Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This communication is in response to the Amendment to application 18/548,566 filed on 11/12/25.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
4. Applicant argues, Applicant respectfully submits that the “Khalife reference is not prior art in view of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). As set forth in §102(b)(1) and discussed in MPEP §2152: (1) DISCLOSURES MADE 1 YEAR OR LESS BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE FILING DATE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION.-A disclosure made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art to the claimed invention under subsection (a)(1) if-(A) the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor. Applicant respectfully submits that the Office Action cites a disclosure by an inventor less than one year before the effective filing date of the application, and thus, the cited reference does not qualify as prior art and the rejection must be withdrawn. The author of the Khalife reference is Joe Khalife, who is also an inventor of the application. The applicant of the application is The Regents of the University of California. The abstract section on page xxii of the Khalife reference identifies the inventor as being associated with the University of California, Irvine, which is overseen by The Regents of the University of California. The Office Action does not identify a date for the Khalife reference in the grounds for rejection. The Neinavaie reference has a publication date of 2020. The priority date of the application is 3/01/2021 based on the priority claim to a PCT Application No. PCT/US2022/018338 filed on 3/1/22 and priority claim to US provisional application No. 63/155,048 filed on 3/01/2021. As such, the Neinavaie reference is a disclosure made less than 1 year before the effective filing date of the application and thus, is not prior art.“
5. Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, for two reasons:
1) since the reference was listed on the IDS; according to the § 1.98 Content of information disclosure statement each reference should have publication date listed. So, the applicant needs to provide the exact date or provide the evidence that the publication date of the reference is after 3/1/20.
2) Furthermore, If the applicant believes that the publication date is after 3/1/20 and does not have specific date of the reference then need to file Affidavit under § 1.131 Affidavit or declaration of prior invention or to disqualify commonly owned patent or published application as prior art.
6. As reasons stated above, examiner believes that the applicant has not met the requirements to overcome the prior art(s) by not providing enough evidence or submitted an affidavit; thus, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claim(s) 1 – 7, 11 – 17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Khalife ().
Regarding claim 1, Regarding Claim 1, Khalife discloses a method for controlling navigation using cellular communication signals (Abstract, Pg. xxiii), the method comprising:
receiving, by a device, a cellular communication signal including a synchronization element (The UAV and reference receiver are assumed to be listening to the same BTSs with the BTS locations being known [cellular communication signals are received by a device], Pg. 85, Section 4.2.1, first paragraph; In long-term evolution systems, two synchronization signals [primary synchronization signal, PSS, and secondary synchronization signal, SSS] are broadcast [the communication signal includes a PSS/SSS synchronization element], Pg. 83, first paragraph);
determining, by the device, a position estimate for the device using the cellular communication signal (the objective is to estimate the UAV's position, which will be achieved by double-differencing the measurements [4.5] [the measurements in 4.5 are derived from the received cellular communication signal], Pg. 85, last paragraph; see also Pgs. 83-84);
wherein determining the position estimate includes determining a coarse estimate of device position based on a carrier phase determination using the synchronization element of the cellular communication element (In order to provide a proper initialization, an extended Kalman filter will be used to estimate rru [the device position] and N for some K 2 3 [this initial estimate is interpreted as a coarse estimate], Pg. 88, first paragraph; the initial estimate and uncertainty of the float solution of N can be deduced from the initial position estimates and z[0] [the coarse estimate is based on z[0], which is a carrier phase determination], Pg. 89-90, Section 4.2.4; see also Pg. 87; The PSS, SSS, and CRS may be exploited to draw carrier phase [the carrier phase determination is from the synchronization element of the cellular signal], Pg. 83, Section 4.1.2, first paragraph);
refining the coarse estimate of device position using a framework to determine the position estimate wherein a weighted nonlinear least squares estimator is applied to a model of device position for a plurality of time, intervals (the EKF estimates [/.e., the coarse estimate] are used to initialize the batch WNLS. A weighted nonlinear least-squares estimator is used to estimate rru [device position] along with the float solution of N. Then, an integer least-squares estimator is employed to fix the interger ambiguities N and the estimate of rru is . subsequently corrected using the fixed ambiguities [i.e., the coarse estimate is refined using a framework that includes a WNLS estimator, since the WNLS estimator is used for estimating the position, it is interpreted as being applied to a model of device position], Pg. 88, first paragraph; cellular carrier phase measurements collected at several time-steps [i.e. in several intervals] could be used in a batch estimator to solve for the positions of the UAV over the different time-steps as well as for the integér ambiguities [the WNLS estimator is applied for a plurality of time intervals], Pg. 87, first paragraph); and
controlling, by the device, navigation using the position estimate (navigating UAV in an environment, Pg. 85, Section 4.2.1, first paragraph; The BTS layout, the base's position, and a sample UAV trajectory are plotted, and the total position RMSEs are shown [the position estimates are used for controlling the device navigation], Figs. 4.2-4.3, Pg. 90, Section 4.3).
