DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Examiner acknowledges no foreign priority is claimed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 7/7/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 10-11, 13-14, 22-23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beadle et al. (US 6,919,839 B1), and further in view of Oswald et al. (WO 2007138106 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Beadle et al. (‘839) discloses “a method for determining a total electron content of a portion of the ionosphere (Abstract: synthetic aperture radar (SAR) compensates for ionospheric distortions based upon measurement of the group delay, particularly when operating in the VHF/UHF band…the group delay measures the effective or observed TEC (total electron content), comprising:
transmitting from a satellite in orbit, a first signal at a first frequency and a second signal at a second frequency different from the first frequency toward a reflective surface through the portion of the ionosphere, wherein the first and second frequencies are in the very high frequency (VHF) range (column 3 lines 31-35: an object of the present invention to provide a synthetic aperture radar (SAR) that compensates for ionospheric distortions based upon measurement of the group delay, particularly when operating in the VHF/UHF band; Figure 3);
receiving at the satellite, a reflection of the first signal and a reflection the second signal (column 3 lines 54-62: the radar transmitter cooperates with the antenna to propagate transmit pulses through the ionosphere, and subjects the transmit pulses to ionospheric distortion based upon propagation through the ionosphere along a transmit path. The radar receiver cooperates with the antenna to receive echo pulses through the ionosphere based upon the transmit pulses, and subjects the echo pulses to ionospheric distortion based upon propagation through the ionosphere along a receive path)”,
“determining at least a first total electron content of the portion of the ionosphere (column 3 line 63-column 4 line 3: The radar receiver may comprises an ionospheric distortion estimator for estimating an individual ionospheric distortion for each received echo pulse based upon a time delay variation versus frequency, and a compensation filter for reducing the ionospheric distortion for each received echo pulse based upon the estimated individual ionospheric distortion associated therewith for providing a compensated echo pulse) (column 4 lines 23-43: the radar transmitter may generate the transmit pulses so that each transmit pulse comprises a modulated signal having a predetermined bandwidth…the plurality of frequency bands for the plurality of bandpass filters are non-overlapping within the predetermined bandwidth…the modulated signal may comprise a linear frequency modulated chirp signal, and the filtered output for each matched filter may comprise a time domain waveform…each matched filter may correspond to a particular frequency band within the predetermined bandwidth of the modulated signal so that each filtered output has a center frequency different from the center frequencies of the other filtered outputs…the ionospheric distortion estimator may further comprise a plurality of absolute value circuits connected between the plurality of matched filters and the plurality of correlators for taking an absolute value of the filtered outputs…the ionosphere has a spatially varying total electron content (TEC) associated therewith and causing the ionospheric distortion, and the TEC for each received echo pulse corresponds to the time delays associated therewith).”
Beadle et al. (‘839) does not explicitly disclose transmitting “a first signal at a first frequency and a second signal at a second frequency different from the first frequency.”
Oswald et al. (‘106) relates to global navigation satellite systems. Oswald et al. (‘106) teaches transmitting “a first signal at a first frequency and a second signal at a second frequency different from the first frequency (paragraph 34: Figs. 1 to 3 show flow diagrams pertaining to different embodiments of a method for providing an integrity indicator in a mobile or a stationary GNSS receiver…at 10, a first pair of GNSS signals is received from a GNSS satellite, for instance, Galileo's L1 and E5a signals; paragraph 47: In Fig. 5, the GNSS satellite 24 transmits at least two GNSS signals 26.1, 26.2 in different frequency bands);
determining a first delay of the reflection of the first signal and a second delay of the reflection of the second signal (paragraph 34: the delay between these signals is determined at 12 and a first value indicative of the ionospheric refraction is derived from it at 14…a second ionospheric refraction value can be acquired in different acquisition steps generally denoted by reference numeral 16, which are discussed below in more detail; paragraph 47: a mobile GNSS receiver 28 measures the time delay between the signals and derives a first ionospheric refraction value…a reference station 40 in the same geographical area as the mobile receiver 28 evaluates a second ionospheric refraction value by determining the delay between the signals at the reference station; column 3 lines 50-53: the radar transmitter and radar receiver preferably operate in the VHF/UHF band, and the moveable platform is preferably a satellite orbiting the earth in or above the ionosphere); and
determining integrity content of the portion of the ionosphere “based the first delay and the second delay (paragraph 34: the two values for the ionospheric refraction are compared at 18 and an integrity indicator is computed at 20 based on this comparison; paragraph 47: The latter comprises means 36 for comparing the two ionospheric refraction values and means 38 for deriving an integrity indicator from that comparison).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Beadle et al. (‘839) with the teaching of Oswald et al. (‘106) for o achieve the integrity requirements in high performance applications of satellite system (Oswald et al. (‘106) – paragraph 13). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Beadle et al. (‘839) and Oswald et al. (‘106)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, measurement of ionospheric total electron content.
