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 09/14/2026 Amendments/Arguments, which directly traversed the rejections of the claims of the 07/21/2026 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 1-2, 5, 12-14, 17, 24-26, 29, and 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kassas et al (WO 2020/226862 which was cited in previous Office Action(s)) in view of Syrjarinne et al (US 2006/0290566 which was cited in previous Office Action(s)).
Kassas et al
PNG
media_image1.png
458
364
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
208
408
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Syrjarinne et al
PNG
media_image3.png
486
732
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, and similarly claims 1, 25, and 37, Kassas et al disclose in Fig 2-3 above a device (i.e. device 300) for determining Position, Velocity, and Time (PVT) information of a Low-Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite for LEO-based positioning, the device comprising:
a memory (i.e. memory 310); and
one or more processors (i.e. controller 305) communicatively coupled with the memory ([0058]), wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
obtain a known position of a mobile device (i.e. block 206 in conjunction with block 205 and 210; “The Doppler frequency may be used to provide a position estimation of a device based on pseudorange rate data determined. The Doppler frequency measurement on received satellite downlink transmissions can determine a pseudorange rate measurement for a vehicle relative to at least one LEO satellite. In certain embodiments, performing vehicle position estimation includes performing an extended Kalman filter (EKF)-based operation for simultaneous tracking and navigation of a LEO satellite for LEO satellite position and velocity determination.”) comprising a LEO receiver (i.e. LEO receiver 315) ([0052]);
obtain range information indicative of a range between the mobile device and the LEO satellite, the range information obtained from one or more measurements of a radio frequency (RF) signal transmitted by the LEO satellite and received by the LEO receiver of the mobile device (i.e. blocks 205 and 210; “At block 210, process 200 includes a Doppler frequency measurement for each downlink channel received. In one embodiment, a Doppler frequency measurement is performed by a Doppler shift measurement of the received downlink signal and Doppler frequency estimate to determine clock drift of the receiver. The Doppler frequency may be used to provide a position estimation of a device based on pseudorange rate data determined. The Doppler frequency measurement on received satellite downlink transmissions can determine a pseudorange rate measurement for a vehicle relative to at least one LEO satellite.”) ([0052]; [0058]-[0059]); and
determine the PVT information of the LEO satellite based at least in part on the known position of the mobile device and the range information (i.e. “Position and clock states of LEO satellite signals may be corrected…” ([0039]); (i.e. “Corrections may be fused based on one or more models for determining satellite position and velocity. According to one embodiment, a simplified general perturbation model (e.g., SPG4 model) including analytical expressions to propagate a satellite position from an epoch time to a specified future time is employed to determine satellite position and velocity for determination of vehicle position. In another embodiment, a two-body model including expressions of the satellite acceleration and a standard gravitational parameter are employed to determine satellite position and velocity for determination of vehicle position. In yet another embodiment, a two-body model with a zonal coefficient including expressions for non-uniform gravity are employed model to determine satellite position and velocity for determination of vehicle position.”) ([0054]).
Kassas et al do not explicitly disclose a transceiver as claimed. Instead, Kassas et al teach in Fig 3 above a LEO receiver (i.e. block 315) and a GNNS receiver (i.e. block 325). However, both transceiver and receiver are well known in the telecommunication art for transmitting and/or receiving information. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a transceiver in place of the receiver(s) of Kassas et al, depending on the user’s preference to select a known element that is standard in the industry for his/her intended use.
Kassas et al also do not explicitly disclose sending the PVT information of the LEO satellite, the range information, or both to another device as claimed. Syrjarinne et al teach in the same field of endeavor such sending the PVT information of the LEO satellite, the range information, or both to another device (i.e. base station (i.e. reads on the device) sends orbit parameters (i.e. orbit parameters of the satellite(s) encompass the PVT information) to the mobile station (i.e. another device)) ([0101]-[0117]). Although, Syrjarinne et al do not explicitly disclose the satellite is LEO satellite; however, since all satellites are well known in the art, utilizing any satellite system for positioning and navigating system would be within one of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kassas et al in view of Syrjarinne et al by incorporating such step of sending the PVT information of the LEO satellite, the range information, or both to another device as taught by Syrjarinne et al to gain advantage of properly sharing satellite and/or positioning information among the devices for positioning determination; 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).