Regarding Claim 2, Khalife discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the communication signal is at least one of a code division multiple access (CDMA) cellular communication signal including a pseudo random noise sequence (PRN) as the synchronization element and a long term evolution (LTE) cellular communication signal including a primary synchronization signal (PSS) or secondary synchronization signal (SSS) as the synchronization element (In long-term evolution systems, two synchronization signals [primary synchronization signal, PSS, and secondary synchronization signal, SSS] are broadcast [the LTE communication signal includes a PSS/SSS synchronization element], Pg. 83, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 3, Khalife discloses the method of claim 1, wherein an extended Kalman filter (EKF) operation is performed by the device on the received communication signal to obtain the coarse estimate of device position and by using a vector model of device position (in order to provide a proper initialization, an extended Kalman filter [EKF] will be used to estimate rru [the device position] and N for some K 2 3 [the initial estimate is a coarse estimate, which is obtained with an EKF performed by the device on the received communication Signal; rru is a vector, which indicates that the model used for determining device position is a vector model], Pg. 88, first paragraph; see also Pg. 87, first paragraph) and a known position reference (the base communicates its own position [a known position reference} and carrier phase observables with the UAV [this known position reference is taken into account through the calculations, including the coarse estimate], Pg. 85, Section 4.2.1).
Regarding Claim 4, Khalife discloses the method of claim 1; wherein refining the coarse estimate includes a double differencing operation to obtain a batch solution to fix at least one integer ambiguity (the objective is to estimate the UAV's position, which will be achieved by double-differencing the measurements [4.5], Pg. 85, last paragraph; cellular carrier phase measurements collected at several time-steps could be used in a batch estimator to solve for the positions of the UAV over the different time-steps as well as for the integer ambiguities [using the double differencing operation, a batch solution is found to fix at least one integer ambiguity; this method includes the WNLS and is part of the refining the coarse estimate}, Pg. 87, first paragraph; see also Pg. 88).
Regarding Claim 5, Khalife discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the framework to determine the position estimate is a differential framework that includes using a base station position and a base station carrier phase measurement received from a base station (the base communicates its own position and carrier phase observables with the UAV. The objective is to estimate the UAV's position, which will be achieved by double-differencing the measurements [4.5] [the framework for determining the position estimate is a differential framework, which includes a received base station position and base station carrier phase measurement], Pg. 85, first and second paragraphs).
Regarding Claim 6, Khalife discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the differential framework determines the position estimate using a batch weighted non-linear least squares estimator to estimate position based on estimated integer ambiguities for a plurality of time intervals (cellular carrier phase measurements collected at several time-steps [i.e. in several intervals] could be used in a batch estimator to solve for the positions of the UAV over the different time-steps as well as for the integer ambiguities, Pg. 87, first paragraph; A weighted nonlinear least-squares estimator is used to estimate rru [device position] along with the float solution of N [the WNLS estimator estimates position based on estimated integer ambiguities for a plurality of time intervals], Pg. 88, first paragraph).
Regarding Claim 7, Khalife discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the batch weighted non-linear least squares estimator uses a collection of carrier phase measurements from a plurality of time steps (cellular carrier phase measurements collected at several time-steps could be used in a batch estimator [the batch weighted non-linear least squares estimator] to solve for the positions of the UAV over the different time-steps as well as for the integer ambiguities, Pg. 87, first paragraph), and wherein the batch weighted non-linear least squares estimator is initialized with the coarse estimate of device position (In order to provide a proper initialization, an extended Kalman filter will be used to estimate rru [device position] and N for some K 2 3 [this is the coarse estimate]. Next, the EKF estimates are used to initialize the batch WNLS [the batch WNLS is initialized with the coarse estimate of the device position], Pg. 88, first paragraph).