Regarding claim 2, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Beadle et al. (‘839)/Oswald et al. (‘106) discloses the method of claim 1. Beadle et al. (‘839) further discloses “the transmitter is configured to transmit the first signal and the second signal simultaneously (paragraph 34: Figures 1-3: first pair of GNSS signals).”
Regarding claim 3, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Beadle et al. (‘839)/Oswald et al. (‘106) discloses the method of claim 1. Beadle et al. (‘839) further discloses “the transmitter is configured to vary the first frequency of the first signal and the second frequency of the second signal linearly between a first time and a second time (column 11 lines 30-31: the bandwidth must be small enough to allow the channels to be considered linear phase).”
Regarding claim 5, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Beadle et al. (‘839)/Oswald et al. (‘106) discloses the method of claim 1. Beadle et al. (‘839) further discloses “the first delay and the second delay are determined by: obtaining a time-domain representation of the first signal and the second signal; and correlating the time-domain representation of the first signal and the second signal with one or more time delays to determine the first delay and the second delay (column 4 lines 13-22: the ionospheric distortion estimator may further comprise a plurality of correlators connected to the plurality of matched filters…each respective correlator may correlate the filtered outputs from two adjacent matched filters and producing a time delay therebetween…a time delay circuit may be connected to the plurality of correlators for estimating the ionospheric distortion for each received echo pulse based upon the time delays associated therewith…the time delay circuit may perform a least squares function on the time delays provided by the plurality of correlators).”
Regarding claim 7, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Beadle et al. (‘839)/Oswald et al. (‘106) discloses the method of claim 1. Beadle et al. (‘839) does not explicitly disclose “transmitting a third signal at a third frequency different from the first and second frequencies toward the reflective surface; receiving a reflection of a third signal; determining a third delay of the reflection of the third signal; and determining a second total electron content of the ionosphere based on a function of the first delay and the third delay.”
Oswald et al. (‘106) relates to global navigation satellite systems. Oswald et al. (‘106) teaches “transmitting a third signal at a third frequency different from the first and second frequencies toward the reflective surface; receiving a reflection of a third signal; determining a third delay of the reflection of the third signal; and determining a second total electron content of the ionosphere based on a function of the first delay and the third delay (paragraph 20: acquiring the at least one second ionospheric refraction value mentioned above comprises: receiving a third GNSS signal at a third frequency, distinct from the first frequency and from the second frequency; determining a second ionospheric refraction value based upon an actual delay between the first and third GNSS signals, i.e. determining the actual delay between the first and third GNSS signals and using this actual delay as value indicative of ionospheric refraction or transforming this actual delay into another expression of the ionospheric refraction).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Beadle et al. (‘839) with the teaching of Oswald et al. (‘106) for o achieve the integrity requirements in high performance applications of satellite system (Oswald et al. (‘106) – paragraph 13). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Beadle et al. (‘839) and Oswald et al. (‘106)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, measurement of ionospheric total electron content.
Regarding claim 10, which is dependent on claim 7, Beadle et al. (‘839)/Oswald et al. (‘106) discloses the method of claim 7. Beadle et al. (‘839) further discloses “the first delay comprises a group delay associated with the first frequency, the second delay comprises a group delay associated with the second frequency, and the third delay comprises a group delay associated with the third frequency (column 3 lines 41-45: the group delay approach is divided into a 1-dimensional (range) approach and a 2-dimensional (range and cross-range) approach…the group delay measures the effective or observed TEC, which is used to reduce the ionospheric distortion; column 9 lines 38-50: In the group delay approach, the wideband channel is sub-divided into N bands per receive polarization…an advantage of the banded approach is that a better TEC estimate is achievable by averaging individual TEC estimates from each sub-band…this is because the same TEC is present in all bands, and its effect in each band, i.e., the group delay, is a known relationship… the group delay variations are measured using the scene returns, and only the ionosphere induces group delay effects).”
Regarding claim 11, which is dependent on claim 7, Beadle et al. (‘839)/Oswald et al. (‘106) discloses the method of claim 7. Beadle et al. (‘839) further discloses “the first frequency, the second frequency, and the third frequency are each between 30 MHz and 300 MHz (column 2 lines 3-6: two-way group delays of the ionosphere in the 200 to 400 MHz frequency band are illustrated in FIG. 1a. Lines 20, 22, 24, 26 and 28 respectively correspond to TEC units of 1, 10, 20, 40 and 60).”
Regarding claim 13, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Beadle et al. (‘839)/Oswald et al. (‘106) discloses the method of claim 1. Beadle et al. (‘839) further discloses “transmitting a third signal at a third frequency different from the first and second frequencies toward the reflective surface; receiving a reflection of a third signal; and determining a third delay of the reflection of the third signal (Claim 43: the time delay circuit performs a least squares function on the time delays provided by the plurality of correlators).”
