not explicitly disclose the one or more processing units configured to: select a subset of the plurality of reference stations, to service a predetermined area and send, via the transceiver, the reference station correction data to one or more mobile devices in the predetermined area, the reference station correction data including reference station correction data from the subset of the plurality of reference stations as claimed (emphasis added). Kleeman teaches in the same field of endeavor the one or more processing units configured to: select a subset of the plurality of reference stations, to service a predetermined area ([0045]; [0048]) and send, via the transceiver, the reference station correction data to one or more mobile devices in the predetermined area, the reference station correction data including reference station correction data from the subset of the plurality of reference stations ([0011]; [0133]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Large et al in view of Kleeman to incorporate the one or more processing units configured to: select a subset of the plurality of reference stations, to service a predetermined area and send, via the transceiver, the reference station correction data to one or more mobile devices in the predetermined area, the reference station correction data including reference station correction data from the subset of the plurality of reference stations as taught by Kleeman to gain the advantage of properly selecting and sending correction data of the reference station(s) serving a predetermined area for optimally assisting in correcting and determining the position / navigation of the mobile device(s), and 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).
As to limitations which are considered to be inherent in a reference, note the case law of In re Ludtke, 169 U.S.P.Q. 563; In re Swinehart, 169 U.S.P.Q. 226; In re Fitzgerald, 205 U.S.P.Q. 594; In re Best et al, 195 U.S.P.Q. 430; and In re Brown, 173 U.S.P.Q. 685, 688.
While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claim 2, and similarly claims 12, 22, 29, Large et al do not explicitly disclose selecting the subset of the plurality of reference stations is based on a respective location of each reference station of the plurality of reference stations as claimed. Kleeman teaches in the same field of endeavor selecting the subset of the plurality of reference stations is based on a respective location of each reference station of the plurality of reference stations ([0045]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Large et al in view of Kleeman to incorporate selecting the subset of the plurality of reference stations is based on a respective location of each reference station of the plurality of reference stations as taught by Kleeman to gain the advantage of properly selecting and sending correction data of the reference station(s) serving a predetermined area for optimally assisting in correcting and determining the position / navigation of the mobile device(s), and 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).
Regarding claim 3, and similarly claims 3, 13, 23, Large et al do not explicitly disclose selecting the subset of the plurality of reference stations is based on a proximity of the respective location of each reference station of the plurality of reference stations to the predetermined area as claimed. Kleeman teaches in the same field of endeavor selecting the subset of the plurality of reference stations is based on a proximity of the respective location of each reference station of the plurality of reference stations to the predetermined area ([0045; [0048]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Large et al in view of Kleeman to incorporate selecting the subset of the plurality of reference stations is based on a proximity of the respective location of each reference station of the plurality of reference stations to the predetermined area as taught by Kleeman to gain the advantage of properly selecting and sending correction data of the reference station(s) serving a predetermined area for optimally assisting in correcting and determining the position / navigation of the mobile device(s), and 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).
Regarding claim 9, and similarly claims 19, 27, Large et al do not explicitly disclose sending the reference station correction data to the one or more mobile devices comprises transmitting the reference station correction data from one or more mobile network base stations as claimed. Kleeman discloses sending the reference station correction data to the one or more mobile devices comprises transmitting the reference station correction data from one or more mobile network base stations ([0011]; [0041]; [0133]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Large et al in view of Kleeman to incorporate sending the reference station correction data to the one or more mobile devices comprises transmitting the reference station correction data from one or more mobile network base stations as taught by Kleeman to gain the advantage of properly selecting and sending correction data of the reference station(s) serving a predetermined area for optimally assisting in correcting and determining the position / navigation of the mobile device(s), and 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).