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 14, and similarly claims 2 and 26, Kassas disclose to obtain the known position of the mobile device, the one or more processors are configured to receive the known position from the mobile device via the transceiver (i.e. block 206 in conjunction with block 205 and 210; “The Doppler frequency may be used to provide a position estimation of a device based on pseudorange rate data determined. The Doppler frequency measurement on received satellite downlink transmissions can determine a pseudorange rate measurement for a vehicle relative to at least one LEO satellite. In certain embodiments, performing vehicle position estimation includes performing an extended Kalman filter (EKF)-based operation for simultaneous tracking and navigation of a LEO satellite for LEO satellite position and velocity determination.”) ([0052]). Kassas et al do not explicitly disclose the device comprises a server communicatively linked to the mobile device, and wherein: to obtain the range information, the one or more processors are configured to receive the range information at the server from the mobile device via the transceiver as claimed. Instead, Kassas et al teach in the same field of endeavor in Fig 2-3 above the device (i.e. device 300) obtains the range information without utilizing a server ([0052]; [0058]-[0059]). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to obtain the range information, the one or more processors are configured to receive the range information at the server from the mobile device via the transceiver as claimed, since Applicant has not disclosed that such range information obtained as claimed solves any stated problem. It appears that the invention would perform equally well with obtaining the range information as taught by Kassas et al.
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 17, and similarly claims 5 and 29, Kassas et al disclose the device comprises the mobile device (i.e. “Device 300 may relate to a receiver or components of a vehicle…”) ([0057]), and, to obtain the range information, the one or more processors are configured to take the one or more measurements (i.e. blocks 205 and 210; “At block 210, process 200 includes a Doppler frequency measurement for each downlink channel received. In one embodiment, a Doppler frequency measurement is performed by a Doppler shift measurement of the received downlink signal and Doppler frequency estimate to determine clock drift of the receiver. The Doppler frequency may be used to provide a position estimation of a device based on pseudorange rate data determined. The Doppler frequency measurement on received satellite downlink transmissions can determine a pseudorange rate measurement for a vehicle relative to at least one LEO satellite.”) ([0052]; [0058]-[0059]).
Regarding claim 24 and similarly claims 12 and 36, Kassas et al inherently disclose to determine the PVT information of the LEO satellite, the one or more processors are further configured to determine a 3D position and velocity of the LEO satellite at a point in time (i.e. “According to one embodiment, framework 100 can include an orbit determination module 105 to provide one or more operations to provide orbit data for one or more LEO satellites. Orbit determination module 105 may provide two-line element (TLE) files characterizing satellite data to determine position. State initialization module 108 may relate to operations of a controller or control unit of a device configured to determine when global position data sources, such as data received by GPS receiver 130 is not available. Orbit determination module 108 may output to state initialization module 108 navigation based on LEO satellite data. In certain embodiments, state initialization module 108 may also receive data from Inertial measurement unit 106 configured to provide one or more physical measurement outputs (e.g., acceleration, velocity, altitude, etc.) to allow for navigation of a vehicle, including unmanned aerial vehicles. Inertial measurement unit 106 may provide output to inertial navigation system (INS) 120. According to one embodiment, framework 100 includes a LEO propagation module 121 which may employ one or more propagation models, such as propagation models 150 of FIG. IB. Clock models module 122 may be configured to provide one or more modeled clock shifts and/or clock delays to EFF 110 with respect to carrier frequency of downlink channels.”) ([0047]).
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.
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 6-11, 15-16, 18-23, 27-28, and 30-35 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments that “block 206” of the prior art of Kansas et al do not read on the limitation of “obtain a known position of a mobile device” as claimed have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, finality of the rejection of the 07/21/2026 Office Action is withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, Examiner has rewritten the rejection of Kansas et al, in a combination, which shows the citations that reads on the “obtain a known position of a mobile device” as claimed along with the Examiner’s response to Applicant’s argument below.