Regarding Claim 10, Khalife discloses the method of claim 1, wherein navigation using the position estimate (navigating UAV in an environment, Pg. 85, Section 4.2.1, first paragraph; The BTS layout, the base's position, and a sample UAV trajectory are plotted, and the total position RMSEs are shown [the position estimates are used for navigation], Figs. 4.2-4.3, Pg. 90, Section 4.3) and at least one of a differential and non-differential framework to determine device position (Navigation with SOP Carrier Phase Differential Cellular Measurements. In this section, a framework for CD-cellular navigation is developed. The objective is to estimate the UAV's position, which will be achieved by double-differencing the measurements [a differential framework is used to determine the device position], Pg. 85, Title, last paragraph) for a plurality of time intervals (cellular carrier phase measurements collected at several time-steps [i.e. in several intervals] could be used in a batch estimator to solve for the positions of the UAV over the different time-steps as well as for the integer ambiguities [the device position is determined for a plurality of time intervals], Pg. 87, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 11, A device substantially has same limitations as claim 1, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 12, A device substantially has same limitations as claim 2, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 13, A device substantially has same limitations as claim 3, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 14, A device substantially has same limitations as claim 4, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 15, A device substantially has same limitations as claim 5, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 16, A device substantially has same limitations as claim 6, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 17, A device substantially has same limitations as claim 7, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 20, A device substantially has same limitations as claim 10, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Claim(s) 8, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khalife in further view of Harrison et al. (US 6,104,978, Harrison hereafter).
Regarding claim 8, Khalife teaches claim 1, however, does not specifically disclose wherein an upper bound of position error is determined and utilized by the device to determine the position estimate.
Harrison teaches wherein an upper bound of position error is determined and utilized by the device to determine the position estimate (where .DELTA..sub.t is the time since the last re-synchronization, and .xi..sub.1 is the initial error immediately after re-synchronization. To maintain clock accuracy and avoid additional railcar position error, the correct reference mark must be detected at each re-synchronization epoch. This requires that equation (28) be satisfied. By combining equations (28) and (29), an upper bound on the time between re-synchronization events is found as ##EQU11## If the early exclusion window width t.sub.E is 100 ms (5 bit periods), while .vertline..xi..sub.1 .vertline. is 1.0 ms and .vertline..delta..vertline.=1.times.10.sup.-6, then accurate clock re-synchronization occurs if .DELTA..sub.t is no larger than 4.9.times.10.sup.4 seconds (13.6 hours), col 17, lines 44 - 50).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the filing to combine the teachings of Harrison’s finding position error with the system of Khalife. One would be motivated to combine these teachings because it will accurately calculates the position error which will help correction better and continuous communication without any distruptions.
Regarding claim 18, A device substantially has same limitations as claim 8, thus the same rejection is applicable.
14. Claim(s) 9, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khalife.
Regarding Claim 9, Khalife discloses the method of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the framework to determine the position estimate is a non-differential framework that includes using a known position of the device and weighted non-linear least squares estimator to estimate position based on clock cluster biases. However, in a secondary embodiment, Khalife teaches the framework to determine the position estimate is a non-differential framework that includes using a known position of the device and weighted non-linear least squares estimator to estimate position based on clock cluster biases (Non-Differential Framework for Navigation with Carrier Phase Measurements from Quasi-Synchronous Cellular SOPs, Pg. 98, Title; Note that cdtOn [which includes the clock biases] can be obtained knowing the initial position, Pg. 100, first paragraph; several clusters of clocks get formed, and the clocks in each cluster are lumped into one bias to be estimated, Pg. 100, last paragraph; Given N = 3 pseudoranges modeled according to [5.2] and L s N - 2 SOP clusters, the receiver may solve for its current position rr and the current set of common biases using a WNLS estimator [the WNLS estimator estimates the position; since the clock cluster biases and the position estimation affect each other, the estimated position may also be interpreted as based on the clock cluster biases], Pg. 101, last paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the primary embodiment of Khalife to include the non-differential framework as taught by the secondary embodiment of Khalife. The motivation being to provide means for cellular carrier phase navigation that is employable on a single receiver and alleviates the need of a base (Khalife, Pg. 99, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 19, A device substantially has same limitations as claim 9, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Conclusion
15. 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 TANMAY K SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri - 8:00 - 5:00.
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, Chieh Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
TANMAY K. SHAH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2632
/TANMAY K SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632