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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 filed on 21 MAR 2024 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
The pending application 18/612,586, filed on 21 MAR 2024, claims priority from foreign application IT102023000005820, filed on 27 MAR 2023 in the Italian Republic.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 21 MAR 2024, 2 APR 2025, and 25 JUL 2025 has been 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
pseudo-range calculation module in claim 13: found in p. 8, lines 28-31.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the GNSS processor" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of prosecution, “the GNSS processor” has been interpreted as “the GNSS receiver.”
Claims 2-12 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being depending on rejected claim 1 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim 8 recites the acronym "IFLC" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-13 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (“Multi-Frequency Precise Point Positioning Using GPS and Galileo Data with Smoothed Ionospheric Corrections,” cited by applicant in IDS dated 21 MAR 2024) in view of Vasudha et al. (“Comparative Evaluation of IRNSS Performance with Special Reference to Position Accuracy”) and Yu et al. (US 2022/0276389 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Basile et al. discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Basile et al. has been struck-through]
A method, comprising:
receiving, with a GNSS receiver, a plurality of satellite signals from a plurality of satellites of a constellation of satellites (Basile et al. “A two-constellation (GPS and Galileo) receiver, placed at either site E or at the two junctions, will always, or almost, see at least five satellites with an HDOP better than 5.” – p. 1391);
calculating, from a plurality of carrier signals in the satellite signals, pseudo range measurements (Basile et al. “two-frequency pseudo-ranges,” p. 1393, right-hand column, last paragraph);
performing, in (Basile et al. “smoothed ionosphere correction,” p. 1393, right-hand column, last paragraph), including:
calculating the ionospheric error correction values for the pseudo-range measurements (Basile et al. Ĩ1,j p. 1393, right-hand column, last paragraph);
compensating the pseudo-range measurements for predictable errors (Basile et al. “Code pseudo-Range
P
u
,
k
s
and carrier phase
L
u
,
k
s
transmitted on frequency
k
by satellite
s
, are simulated considering the main source of errors… They include… the receiver and satellite clock offsets
d
t
u
and
d
t
s
, the relativistic effect
δ
t
r
e
l
, the group delays for receiver (
d
u
,
k
) and satellite (
d
k
s
), the atmospheric delays due to… troposphere
T
u
s
…” p. 1389, left-hand column) and for the ionospheric error correction values (Basile et al. Ĩ1,j p. 1393, right-hand column, last paragraph) to obtain corrected pseudo-range measurements (Basile et al. equation 16, p. 1395, left-hand column); and
performing an (Basile et al. geometry free
P
1
-
P
2
, equation 5, p. 1393);
obtaining a pair of raw ionospheric error correction values (Basile et al. equations 4 and 11, first two paragraphs of section V.A., p. 1393-1394) based on respective subtraction operations, each subtraction operation including subtracting a respective one of the pseudo-range measurements from the
performing a noise-removing filtering of the raw ionospheric error correction values, thereby obtaining the ionospheric error correction values (Basile et al. “In this approach, the ionospheric delay information, computed by using the geometric-free combination of two-frequency pseudo-ranges, is smoothed by a Hatch filter before being applied to the pseudo-range, while the two-frequency carrier phases are linearly combined in the traditional IF combination.” p. 1393, right-hand column).
Examiner notes that although Basile et al. does not explicitly disclose a navigation processor and performing a position calculation operation processing the corrected pseudo-range measurements and outputting position, velocity and time information of the GNSS receiver, Basile et al. does disclose processing simulated observations in kinematic PPP mode with POINT software (Basile et al. “To do this, simulated observations, 24 hours long, from ten static receivers spread worldwide (see Fig. 1) were processed with the POINT software…” – p. 1390, left-hand column; where the navigation processor is implied from processing the simulation in the software; “Also, the new method was tested with the kinematic simulation as in Section IV. Here, the GPS triple-frequency combined pseudo-range and Galileo E5 pseudo-range (both corrected with the smoothed ionosphere) are processed in kinematic PPP mode with the POINT software.” – p. 1396, left-hand column, where the position, velocity and time information are implied by the kinematic PPP mode.)
