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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Restriction/Election Response
1. Applicant elects without traverse, Group I covering claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 10/16/2025 has being acknowledged.
Trade mark name use in claims
2. Claim 2 contains the trademark/trade name “Starlink”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. l 12, second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. ln the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe short-range wireless technology and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bromley et al., (US 2012/0133554), (hereinafter, Bromley) in view of Thill et al., (US 2011/0221631), (hereinafter, Thill).
Regarding claim 1, Bromley discloses a method (= method for determining a pseudorange in a ranging receiver, see [0152]), comprising:
correlating a set of first samples taken by a first receiver of a transmission from a low-earth-orbit communication satellite transmission communication satellite with a set of second samples of a replica of transmission to determine a correlation peak
(= ranging receiver 14 begins to collect samples from signal received from satellite 12, see [0152]; ranging receiver 14 correlates the Gold codes for satellites 12 to give the pseudoranes from those satellites 12; and determination is made whether correlation peak exist, see [0154]), wherein the set of second samples establishes a time of the transmission (= yielding of pseudorange time sequence, see [0154-55, 0255 and 0264]).
Bromley explicitly fails to disclose the claimed limitations of:
However, Thill which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the claimed limitations of:
“determining a first pseudorange between the first receiver and the low-earth-orbit communication satellite based upon a time different between the correlation peak and the time of transmission” (= time difference of arrival of the radiofrequency sequence at the first and second receiving stations corresponds to the difference of distance between the spacecraft and the seconding receiving station; this time difference is determined by correlating, at the processing station; and the correlation peak corresponds to the time difference, see [0026]).
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 combined the teaching of Thill with Bromley for the benefit of achieving a satellite position estimation system that allows precise maneuver assessment.
Regarding claim 2, as mentioned in claim 1, Bromley further discloses the method wherein the low-earth-orbit communication satellite is a Starlink satellite (see, [0154]).
Regarding claim 3, a mentioned in claim 1, Bromley further discloses that the method further comprising determining a plurality of additional pseudoranges between the first receiver and a plurality of corresponding additional low-earth-orbit communication satellites (see, [0154 and 0156-57]).
Regarding claim 4, a mentioned in claim 1, Bromley further discloses that the method further comprising determining a position of the first receiver based upon the first pseudorange and the plurality of additional pseudoranges (see, [0154 and 0156-57]).
Regarding claim 5, Bromley discloses a system, comprising:
a correlator configured to correlate a first set of samples taken by a first receiver of a transmission from a low-earth-orbit communication satellite with a second set of samples of the replica of the transmission to determine a correlation peak (= ranging receiver 14 begins to collect samples from signal received from satellite 12, see [0152]; ranging receiver 14 correlates the Gold codes for satellites 12 to give the pseudoranes from those satellites 12; and determination is made whether correlation peak exist, see [0154]), wherein the first set of samples are time stamped with a time of receipt according to a first clock in the first receiver, and wherein the second set of samples are time stamped with a time of receipt according to a second clock in a second receiver (= yielding of pseudorange time sequence, see [0154-55, 0255 and 0264])
Bromley explicitly fails to disclose the claimed limitations of:
“a time-difference-of-arrival generator configured to determine a first pseudorange between the first receiver and the low-earth-orbit communication satellite based upon the correlation peak and a time of the transmission”.
However, Thill which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the claimed limitations of:
“a time-difference-of-arrival generator configured to determine a first pseudorange between the first receiver and the low-earth-orbit communication satellite based upon the correlation peak and a time of the transmission ” (= time difference of arrival of the radiofrequency sequence at the first and second receiving stations corresponds to the difference of distance between the spacecraft and the seconding receiving station; this time difference is determined by correlating, at the processing station; and the correlation peak corresponds to the time difference, see [0026]).
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 combined the teaching of Thill with Bromley for the benefit of achieving a satellite position estimation system that allows precise maneuver assessment.
Regarding claim 6, a mentioned in claim 5, Bromley further discloses that the system wherein the time-difference-of-arrival generator is further configured to determine the time of the transmission from the replica of the transmission (see, [0019 and 0291]).
Regarding claim 7, a mentioned in claim 5, Bromley further discloses that the system wherein the time-difference-of-arrival generator is further configured to determine a plurality of additional pseudoranges between the first receiver and a corresponding plurality of additional low-earth-orbit communication satellites (see, [0154 and 0156-57]).
Regarding claim 8, a mentioned in claim 7, Bromley further discloses that the system wherein the time-difference-of-arrival generator is further configured to determine a position of the first receiver from the first pseudorange and the plurality of additional pseudoranges (see, [0154 and 0156-57]).
CONCLUSION
4. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a. Eschenbach (US 6,373,429) teaches differential Global positioning system using almanac data for a fast time to first fix.
b. Jandrell (US 2003/0016168) teaches method and system for processing positioning signals in a stand-alone mode.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KWASI KARIKARI whose telephone number is (571)272-8566. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sat: 6am-10pm.
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, Charles Appiah can be reached on 571-272-7904. 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.
/Kwasi Karikari/
Primary Examiner: Art Unit 2641.
Prosecution Insights