Regarding claim 14, which is dependent on claim 13, Beadle et al. (‘839)/Oswald et al. (‘106) discloses the method of claim 13. Beadle et al. (‘839) further disclose “determining at least a first total electron content of the portion of the ionosphere comprises determining the total electron content of the portion of the ionosphere based on the first delay, second delay, and third delay using a least squares solution (column 12 lines 39-44: Each band's time offset is converted to a TEC estimate…the TEC estimates may be used in a least-squares fit approach to produce an effective TEC…this value is used for the dispersion compensation in the compensation filter 110 for each band; Claim 43: the time delay circuit performs a least squares function on the time delays provided by the plurality of correlators).”
Regarding claim 22, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Beadle et al. (‘839)/Oswald et al. (‘106) discloses the method of claim 1. Beadle et al. (‘839) further discloses “predicting an effect on a signal based on the first total electron content; and modifying a characteristic of the signal based on the predicted effect (column 9 lines 8-16: the error signal derived in the feedforward equalizer 80 is a measure of the TEC…the TEC drives the necessary compensation provided by the compensation filter 88…the compensation filter 88 is an all-pass phase-only filter, and is used since it is assumed that the ionosphere 62 does not attenuate the signals…the compensated RF data is passed to an image formation processor (IFP) 90 for typical processing to produce an image…the IFP 90 processes the RF data according to its design, i.e., de-chirp on receive; column 12 lines 39-46: each band's time offset is converted to a TEC estimate…the TEC estimates may be used in a least-squares fit approach to produce an effective TEC…this value is used for the dispersion compensation in the compensation filter 110 for each band…an image formation processor 112 is connected to the compensation filter 110 for processing to produce an image).”
Regarding independent claim 23, which is a corresponding system claim of independent method claim 1, Beadle et al. (‘839)/Oswald et al. (‘106) discloses all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 1. Beadle et al. (‘839) further discloses “a satellite (column 3 lines 52-53: a satellite orbiting the earth in or above the ionosphere); at least one transmitter on the satellite; at least one receiver on the satellite (column 3 lines 47-53: a SAR for a moveable platform comprises at least one antenna movable with the platform and directed through the ionosphere, a radar transmitter and a radar receiver. The radar transmitter and radar receiver preferably operate in the VHF/UHF band, and the moveable platform is preferably a satellite orbiting the earth in or above the ionosphere); and one or more processors and a memory, the memory storing one or more computer instructions which when executed by the one or more processors (Figure 4: Buffer, equalizer 80, processor 90; Figure 14: radar processor).”
Regarding independent claim 26, which is a corresponding non-transitory computer readable storage medium claim of independent method claim 1, Beadle et al. (‘839)/Oswald et al. (‘106) discloses all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 1. Beadle et al. (‘839) further discloses “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions”, “the instructions are executable by a system comprising one or more processors.” (Figure 4: Buffer, equalizer 80, processor 90; Figure 14: radar processor).
Claims 6, 8-9, 12, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beadle et al. (US 6,919,839 B1)/Oswald et al. (WO 2007138106 A1), and further in view of Neira et al. (US 2002/0130813 A1).
Regarding claim 6, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Beadle et al. (‘839)/Oswald et al. (‘106) discloses the method of claim 1. Beadle et al. (‘839)/Oswald et al. (‘106) does not explicitly disclose “the first delay and the second delay are determined by: modulating a phase of the first signal with a first code; modulating a phase of the second signal with a second code; extracting the first code from the reflection of the first signal; extracting the second code from the reflection of the second signal; and determining the first delay and the second delay based on the extracted first code and the extracted second code.”
Neira et al. (‘813) relates to ocean altimetry interferometric method and device using GNSS signals. Neira et al. (‘813) teaches “the first delay and the second delay are determined by: modulating a phase of the first signal with a first code; modulating a phase of the second signal with a second code; extracting the first code from the reflection of the first signal; extracting the second code from the reflection of the second signal; and determining the first delay and the second delay based on the extracted first code and the extracted second code (paragraph 116: the total electron content TEC is retrieved from delay time estimations at the different carriers L1, L2, L5…as the ionosphere is dispersive, group delay at different frequencies is different. In fact, it varies as the inverse of the square of thc frequency…the TEC can be estimated by the code processor 16 by looking to the delays across frequencies, this estimation being then refined within the carrier phase processor 15).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Beadle et al. (‘839)/Oswald et al. (‘106) with the teaching of Neira et al. (‘813) for more reliable measurement (Neira et al. (‘813) – paragraph 9). In addition, all of the prior art references, (Beadle et al. (‘839), Oswald et al. (‘106) and Neira et al. (‘813)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, measurement of ionospheric total electron content.
Regarding claim 8, which is dependent on claim 7, Beadle et al. (‘839)/Oswald et al. (‘106) discloses the method of claim 7. Beadle et al. (‘839)/Oswald et al. (‘106) does not explicitly disclose “determining a third total electron content of the ionosphere based on a function of the second delay and the third delay.”
