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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Application filed on 3/20/2024
Claims 1-20 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 10, and 19 are independent claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/16/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the 03/20/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 19-20 are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph when they use the word “means”. In the specification, paragraphs [0060]-[0065] include the structure used to limit the claims. There the specification discloses a transceiver
(used for obtaining an indication of oscillator temperature information, for transmitting a calibration report to a wireless node, and for receiving a XO calibration report including frequency offset information from the wireless node)
a processor
(used for determining a frequency offset value based at least in part on the one or more radio frequency signals, for determining a frequency correction value based at least in part on the local oscillator temperature value, the frequency offset value, and the indication of oscillator temperature information, and for adjusting a receive frequency of a satellite receiver based at least in part on the frequency offset information)
and a temperature sensor.
(used for determining a local oscillator temperature value)
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.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As for claims 1, 10, and 19:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
For claim 1, yes, it is a process.
For claim 10 and 19, yes, they are machines.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “determining a frequency offset value based at least in part on the one or more radio frequency signals; determining a local oscillator temperature value; determining a frequency correction value based at least in part on the local oscillator temperature value, the frequency offset value, and the indication of oscillator temperature information” is the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “at least one memory; at least one thermal sensor; at least one transceiver; at least one processor communicatively coupled to the at least one memory” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “obtaining an indication of oscillator temperature information associated with one or more radio frequency signals; transmitting a calibration report to a wireless node” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “obtaining an indication of oscillator temperature information associated with one or more radio frequency signals; transmitting a calibration report to a wireless node” is an additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner, especially since the oscillator temperature information is obtained from a transmission via the one or more radio frequency signals. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
As for claims 2 and 11:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
For claim 2, yes, it is a process.
For claim 11, yes, it is a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “determining the local oscillator temperature value” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) since a user can read a temperature. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “based on a thermal sensor disposed proximate to a crystal oscillator” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “based on a thermal sensor disposed proximate to a crystal oscillator” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore the additional element is well‐understood, routine, and conventional as expressly stated by Applicant (“For example, well-known circuits, processes, algorithms, structures, and techniques have been shown without unnecessary detail in order to avoid obscuring the configurations” paragraph [0078]). Given that the thermal sensor is not described in detail, it is taken to be a well-known structure. See MPEP § 2106.05(d).
As for claims 3 and 12:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
For claim 3, yes, it is a process.
For claim 12, yes, it is a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “the one or more radio frequency signals comprise one or more data packets and the indication of oscillator temperature information is included in the one or more data packets” is a continuation of the “obtaining an indication of oscillator temperature information associated with one or more radio frequency signals” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the parent claim.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
As for claims 4 and 13:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
For claim 4, yes, it is a process.
For claim 13, yes, it is a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “determining the frequency offset value is based on comparing a frequency of the one or more radio frequency signals to a local oscillator frequency.” is a continuation of the “determining a frequency offset value based at least in part on the one or more radio frequency signals” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the parent claim.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above
As for claims 5 and 14:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
For claim 5, yes, it is a process.
For claim 14, yes, it is a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “receiving a XO calibration request message from the wireless node, and transmitting a XO calibration acknowledgement frame to the wireless node prior to obtaining the indication of oscillator temperature information.” is a continuation of the “determining a frequency offset value based at least in part on the one or more radio frequency signals; determining a local oscillator temperature value; determining a frequency correction value based at least in part on the local oscillator temperature value, the frequency offset value, and the indication of oscillator temperature information” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the parent claim.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “receiving a XO calibration request message from the wireless node, and transmitting a XO calibration acknowledgement frame to the wireless node prior to obtaining the indication of oscillator temperature information.” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
As for claims 6 and 15:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
For claim 6, yes, it is a process.
For claim 15, yes, it is a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “transmitting one or more measurement packets including oscillator temperature information to the wireless node” is a continuation of the “determining a frequency offset value based at least in part on the one or more radio frequency signals; determining a local oscillator temperature value; determining a frequency correction value based at least in part on the local oscillator temperature value, the frequency offset value, and the indication of oscillator temperature information” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the parent claim.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “transmitting one or more measurement packets including oscillator temperature information to the wireless node.” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
As for claims 7 and 16:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
For claim 7, yes, it is a process.