Regarding claims 4-8, 14-18, 24-26, and 30, Large et al in view of Kleeman do not explicitly disclose selecting the subset of the plurality of reference stations as claimed. Instead, Large et al in view of Kleeman teach in the same field of endeavor selecting the subset of the plurality of reference stations is based on a respective location of each reference station of the plurality of reference stations (Kleeman – [0045]); or is based on a proximity of the respective location of each reference station of the plurality of reference stations to the predetermined area (Kleeman – [0045]; [0048]). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice for selecting the subset of the plurality of reference stations as claimed, since Applicant has not disclosed that such selection solves any stated problem. It appears that the invention would perform equally well with selecting the subset of the plurality of reference stations is based on a respective location of each reference station of the plurality of reference stations; or is based on a proximity of the respective location of each reference station of the plurality of reference stations to the predetermined area as taught by Large et al in view of Kleeman for optimally selecting a subset of the plurality of reference stations to send correction data to the mobile device(s) for assisting in correcting and determining the position / navigation of the mobile device(s).
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Large et al modified by Kleeman, and further in view of Carcanague et al (US 2020/0348422 which was cited in previous Office Action(s)).
Carcanague et al
PNG
media_image3.png
662
542
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, and similarly claim 20, Large et al modified by Kleeman do not explicitly disclose the predetermined area is in a first coverage area of the one or more mobile network base stations, and wherein the method further comprises sending reference station correction data from a different plurality of reference stations to a second predetermined area in a second coverage area of the one or more mobile network base stations as claimed. Carcanague et al teach in the same field of endeavor in Fig 1A above the predetermined area is in a first coverage area of the one or more mobile network base stations, and wherein the method further comprises sending reference station correction data from a different plurality of reference stations to a second predetermined area in a second coverage area of the one or more mobile network base stations ([0125]-[0133]; [0154]-[0159]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Large et al modified by Kleeman in view of Carcanague et al to incorporate the predetermined area is in a first coverage area of the one or more mobile network base stations, and sending reference station correction data from a different plurality of reference stations to a second predetermined area in a second coverage area of the one or more mobile network base stations as taught by Carcanague et al to gain the advantage of properly selecting and sending correction data of the reference station(s) serving a predetermined area for optimally assisting in correcting and determining the position / navigation of the mobile device(s), and 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).
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 11, 21, and 28 under 35 USC 102(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the finality of the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of US 2014/0184442 to Large et al in a combination as rejected above.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2023/0341563 discloses a method or system can include or be configured to receive a set of satellite observations, receiving sensor data, determining a position estimate and associated positioning error for a rover based on the set of satellite observations and the sensor data, determine a protection level associated with the position estimate based on a set of potential faults, and optionally provide an alert when the positioning error exceeds the protection level.
US 11,543,541 discloses a system for estimating a receiver position with high integrity can include a reference station observation monitor configured to: receive a set of reference station observations associated with a set of reference stations, detect a predetermined event, and mitigate an effect of the predetermined event; a modeling engine configured to generate corrections; a reliability engine configured to validate the corrections; an observation monitor configured to: receive a set of satellite observations from a set of global navigation satellites corresponding to at least one satellite constellation; detect a predetermined event; and mitigate an effect of the predetermined event; a carrier phase determination module configured to determine a carrier phase ambiguity of the set of satellite observations; and a position filter configured to estimate a position of the receiver.
US 11,150,352 discloses embodiment during a warm-start mode, an estimator estimates a satellite correction signal based on satellite orbit data, satellite clock data, and satellite bias correction data derived from stored received raw satellite signal measurements. A data source selector seamlessly switches a measurement data source from the stored received raw satellite signal measurements to live, real-time raw satellite signal measurements if or when a respective measurement time tag of a last-processed one of the stored received satellite signal measurements approaches or reaches the current time.
US 10,809,382 discloses a GPS correction data may be provided to user devices through one of a unicast mode and a broadcast mode using a mobile communication network. For transmitting the GPS correction data to a user device through a mobile communication network, the apparatus may include a receiver configured to receive a GPS correction data and store in a memory, at least one processor configured to decide a transmission mode from a unicast mode and a broadcast mode for transmitting the GPS correction data to a user device, and a transmitter configured to transmit the GPS correction data to the user device using the decided transmission mode through the mobile communication network.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUONG P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 10:00-10:00 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.
/CHUONG P NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646