Neira et al. (‘813) relates to ocean altimetry interferometric method and device using GNSS signals. Neira et al. (‘813) teaches “determining a third total electron content of the ionosphere based on a function of the second delay and the third delay (paragraph 58: the arrays of time-shifted punctual coherent references are then complex (in-phase and quadrature) doppler shifted according to the three frequencies estimated by the delay and doppler estimator 3; paragraph 83: the waveforms provided at the output of the code processor 16 can be fitted with a model…a point of the leading edge of the waveform which has at least sensitivity to surface roughness is selected as tracking point for altimetry…the waveform move back and forth in the delay domain and the delay-tracking of the selected point serves as observable for the surface height of the ocean, as in conventional altimetry…the use of three frequencies allows to correct for the ionospheric delay, which at L-band can be in the order of meters…as a byproduct, the excess delay due to the ionosphere can be estimated and therefore a measurement of the total electron content (TEC) over the oceans is possible, which is most needed due to the lack of ground-based TEC observations…the fitting of the model takes into account the surface roughness, and thus wind speed and significant wave height…from the shape of the waveform, in particular, from the amplitude of the peak of waveform, information from wind speed can be retrieved…the rougher the surface the lower the peak is…accurate models have been developed which have shown accuracy to 2 m/s from aircraft using OPS reflected signals and waveform models).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Beadle et al. (‘839)/Oswald et al. (‘106) with the teaching of Neira et al. (‘813) for more reliable measurement (Neira et al. (‘813) – paragraph 9). In addition, all of the prior art references, (Beadle et al. (‘839), Oswald et al. (‘106) and Neira et al. (‘813)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, measurement of ionospheric total electron content.
Regarding claim 9, which is dependent on claim 8, Beadle et al. (‘839)/Oswald et al. (‘106) discloses the method of claim 8. Beadle et al. (‘839)/Oswald et al. (‘106) does not explicitly disclose “determining a combined total electron content based on the initial total electron content, the second total electron content, and third total electron content.”
Neira et al. (‘813) relates to ocean altimetry interferometric method and device using GNSS signals. Neira et al. (‘813) teaches “determining a combined total electron content based on the initial total electron content, the second total electron content, and third total electron content (paragraph 58: the arrays of time-shifted punctual coherent references are then complex (in-phase and quadrature) doppler shifted according to the three frequencies estimated by the delay and doppler estimator 3; paragraph 83: the waveforms provided at the output of the code processor 16 can be fitted with a model…a point of the leading edge of the waveform which has at least sensitivity to surface roughness is selected as tracking point for altimetry …the waveform move back and forth in the delay domain and the delay-tracking of the selected point serves as observable for the surface height of the ocean, as in conventional altimetry…the use of three frequencies allows to correct for the ionospheric delay, which at L-band can be in the order of meters…as a byproduct, the excess delay due to the ionosphere can be estimated and therefore a measurement of the total electron content (TEC) over the oceans is possible, which is most needed due to the lack of ground-based TEC observations…the fitting of the model takes into account the surface roughness, and thus wind speed and significant wave height…from the shape of the waveform, in particular, from the amplitude of the peak of waveform, information from wind speed can be retrieved…the rougher the surface the lower the peak is…accurate models have been developed which have shown accuracy to 2 m/s from aircraft using OPS reflected signals and waveform models; paragraph 113: where fx and fy are respectively L1 or L2 and L2 or L5 carrier frequencies, depending on the number (two or three) of carrier frequencies used, and .tau..sub.S=.tau.(PS) is the time delay of the reflected signal in the point PS of specular reflection over the mean sea surface).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Beadle et al. (‘839)/Oswald et al. (‘106) with the teaching of Neira et al. (‘813) for more reliable measurement (Neira et al. (‘813) – paragraph 9). In addition, all of the prior art references, (Beadle et al. (‘839), Oswald et al. (‘106) and Neira et al. (‘813)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, measurement of ionospheric total electron content.
Regarding claim 12, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Beadle et al. (‘839)/Oswald et al. (‘106) discloses the method of claim 1. Beadle et al. (‘839)/Oswald et al. (‘106) does not explicitly disclose “generating a model of the portion of the ionosphere based on the first total electron content.”
Neira et al. (‘813) relates to ocean altimetry interferometric method and device using GNSS signals. Neira et al. (‘813) teaches “generating a model of the portion of the ionosphere based on the first total electron content (paragraph 83: the waveforms provided at the output of the code processor 16 can be fitted with a model…a point of the leading edge of the waveform which has at least sensitivity to surface roughness is selected as tracking point for altimetry…the waveform move back and forth in the delay domain and the delay-tracking of the selected point serves as observable for the surface height of the ocean, as in conventional altimetry… the use of three frequencies allows to correct for the ionospheric delay, which at L-band can be in the order of meters…the excess delay due to the ionosphere can be estimated and therefore a measurement of the total electron content (TEC) over the oceans is possible, which is most needed due to the lack of ground-based TEC observations. The fitting of the model takes into account the surface roughness, and thus wind speed and significant wave height…from the shape of the waveform, in particular, from the amplitude of the peak of waveform, information from wind speed can be retrieved. The rougher the surface the lower the peak is…accurate models have been developed which have shown accuracy to 2 m/s from aircraft using OPS reflected signals and waveform models).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Beadle et al. (‘839)/Oswald et al. (‘106) with the teaching of Neira et al. (‘813) for more reliable measurement (Neira et al. (‘813) – paragraph 9). In addition, all of the prior art references, (Beadle et al. (‘839), Oswald et al. (‘106) and Neira et al. (‘813)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, measurement of ionospheric total electron content.