For claim 16, yes, it is a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “receiving a XO calibration report including frequency offset information from the wireless node” is a continuation of the “determining a frequency offset value based at least in part on the one or more radio frequency signals; determining a local oscillator temperature value; determining a frequency correction value based at least in part on the local oscillator temperature value, the frequency offset value, and the indication of oscillator temperature information” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the parent claim.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “receiving a XO calibration report including frequency offset information from the wireless node” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
As for claims 8 and 17:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
For claim 8, yes, it is a process.
For claim 17, yes, it is a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “adjusting a receive frequency of a satellite receiver based at least in part on the frequency offset information.” is the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
As for claims 9 and 18:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
For claim 9, yes, it is a process.
For claim 18, yes, is a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “the frequency offset information is utilized by the satellite receiver for satellite signal acquisition for a period of time in a range of 1 to 100 seconds in duration.” is a continuation of the “adjusting a receive frequency of a satellite receiver based at least in part on the frequency offset information.” limitation identified as an abstract idea in the parent claim.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, all elements are part of the abstract idea as shown above.
As for claim 20
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
For claim 20, yes, it is a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “adjusting a receive frequency of a satellite receiver based at least in part on the frequency offset information.” is the abstract idea of a mathematical calculation. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Yes, the limitation “the frequency offset information is utilized by the satellite receiver for satellite signal acquisition for a period of time in a range of 1 to 100 seconds in duration” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No, the limitation “means for receiving and means for adjusting” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process, as means have been interpreted to mean a processor, a memory, a transceiver, and a thermal sensor as discussed in the 112f analysis above. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
No, the limitation “receiving a XO calibration report including frequency offset information from the wireless node” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No, the limitation “receiving a XO calibration report including frequency offset information from the wireless node” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
No, the limitation “means for receiving and means for adjusting” is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process, as means have been interpreted to mean a processor, a memory, a transceiver, and a thermal sensor as discussed in the 112f analysis above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 10-13, 15, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vasilyev, U. S. Patent Publication No. 20090262018 published on 2009-10-22 (hereinafter Vasilyev).
As for independent claim 1, Vasilyev discloses a method for generating XO calibration information, comprising: obtaining an indication of oscillator temperature information associated with one or more radio frequency signals;
(Vasilyev paragraph [0024] discloses a reference satellite receiving controller with a crystal oscillator (shown in figure 2 labeled non-TCXO) which can send a radio frequency signal and can send temperature, called a second temperature information to a controller, “a precision temperature sensor 305, coupled to the satellite receiving controller 302, senses a second temperature T.sub.2 of the reference satellite receiving controller 301 and transmitting the value of the second temperature T.sub.2 to the satellite receiving controller”)
determining a frequency offset value based at least in part on the one or more radio frequency signals
(Vasilyev paragraph [0022] discloses a frequency offset being calculated from radio frequency signals, called ADC characteristic parameters, “upon obtaining the accurate frequency under the first temperature T.sub.1, a temperature/frequency offset function S.sub.n is converged to a correct temperature/frequency offset function by utilizing the ADC characteristic parameter ADC_CP, the temperature/frequency offset function”)
determining a local oscillator temperature value
(Vasilyev paragraph [0025] discloses measuring a first temperature, distinct from the previously discussed temperature, “The temperature sensor 201 measures a first temperature T.sub.1, which is converted into a digital output by the ADC 203. The ADC 203 may be a low cost successive approximation register ADC (SARADC). The measuring unit 206 measures characteristics of the temperature sensor 201 and the ADC 203 to generate a temperature characteristic parameter)
determining a frequency correction value based at least in part on the local oscillator temperature value, the frequency offset value, and the indication of oscillator temperature information
