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 04/24/2026 Amendments/Arguments, which directly amended claims 1-2, 4-5, 9, 13, 16, 21, 25, 28, 33, 37, ; and traversed the rejections of the claims of the 02/11/2026 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) in view of Syrjarinne et al (US 2006/0290566).
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) 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.
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). 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 with respect to art rejections of the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2024/0168171 discloses a method for providing a positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT) service using a mesh network of interconnected nodes that includes a constellation of satellites. The method includes receiving a pseudorandom noise (PRN) code with time-registration metadata at a broadcast satellite of the constellation of satellites, the PRN code with the time-registration metadata routed to the broadcast satellite from an originating node of the mesh network. The method includes time registering the PRN code based on broadcast satellite time and the time-registration metadata. The method includes modulating the time-registered PRN code onto a carrier to produce a PNT signal for the broadcast satellite. And the method includes broadcasting the PNT signal for receipt by user equipment designed to use the PNT signal and any number of other PNT signals to calculate a geographical position and user clock solution.
US 11,726,213 discloses a fast and precise positioning method and system. The method includes: acquiring observation data of navigation satellites and LEO augmentation satellites at a current epoch; respectively acquiring navigation telegrams of the navigation satellites and the LEO augmentation satellites, and obtaining precise orbit and clock bias; correcting errors received in the positioning process according to the acquired navigation telegrams; normalizing by taking a type of satellite navigation system as reference to obtain unified linear observation equations, and calculating observation values of positioning and velocity measurement parameters; calculating estimated values of positioning and velocity measurement parameters at the current epoch through a state equation according to the calculated observation values of positioning and velocity measurement parameters and estimated values of positioning and velocity measurement parameters at the previous epoch; generating and saving positioning and velocity measurement results at the current epoch according to the estimated values of positioning and velocity measurement parameters.
US 10,859,712 discloses a method for each of a plurality of satellites of a secondary Global Navigation Satellite System, GNSS, in a Low Earth Orbit, LEO, comprising receiving GNSS signals, in a first frequency band, from Line-Of-Sight, LOS, satellites of at least one primary GNSS in a Medium Earth Orbit. Candidate sets of orbit and clock corrections for the LOS satellites are received. A Position-Velocity-Time, PVT, calculation is performed based on code and/or carrier pseudo-ranges between a respective satellite of the secondary GNSS and the LOS satellites. The code and/or carrier pseudo-ranges are derived from the GNSS signals and are corrected by a single set of the candidate sets. A short-term prediction model is determined for an orbit and clock of the respective satellite based on the PVT and is included in a navigation message, transmitted in a second frequency band, modulated onto a LEO navigation signal intended for terrestrial user equipment.
US 2016/0109581 discloses a system and method for position determination using low earth orbit satellites. A mobile terminal affixed to an asset initiates a collection of global positioning system satellite measurements (e.g., code phase) based on a hardware trigger generated by a low earth orbit satellite modem. Timing information reflective of the time of the hardware trigger pulse is transmitted to an operations center along with the global positioning system satellite measurements to enable the operations center to determine a position of the mobile terminal.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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
Prosecution Insights