Regarding claim 17, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Beadle et al. (‘839)/Oswald et al. (‘106) discloses the method of claim 1. Beadle et al. (‘839)/Oswald et al. (‘106) does not explicitly disclose “the transmitter is configured to transmit the first signal and the second signal toward the reflective surface at a nadir orientation relative to the surface.”
Neira et al. (‘813) relates to ocean altimetry interferometric method and device using GNSS signals. Neira et al. (‘813) teaches “the transmitter is configured to transmit the first signal and the second signal toward the reflective surface at a nadir orientation relative to the surface (paragraph 30: Figure 2: the receiver 1 according to the present invention comprises an upward-looking antenna 21 or oriented towards a zenith axis, a downward-looking antenna 19 or oriented towards a nadir axis, and a signal processing unit 10; paragraph 52: these doppler spread BD around the point of specular reflection PS,k depends on the incident angle .alpha., but it ranges between BD=500 Hz at nadir to BD=200 Hz at 60 degree incidence).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Beadle et al. (‘839)/Oswald et al. (‘106) with the teaching of Neira et al. (‘813) for more reliable measurement (Neira et al. (‘813) – paragraph 9). In addition, all of the prior art references, (Beadle et al. (‘839), Oswald et al. (‘106) and Neira et al. (‘813)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, measurement of ionospheric total electron content.
Regarding claim 19, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Beadle et al. (‘839)/Oswald et al. (‘106) discloses the method of claim 1. Beadle et al. (‘839)/Oswald et al. (‘106) does not explicitly disclose “the reflection of the first signal and the reflection of the second signal are reflected off a surface of a body of water.”
Neira et al. (‘813) relates to ocean altimetry interferometric method and device using GNSS signals. Neira et al. (‘813) teaches “the reflection of the first signal and the reflection of the second signal are reflected off a surface of a body of water (Figures 1-2; paragraph 30: receive signals 23 transmitted by the GPS satellites which are reflected by the Earth surface 24, and in particular the ocean surface).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Beadle et al. (‘839)/Oswald et al. (‘106) with the teaching of Neira et al. (‘813) for more reliable measurement (Neira et al. (‘813) – paragraph 9). In addition, all of the prior art references, (Beadle et al. (‘839), Oswald et al. (‘106) and Neira et al. (‘813)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, measurement of ionospheric total electron content.
Regarding claim 20, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Beadle et al. (‘839)/Oswald et al. (‘106) discloses the method of claim 1. Beadle et al. (‘839)/Oswald et al. (‘106) does not explicitly disclose “the body of water is an ocean.”
Neira et al. (‘813) relates to ocean altimetry interferometric method and device using GNSS signals. Neira et al. (‘813) teaches “the body of water is an ocean (Figures 1-2; paragraph 30: receive signals 23 transmitted by the GPS satellites which are reflected by the Earth surface 24, and in particular the ocean surface).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Beadle et al. (‘839)/Oswald et al. (‘106) with the teaching of Neira et al. (‘813) for more reliable measurement (Neira et al. (‘813) – paragraph 9). In addition, all of the prior art references, (Beadle et al. (‘839), Oswald et al. (‘106) and Neira et al. (‘813)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, measurement of ionospheric total electron content.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beadle et al. (US 6,919,839 B1)/Oswald et al. (WO 2007138106 A1), and further in view of Yunck (US 10,048,382 B2).
Regarding claim 15, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Beadle et al. (‘839)/Oswald et al. (‘106) discloses the method of claim 1. Beadle et al. (‘839)/Oswald et al. (‘106) does not explicitly disclose “the first signal and the second signal are transmitted from an altitude of 36,000 km or less.”
Yunck (‘382) relates to the observation and measurement of the Earth and its local space environment by means of sensors in Earth orbit. Yunck (‘382) teaches “the first signal and the second signal are transmitted from an altitude of 36,000 km or less (column 14 line 4: the 36,000 km GEO altitude).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Beadle et al. (‘839)/Oswald et al. (‘106) with the teaching of Yunck (‘382) to achieve reliable requirements in high performance applications of satellite system. In addition, all of the prior art references, (Beadle et al. (‘839), Oswald et al. (‘106) and Yunck (‘382)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, measurement of ionospheric total electron content.