(Vasilyev paragraph [0022] discloses finding a frequency correction value, called a frequency adjustment value, being derived from the frequency offset and both temperature information, “In a normal training mode, upon obtaining the accurate frequency under the first temperature T.sub.1, a temperature/frequency offset function S.sub.n is converged to a correct temperature/frequency offset function by utilizing the ADC characteristic parameter ADC_CP, the temperature/frequency offset function S.sub.n, the accurate frequency under the first temperature T.sub.1 and frequency offsets under temperatures other than the first temperature T.sub.1… Also, the control unit 205 can utilize the updated temperature/frequency offset function to generate a frequency adjustment value”)
transmitting a calibration report to a wireless node
(Vasilyev paragraph [0024] and [0025] and figure 3 discloses transmitting data, which contains calibration information, including temperature about the crystal oscillator, to a server, “transmitting the value of the second temperature … In this embodiment, the satellite receiving controller 302 and the reference satellite receiving controller 301 may be coupled to the server 309, and perform data transfer via the server 309”)
As for claim 2, the limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed. Vasilyev discloses determining the local oscillator temperature value is based on a thermal sensor disposed proximate to a crystal oscillator
(Vasilyev paragraph [0025] and figure 2 discloses a temperature sensor in the same structure as a crystal oscillator, shown in figure 2, sensing a temperature, “a precision temperature sensor 305, coupled to the satellite receiving controller 302, senses a second temperature”)
As for claim 3, the limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed. Vasilyev discloses the one or more radio frequency signals comprise one or more data packets and the indication of oscillator temperature information is included in the one or more data packets
(Vasilyev paragraph [0025] discloses transmitting temperature information, called a second temperature, “transmitting the value of the second temperature T.sub.2 to the satellite receiving controller”)
As for claim 4, the limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed. Vasilyev discloses determining the frequency offset value is based on comparing a frequency of the one or more radio frequency signals to a local oscillator frequency
(Vasilyev paragraph [0023] discloses calculating a frequency offset by comparing a reference frequency signal and a local frequency signal, both based on clock signal from crystal oscillators, “The frequency offset calculator 217, according to the clock signal of the frequency f.sub.2, and a reference clock signal having a frequency f.sub.r”)
As for claim 6, the limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed. Vasilyev discloses transmitting one or more measurement packets including oscillator temperature information to the wireless node
(Vasilyev paragraph [0025] and figure 3 discloses transmitting data, which contains measurement information about the crystal oscillator, to a server, “In this embodiment, the satellite receiving controller 302 and the reference satellite receiving controller 301 may be coupled to the server 309, and perform data transfer via the server 309”)
As for independent claim 10, claim 10 reflects article of manufacture configured for implementing the method in claim 1 and is rejected along the same rationale. As for the structural elements in claim 10, Vasilyev discloses at least one memory
(Vasilyev figure 2 shows a memory 209 in a satellite receiver)
at least one thermal sensor
(Vasilyev figure 2 shows a temperature sensor 201 in a satellite receiver)
at least one transceiver
(Vasilyev figure 3 shows the satellite receiver sending and receiving signals like a transceiver)
at least one processor communicatively coupled to the at least one memory
(Vasilyev figure 2 shows a control unit coupled to the memory)
As for claim 11, the limitations of parent claim 10 have been discussed. Claim 11 reflects article of manufacture configured for implementing the method in claim 2 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 12, the limitations of parent claim 10 have been discussed. Claim 11 reflects article of manufacture configured for implementing the method in claim 3 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 13, the limitations of parent claim 10 have been discussed. Claim 13 reflects article of manufacture configured for implementing the method in claim 4 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 15, the limitations of parent claim 10 have been discussed. Claim 15 reflects article of manufacture configured for implementing the method in claim 6 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for independent claim 19, claim 19 reflects article of manufacture configured for implementing the method in claim 1 and is rejected along the same rationale.
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.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasilyev in view of Cheadle, U. S. Patent Publication No. 20210126642 published on 2021-04-29 (hereinafter Cheadle).
As for claim 7, the limitations of parent claim 6 have been discussed. Cheadle discloses method comprising receiving a XO calibration report including frequency offset information from the wireless node
(Cheadle paragraph [0068] discloses receiving frequency information being transmitted from a node, called the root node, for frequency correction calculation for a crystal oscillator. “the Root may send packets 702 to its children (e.g., nodes 11-13) indicative of the transmit frequency of the packet 702. Generally speaking, the Root node”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Cheadle with Vasilyev for more consistent frequency correction over multiple devices.