Applicant's arguments that the prior art of Kansas et al teach an “unknown” position of a mobile device; therefore, it cannot be read on the limitation of “obtain a known position of a mobile device” as claimed, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because in Applicant’s specification, paragraph [0060], it recited “As further noted, obtaining a known position of the mobile device may comprise obtaining a position of the mobile device as determined using one or more positioning techniques, such as GNSS positioning, wireless network-based positioning, sensor-based positioning, dead reckoning, or the like. If the functionality at block 510 is performed by the mobile device, obtaining the known position may comprise using one or more positioning techniques to determine the known position.” As can be seen in Applicant’s specification, paragraph [0060], the allegedly “known position of a mobile device” can be obtained by utilizing one or more positioning techniques to determine the known position (emphasis added). Nowhere in the specification stated that such “known position of a mobile device” is known beforehand nor the determination of the known position is also determined beforehand. Therefore, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, the “known position of a mobile device” can be determined at the moment, not necessary determined beforehand. Kansas et al teach in paragraph [0052] “The Doppler frequency may be used to provide a position estimation of a device based on pseudorange rate data determined. The Doppler frequency measurement on received satellite downlink transmissions can determine a pseudorange rate measurement for a vehicle relative to at least one LEO satellite. In certain embodiments, performing vehicle position estimation includes performing an extended Kalman filter (EKF)-based operation for simultaneous tracking and navigation of a LEO satellite for LEO satellite position and velocity determination.” that broadly reads on “obtain a known position of a mobile device” as claimed. Therefore, the rejections based on Kansas et al, in a combination, is still proper.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11,808,867 discloses Systems, device configurations, and processes for tracking and navigation using low-earth orbit satellite (LEO) signals. Embodiments are provided to track LEO satellites in the absence or during interrupted service by global position sources (e.g., GNSS). Operations and a framework are provided to use low-earth orbit (LEO) downlink transmissions as a source of positioning data. Operations can include performing a Doppler frequency measurement on received satellite downlink transmissions to determine a pseudorange rate measurement for a vehicle relative to at least one LEO satellite. Pseudorange rate measurements may be used to correct vehicle position data of a vehicles inertial navigation system (INS) and for control/navigation of the vehicle. Embodiments allow for simultaneous tracking of LEO satellites and navigation of a vehicle, such as an unmanned aerial vehicle. Embodiments are also directed to employing a propagation model for LEO position and velocity within a simultaneous tracking and navigation (STAN) framework.
US 9,121,932 discloses a method for refining a position estimate of a low earth orbiting (LEO) satellite in which a first position estimate of a LEO satellite is generated with a GNSS receiver on-board the LEO satellite. Corrections are received at the LEO satellite. The corrections are processed on-board the LEO satellite such that a corrected LEO satellite position estimate of the LEO satellite is generated for the first position estimate.
US 9,121,940 discloses a navigation system includes a navigation radio and a sensor onboard a vehicle. The navigation radio receives and processes low earth orbit RF signals to derive range observables for a corresponding LEO satellite. A sensor is operable to generate at least one of vehicle speed data, acceleration data, angular rate data and rotational angle data under high vehicle dynamics. The navigation radio includes a navigation code operable to obtain a position, velocity and time solution (a "navigation solution") based on the one or more range observables, ephemerides for the corresponding LEO satellite, a heading pseudomeasurement, a navigation radio altitude pseudomeasurement; one or more vehicle velocity pseudomeasurements orthogonal to the altitude pseudomeasurements; and the generated at least one of vehicle speed data, acceleration data, angular rate data and rotational angle data. The navigation radio uses the navigation solution to acquire a GPS signal during interference with a coarse acquisition GPS signal.
US 2008/0150796 discloses methods are shown for supporting a satellite based positioning of a mobile arrangement with assistance data and using assistance data. The invention relates equally to an apparatus supporting a satellite based positioning of a mobile device with assistance data and to apparatus supporting a satellite based positioning of the mobile arrangement using assistance data. The invention relates equally to corresponding software codes and to corresponding software program products. For supporting a satellite based positioning of a mobile arrangement with assistance data, a communication network converts parameters of a dedicated orbit model describing a movement of a satellite, which dedicated orbit model is defined for a particular satellite based positioning system, into parameters of a common orbit model describing a movement of a satellite. Alternatively or in addition, the network replaces a reference value that is based on a satellite based positioning system time in available parameters of an orbit model by a reference value that is based on a communication system time. After the parameter conversion and/or the reference value replacement, the parameters are provided as a part of assistance data for the satellite based positioning. Alternatively or in addition, a set of data is transmitted in one direction between the mobile arrangement and the communication network, which is independent of the employed positioning mode.
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 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