Regarding claim 16, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Beadle et al. (‘839)/Oswald et al. (‘106) discloses the method of claim 1. Beadle et al. (‘839)/Oswald et al. (‘106) does not explicitly disclose “the first signal and the second signal are transmitted from between a 400 km altitude and an 800 km altitude.”
Yunck (‘382) relates to the observation and measurement of the Earth and its local space environment by means of sensors in Earth orbit. Yunck (‘382) teaches “the first signal and the second signal are transmitted from between a 400 km altitude and an 800 km altitude (column 13 line 18: the radiation environment between 400 and 800 km).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Beadle et al. (‘839)/Oswald et al. (‘106) with the teaching of Yunck (‘382) to achieve reliable requirements in high performance applications of satellite system. In addition, all of the prior art references, (Beadle et al. (‘839), Oswald et al. (‘106) and Yunck (‘382)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, measurement of ionospheric total electron content.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beadle et al. (US 6,919,839 B1)/Oswald et al. (WO 2007138106 A1), and further in view of Alexander et al. (US 2018/0083671 A1).
Regarding claim 15, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Beadle et al. (‘839)/Oswald et al. (‘106) discloses the method of claim 1. Beadle et al. (‘839)/Oswald et al. (‘106) does not explicitly disclose “the transmitter comprises a first antenna and the receiver comprises a second antenna, wherein the first and second antenna are configured in a dual polarized configuration.”
Alexander et al. (‘671) relates to beam forming in earth observation, astronomical, and positional services. Alexander et al. (‘671) teaches “the transmitter comprises a first antenna and the receiver comprises a second antenna, wherein the first and second antenna are configured in a dual polarized configuration (paragraph 93: referring to FIG. 6, the receiving array may consist of many planar dual polarized receive elements (68) in a regular array (64); paragraph 96: the transmit array (65) is of a very similar design and size as the receive array…it has many dual polarized transmit elements (69) …digitized signals are computed by the signal processing system for each polarization, transmitted to a digital-to-analogue converter, filtered, amplified, and passed to the output power amplifier for transmission…as with the receive array, the element electronics can be mounted behind the transmit elements to distribute the heat load and minimize stray radiation; paragraph 200: each array has 315 dual polarization antenna elements; each array therefore has 630 signal channels).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Beadle et al. (‘839)/Oswald et al. (‘106) with the teaching of Alexander et al. (‘671) for more precise measurement (Alexander et al. (‘671) – paragraph 13). In addition, all of the prior art references, (Beadle et al. (‘839), Oswald et al. (‘106) and Alexander et al. (‘671)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, earth observation system.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beadle et al. (US 6,919,839 B1)/Oswald et al. (WO 2007138106 A1), and further in view of Tillotson et al. (US 2006/0121893 A1).
Regarding claim 21, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Beadle et al. (‘839)/Oswald et al. (‘106) discloses the method of claim 1. Beadle et al. (‘839)/Oswald et al. (‘106) does not explicitly disclose “determining a scintillation index based on at least one of the first signal and the second signal.”
Tillotson et al. (‘893) relates to remote sensing using satellite. Tillotson et al. (‘893) teaches “determining a scintillation index based on at least one of the first signal and the second signal (paragraph 43: in addition to the alterations induced in the signal by tropospheric turbulence, the ionosphere also alters the signal via interactions between the signal and the charged particles in the ionosphere. Because ionospheric scintillation is strongly frequency dependent, the ionospheric scintillation detector 132 can, by comparing the L1 and L2 GPS signals 108 (recall that the GPS system uses one signal at the L1 frequency of about 1575 MHz and another signal at the L2 frequency of about 1228 MHz) to detect the amount of scintillation introduced into the signal 108 by the ionosphere…the inverter 134 inverts the output from the ionospheric scintillation detector 132 and communicates the inverted signal to the processor 126; paragraph 44: ionospheric scintillation is relatively constant with respect to elevation angle whereas tropospheric scintillation varies strongly with elevation angle …ionospheric scintillation predominates at high elevation angles and tropospheric scintillation predominates at low elevation angles).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Beadle et al. (‘839)/Oswald et al. (‘106) with the teaching of Tillotson et al. (‘893) for more accurate measurement (Tillotson et al. (‘893) – paragraph 6). In addition, all of the prior art references, (Beadle et al. (‘839), Oswald et al. (‘106) and Tillotson et al. (‘893)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, measurement of contribution of ionospheric scintillation to the signal alterations.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beadle et al. (US 6,919,839 B1)/Oswald et al. (WO 2007138106 A1), and further in view of McDonald et al. (US 2016/0282470 A1).
Regarding claim 21, which is dependent on independent claim 23, Beadle et al. (‘839)/Oswald et al. (‘106) discloses the method of claim 23. Beadle et al. (‘839)/Oswald et al. (‘106) does not explicitly disclose “determining a scintillation index based on at least one of the first signal and the second signal.”
McDonald et al. (‘470) relates to provide systems and methods for using multi frequency satellite measurements. McDonald et al. (‘470) teaches “the one or more processors are located at a ground station (paragraph 21: FIG. 1A: a multi-frequency GBAS ground station 100...GBAS ground station 100 includes an ionospheric health monitor 105 that utilizes multi-frequency GNSS satellites to determine correct ionosphere mitigation mechanism…a multi-frequency satellite simultaneously transmits navigation signals at multiple frequencies.…the delays in these signals caused by the ionosphere can be estimated and resolved by processing these signals as received by GBAS ground station 100 at the same time…by simultaneously processing two navigation signals of differing frequencies from a single satellite, the ground station 100 can determine the quality of the ionosphere in the region around the satellite at any given finite period of time; paragraph 22: FIG. 1A: GBAS ground station 100 includes a Ground Based Augmentation System (GBAS) processing module 102 that implements the ionospheric health monitor 105…the reference receivers 104 of GBAS ground station 100 are configured to process both multi-frequency satellite signals (received from multi-frequency GNSS satellites 112) and single frequency satellites signals (received from multi-frequency GNSS satellites 110).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Beadle et al. (‘839)/Oswald et al. (‘106) with the teaching of McDonald et al. (‘470) for more reliable measurement or total electron count (McDonald et al. (‘470) – paragraph 25). In addition, all of the prior art references, (Beadle et al. (‘839), Oswald et al. (‘106) and McDonald et al. (‘470)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, measurement of ionospheric total electron content.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beadle et al. (US 6,919,839 B1)/Oswald et al. (WO 2007138106 A1), and further in view of Hernandez-Pajares et al. (US 2014/0070992 A1).
Regarding claim 25, which is dependent on independent claim 23, Beadle et al. (‘839)/Oswald et al. (‘106) discloses the method of claim 23. Beadle et al. (‘839)/Oswald et al. (‘106) does not explicitly disclose “the one or more processors are provided on the satellite.”
Hernandez-Pajares et al. (‘992) relates to a method and an apparatus for navigation using satellite-transmitted radio signals. Hernandez-Pajares et al. (‘992) teaches “the one or more processors are provided on the satellite (paragraph 58: the central processing facility comprises: first processing means for processing geodetic data relating to at least one of internal clocks of the plurality of satellites, positions of the plurality of satellites, delay code biases of the GNSS transmitters aboard the plurality of satellites and carrier-phase biases of the GNSS transmitters aboard the plurality of satellites…second processing means for processing ionospheric data relating to a state of the ionosphere, wherein the first processing means is configured to execute a first estimation process and the second processing means is configured to execute a second estimation process, the first and second estimation processes having different processing speeds and interacting with each other).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Beadle et al. (‘839)/Oswald et al. (‘106) with the teaching of Hernandez-Pajares et al. (‘992) for more reliable signal processing (Hernandez-Pajares et al. (‘992) – paragraph 30). In addition, all of the prior art references, (Beadle et al. (‘839), Oswald et al. (‘106) and Hernandez-Pajares et al. (‘992)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, measurement of ionospheric total electron content.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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.
Allowable subject matter:
“mixing the transmitted first signal and the reflection of the first signal to generate a third signal; determining a beat frequency of the third signal; determining the first delay based on a function of the beat frequency and a rate of change of the first frequency at which the first signal is transmitted.”
Closet Prior art found to be:
Neira et al. (US 2002/0130813 A1) describes that the GPS receiver 20 performs essentially all the functions of a typical GPS receiver for each frequency and modulation, and has an additional feature of providing as output replicas d.sub.L1, d.sub.L2 and d.sub.L5 of the punctual coherent references for each carrier frequency L1, L2 and L5 received. These output signals are clean versions of the direct signals arriving to the antenna 21 from every GPS satellite 2 in view, at each polarization and carrier frequency, shifted to some intermediate frequency IF (paragraph 45).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Issler (EP 0839324 B1) describes a system for measuring the total electrical content of the ionosphere comprising: on board a satellite, a transmitter of a coherent spread spectrum signal transmitted in VHF…on the ground, a device for receiving and processing the received VHF signal making it possible to measure the total electronic content of the ionosphere…the edge segment can be coupled with an autonomous initialization function of the connections spatial directives or/and a transmission function backup, planned for certain satellites…method of measuring the total electronic content of the ionosphere, using a spread spectrum signal transmitted through the ionosphere in the VHF band, this process being characterized in that it is emitted from a signal consisting of a pseudo-random code from a satellite in the VHF band…can also send from a ground station a signal similar to the previous one, repeated by a satellite in the VHF band…in both cases, receive the signal transmitted by satellite in the ground station, the measurements available in the station (group speed, phase velocity) being used to determine the total electronic content of the ionosphere…measurements available in the station (distance, Doppler) are corrected for the effects of ionosphere using content knowledge total electronics…these corrected measures are used to determine the orbit of said satellite (Page 3 paragraphs 1-6); as shown in Figure 1 the segment edge 10 inside a satellite 9 includes a frequency spread spectrum signal generator 11 intermediate (for example, a C / A code generator GPS or GLONASS in band L1) connected to an antenna 12 at through a mixer 13, a local oscillator OL 14 being connected to generator 11 and mixer 13 in the purpose of ensuring consistency between the code and the carrier of the transmitted signal. The antenna 12 transmits a signal in VHF which, after crossing the ionosphere15, is received by antenna 16 of a ground station 17…this ground station 17 includes a spread spectrum signal receiver (for example GPS-C / A or GLONASS-C / A 18, band L1) connected to the antenna access 16 through a amplifier and mixer 19, and output to a computer 20 itself connected to an R network of stations soils. A local OL 21 oscillator is connected to the receiver 18and the mixer 19. The edge segment 10 and the station ground 17 can have OL frequencies having the same value (Page 3 paragraph 8).