As for claim 8, the limitations of parent claim 7 have been discussed. Vasilyev discloses method comprising adjusting a receive frequency of a satellite receiver based at least in part on the frequency offset information
(Vasilyev paragraph [0006] and [0022] discloses creating a frequency adjustment value, used by a GPS receiver, based on frequency offset information. “the control unit generates an oscillation frequency adjustment value to the GPS receiving module to compensate accuracy of satellite positioning … the control unit 205 can utilize the updated temperature/frequency offset function to generate a frequency adjustment value”)
As for claim 16, the limitations of parent claims 10 and 15 have been discussed. Claim 16 reflects article of manufacture configured for implementing the method in claim 7 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 17, the limitations of parent claim 16 have been discussed. Claim 17 reflects article of manufacture configured for implementing the method in claim 8 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Claim(s) 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasilyev in view of Cheadle in further view of PETROVIC et al, U. S. Patent Publication No. 20200132859 published on 2020-04-30 (hereinafter PETROVIC).
As for claim 5, the limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed. Vasilyev discloses method comprising having a XO calibration and oscillator temperature information.
(Vasilyev paragraph [0024] and [0025] and figure 3 discloses transmitting data, which contains calibration information, including temperature about the crystal oscillator, to a server, “transmitting the value of the second temperature … In this embodiment, the satellite receiving controller 302 and the reference satellite receiving controller 301 may be coupled to the server 309, and perform data transfer via the server 309”)
Vasilyev does not appear to explicitly disclose method comprising receiving request message from the wireless node. However, Cheadle discloses method comprising receiving a XO calibration request message from the wireless node
(Cheadle [0069] and [0073] disclose a root node sending a packet triggering the computation of frequency error and a transmission of another packet, “each node receiving a packet 702 from the Root node may compute an estimate of the frequency error based on the preamble information of packets…the children nodes of the Root may send out their own packets”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Cheadle with Vasilyev using a technique known to better synchronize frequency correction over a network.
Vasilyev does not appear to explicitly disclose method comprising transmitting a XO calibration acknowledgement frame to the wireless node prior to obtaining the indication of oscillator temperature information. However, PETROVIC discloses method comprising transmitting an acknowledgement frame to the wireless node prior to obtaining the indication information
(PETROVIC paragraph [0078] discloses a processor sending a reply signal in response to a sync signal when calculated frequency error, “In response to recognizing the sync signals, the processor 208 may generate a reply signal 530 to be transmitted to the communication system”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Cheadle and PETROVIC with Vasilyev and Cheadle using a technique known in PETROVIC to improve the device in Vasilyev and Cheadle to make calculating frequency error easier.
As for claim 14, the limitations of parent claim 10 have been discussed. Claim 14 reflects article of manufacture configured for implementing the method in claim 5 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Claim(s) 9, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasilyev in view of Cheadle in further view of Counselman, U. S. Patent Publication No. 5619212 published on 1997-04-08 (hereinafter Counselman).
As for claim 9, the limitations of parent claim 8 have been discussed. Vasilyev discloses the frequency offset information is utilized by the satellite receiver for satellite signal acquisition for a period of time
(Vasilyev [0027] and [0030] disclose the offset parameter being used for a predetermined amount of time then being updated, “The adaptive compensation unit 207 may determine whether to update the reference temperature/frequency offset parameter according to at least one condition below:…whether the temperature/frequency offset function is being updated at a frequency within a predetermined updating interval”)
Vasilyev does not appear to explicitly disclose the time period being in a range of 1 to 100 seconds in duration. Counselman discloses method wherein the time period being in a range of 1 to 100 seconds in duration.
(Counselman Col 11 Lines 61-67 disclose crystal oscillators being stable in a time range of 1 to 100 seconds, “a quartz crystal oscillator, such as a Frequency and Time Systems (FTS) model 1001...The FTS model 1001 has stability...over time intervals of from 1 to 100 seconds”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Counselman with Vasilyev and Cheadle using the time interval of Counselman as the updating interval of Vasilyev since it is a known stability time interval for crystal oscillators and the timeframe when the crystal oscillators will need updated corrections.
As for claim 18, the limitations of parent claim 17 have been discussed. Claim 18 reflects article of manufacture configured for implementing the method in claim 9 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 20, the limitations of parent claim 19 have been discussed. Claim 20 reflects article of manufacture configured for implementing the method in claim 9 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN C LAWRENCE whose telephone number is (571)272-9833. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5pm.
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, Jeanette Parker can be reached at (571) 270-3647. 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.
/JOHN CALEB LAWRENCE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2646
/JEANETTE J PARKER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights