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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the apparatus, device, method, and product of determining Position, Velocity, and Time (PVT) information of a Low-Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite for LEO-based positioning that is accomplished through a series of mental processes and/or mathematical concepts. The claims also require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all claims elements, both individually and in combination, are directed to the manipulation of data by a general purpose computer and/or performing by a person utilizing mathematical calculations. Thus, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217—18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75—77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices {Alice, 573 U.S. at 219—20, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas {Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594—95 (1978)); and mental processes {Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” {Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” {id. at 184 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267—68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour {Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Supreme Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 192 (“We view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract...is not accorded the protection of our patent laws,…and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent- eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].”” Id. ((alteration in the original) quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requiring] generic computer implementation fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of § 101. USPTO’s January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“Memorandum”). Under Step 2A of that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Analysis
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim 1 (and its dependents) recite a method. Thus, the claim is a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 13 ( and its dependents) recite a device. Thus, the claim is a machine and/or manufacture, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 25 (and its dependents) recite an apparatus. Thus, the claim is a machine and/or manufacture, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 37 recites a product. Thus, the claim is a machine and/or manufacture, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One – Recitation of Judicial Exception
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, we evaluate whether the claims recites a judicial exception. For abstract ideas, Prong One represents a change as compared to prior guidance because we here determine whether the claim recites mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes.
Claim 1, and similarly claims 13, 25, and 37, recites the steps of:
determining the PVT information of the LEO satellite based at least in part on the known position of the mobile device and the range information.
The “determining” step may be performed by evaluating the received/obtained information which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation and evaluation.
Therefore, such steps of as claimed in claims 1, 13, 25, and 37 encompass processes that can be performed mentally; thus, fall within “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
In addition, dependent claims 2-12, 14-24, and 26-36 further claiming information gleaned from the mental processes and/or mathematical calculations.
Regarding claims 2-12, 14-24, and 26-36, the further steps of determining the PVT information of the LEO satellite as claimed may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, and judgment.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-12, 14-24, and 26-36 also falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Since the claims recite an abstract idea, the analysis proceeds to Prong Two to determine whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two – Practical Application
If a claim recites a judicial exception, in Prong Two we next determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not directed to the judicial exception. This evaluation requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The only additional elements of claim 1, and similarly claims 13, 25, and 37, is “obtaining a known position of a mobile device comprising a LEO receiver” and “obtaining 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”. These limitations, at a high-level of generality, merely recites data gathering steps for further analyzing/determining steps. As such, it amounts to no more than insignificant extra--solution activity to the judicial exception.
The only additional elements of claim 2, and similarly claims 14 and 26, is “obtaining the known position of the mobile device comprises receiving the known position at the server from the mobile device” and “obtaining the range information comprises receiving the range information at the server from the mobile device”. These limitations, at a high-level of generality, merely recites data gathering steps for further analyzing/determining steps. As such, it amounts to no more than insignificant extra--solution activity to the judicial exception.
In addition, the step of “sending the PVT information of the LEO satellite” of claims 4, 9, and similarly claims 16, 21, 28, and 33, are additional elements that are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These limitations, at a high-level of generality, merely recites data communication and gathering steps for further analyzing/determining steps. As such, it amounts to no more than insignificant extra--solution activity to the judicial exception.
Also, “a transceiver” as claimed in claim 13 acts only for data communication and gathering and do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity which simply provide what all transceivers provide. Further, claims 13-37 require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all claims elements, both individually and in combination, are directed to the manipulation of data by a general purpose computer and/or performing by a person. Accordingly, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Step 2B – Inventive Concept
For Step 2B of the analysis, it is determined whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, convention” in the field.
As stated above, claims 1-37 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Since this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements amount to no more than data gathering steps and mental processes. Merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide an inventive concept.
The courts have considered the following examples to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
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).
PNG
media_image1.png
458
364
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
208
408
media_image2.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) comprising a LEO receiver (i.e. LEO receiver 315);
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.
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). 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 rejected 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; and if overcome 35 USC 101 rejection.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2026/0039372 discloses a method and system for low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite multiple access and communication using grating lobes. The method may include: acquiring ephemeris data for a plurality of LEO satellites; predicting an orbital trajectory for each of the plurality of LEO satellites based on the ephemeris data; selecting target satellites using the predicted orbital trajectories; adjusting an antenna array to form grating lobes in the directions of the selected target satellites; and transmitting and receiving data with the target satellites using the adjusted antenna array.
US 10,215,850 discloses technology for determining an orbit of a geosynchronous satellite. A ground station can receive a transponded (RF) signal from a relay satellite. The relay satellite can receive an RF signal from the geosynchronous satellite and transpond the RF signal to create the transponded RF signal. The ground station can identify a second Doppler shift associated with the transponded RF signal received at the ground station from the relay satellite. The RF signal received at the relay satellite from the geosynchronous satellite can be associated with a first Doppler shift. The ground station can determine a frequency of the transponded RF signal received at the ground station from the relay satellite. The first Doppler shift associated with the RF signal transmitted from the geosynchronous satellite to the relay satellite can be calculated using the frequency of the transponded RF signal and the second Doppler shift associated with the transponded signal. The orbit of the geosynchronous satellite can be determined based on the first Doppler shift associated with the RF signal.
US 8,682,581 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 7,840,351 discloses a method of correcting an ionosphere error, a system of a precise orbit determination using the same and a method thereof. The method includes the steps of: a) determining a time of a highest elevation angle of a GPS satellite per one pass of each GPS satellite received at a LEO satellite or a receiver on a ground; b) determining a minimum total electron content found from an ionosphere model of the determined time per one pass of each GPS satellite; c) determining a total electron content directly calculated from the LEO satellite or a single frequency GPS data; d) determining an ionosphere error value of a single frequency GPS data by combining the minimum total electron content and the directly calculated total electron content; and e) correcting pseudorange data or carrier phase data based on the determined ionosphere error value.
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