Kassas et al. (UD 11,960,018 B2) describes that the disclosure describes a carrier phase measurement model, and ionospheric and tropospheric delay models…for CD-LEO framework…performance is characterized by studying the PDOP and the residual ionospheric and tropospheric delays for the Orbcomm constellation… experimental results are provided to demonstrate a receiver positioning with the proposed CD-LEO framework ((column 6 lines 44-50); FIG. 1 is a graphical representation of device configured to receive signals from a plurality of low Earth orbit satellites according to one or more embodiments. FIG. 1 shows receiver 110 configured to receive signals, such as downlink transmissions, from a plurality of low Earth orbit satellites. In one embodiment, the receiver 110 is a stationary radio frequency (RF) receiver. Receiver 110 may be equipped with an altimeter. The receiver 110 may detect multiple low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites, such as satellites 120.sub.1-n, and downlink channels 121.sub.n, wherein direct quadrature phase shift keying (QPSK) signals are transmitted. Receiver 110 may be configured to detect downlink signals and transmission from one or more visible low earth orbit (LEO) satellites (Column 7 lines 49-62).
Ballard et al. (UD 5,943,629) describes a system and method are disclosed for providing a real-time map of ionospheric properties…an ionospheric model is provided that provides a baseline description of ionospheric properties…the ionospheric model a critical frequency for an ionospheric layer…a primary data source is provided that is indicative of real time propagation data obtained for the ionosphere in the vicinity of a control point…the real time propagation data is indicative of the critical frequency for the ionospheric layer…the ionospheric model is modified based on the real time propagation data obtained for the ionosphere in the vicinity of the control point…this includes modifying the critical frequency for the ionospheric layer. In this manner, the ionospheric model is updated according to real time propagation data (column 4 lines 41-54).
Trautenberg (Us 2009/0289842 A1) describes that the observation of the ionosphere by measurements in the two or more frequency bands can take place from a ground segment of the navigation satellite system and/or from satellites of the navigation satellite system…the transmission of the alert message can take place either by way of satellites of the navigation satellite system or from a ground segment of the navigation satellite system (paragraph 11); the observation of the ionosphere by measurements in two or more frequency bands may comprise the emission of at least one measuring signal. Instead of conventional signals of the navigation satellite system, which can also be utilized for the observation of the ionosphere, a targeted observation of the ionosphere can also be carried out using separate measuring signals (paragraph 13); the satellites 14 themselves can also determine, based on the received measuring signals 281 and 282, whether an ionospheric disturbance 29 is present, and can signal the latter directly by an alert message via a satellite signal 16 to the use systems 18 and the ground segment 20…the latter alternative is particularly advantageous for bringing about a rapid signaling of an ionospheric disturbance to the use systems 18…the signaled ionospheric disturbances comprise particularly those changes of the ionosphere which could lead to an impairment of a satellite signal 16 in a frequency band (paragraph 33); FIG. 2 is a flow diagram which shows the basic steps of the process of observation and alerting operation, which may be implemented, for example, in the form of an algorithm in the measuring devices 26 of an observation and command station 22…the observation of the ionosphere (that is, the actual measuring operation) takes place in Step S10, which itself includes two Steps S102 and 104. In Step S102, the ionosphere is observed by measuring signals which are transmitted in the two frequencies or frequency bands utilized by the navigation satellite system, either emitted by an observation and command station 22 or also directly by satellites…a received measuring signal is analyzed in Step S104; that is, changes of the ionosphere signaled by the measuring signal are analyzed to determine whether the change deviates from one or more conditions…if the signal propagation time of a measuring signal exceeds a predefined maximum value, a significant ionospheric disturbance can be assumed…by means of the exact measured signal propagation time, the type and particularly the intensity of the ionospheric disturbance can be further limited (paragraph 34).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NUZHAT PERVIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9795. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, William J Kelleher can be reached at 571-272-7753. 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.
/NUZHAT PERVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648