Yu et al. discloses:
a GNSS receiver (Yu et al. receiver system 100, Fig. 1);
a navigation processor (Yu et al. “In one embodiment, the navigation, control and interface module 122 takes a pseudo-range measurements and carrier phase measurements and other related information from the satellites 101 to generate the positioning solution…” - ¶ [0077]);
performing a position calculation operation processing the corrected pseudo-range measurements and outputting position, velocity and time information of the GNSS receiver (Yu et al. “Fig. 1 shows a receiver system 100 capable of receiving signals transmitted by satellites 101 that includes one or more carrier signals (e.g., a first carrier (L1), a second carrier (L2) and an additional third carrier (L5) of the Global Positioning System (GPS)) such that the receiver system 100 can determine position, velocity and altitude (e.g., yaw, tilt and roll angles) with very high accuracy and precision based on the received signals.” - ¶ [0037])
Vasudha et al. discloses:
performing an Ionosphere Free Linear Combination on a pair of the pseudo-ranges measurements to obtain an Ionospheric Free Linear Combination pseudo-range measurement (Vasudha et al. PRiono-free p. 139, right-hand column) ;
obtaining a pair of raw ionospheric error correction values based on respective subtraction operations (Vasudha equations 11-12 for Delay at L5 and Delay at S1, p. 139, right-hand column), each subtraction operation including subtracting a respective one of the pseudo-range measurements from the Ionospheric Free Linear Combination pseudo-range measurement (Vasudha “Estimation of IRNSS Iono delays at L5 and S1 band (in meters) in conducted using iono-free pseudo-ranges. For obtaining delay at L5 band, subtract ion-free pseudo range from pseudo-range at L5 frequency and similarly for S1 band also,” equations 10-12 and last two paragraphs of p. 139, right-hand column)
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Yu et al. and Vasudha et al. into the invention of Basile et al. to yield the invention of claim 1 above. Basile et al., Yu et al. and Vasudha et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention for the following reasons:
Basile et al. discloses: performing precise point positioning using GPS L1 and GPS L5 bands and a linear combination to correct for ionospheric error to reduce noise and improve efficiency
Yu et al. discloses: a GNSS receiver performs precise point positioning using multiple carrier signals, GPS L1 , GPS L2, and GPS L5, and uses low pass filters to reduce aliased signal components to improve accuracy and precision
Vasudha et al. discloses: a dual-frequency GNSS receiver and a ionosphere free linear combination to correct for ionospheric error to improve accuracy and efficiency
Basile et al. discloses the limitations of claim 1 outlined above. Basile et al. implies the navigation processor and the position calculation, which are explicitly taught by Yu et al. However, Basile et al. fails to explicitly disclose Ionosphere Free Linear Combination. This feature is disclosed by Vasudha et al. where “Estimation of IRNSS Iono delays at L5 and S1 band (in meteres) in conducted using iono-free pseudo-ranges. For obtaining delay at L5 band, subtract ion-free pseudo range from pseudo-range at L5 frequency and similarly for S1 band also.” (Vasudha p. 139, right-hand column). The combination of Basile et al. and Vasudha et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to mitigate, reduce or filter interference from one or more interference signals in order improve the accuracy and precision of position, velocity and altitude determinations (Yu et al. ¶ [0036]-[0037]) and improve the accuracy of the positioning of the receiver (Vasudha p. 136, right-hand column).
Regarding claim 6, Basile et al. as modified above discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein during calculating the ionospheric error correction values, at least two carrier signals corresponding to a first band and a second band (Basile et al. “For better GPS-Galileo interoperability, PPP results based on the ionosphere free (IF) combination between GPS L1 and Galileo E1 and E5a were considered.” – p. 1390, left-hand column), are selected in the plurality of carrier signals as a set of carrier signals from which identify the pair of the pseudo-ranges measurements (Basile et al. “In this approach, the ionospheric delay information, computed by using the geometric-free combination of two-frequency pseudo-ranges, is smoothed by a Hatch filter before being applied to the pseudo=range, while the two-frequency carrier phases are linearly combined in the traditional IF combination.” p. 1393, right-hand column).
Regarding claim 7, Basile et al. as modified above discloses:
The method according to claim 6, wherein the selecting at least two signals in the plurality of carrier signals includes selecting at least three carrier signals in the set of carrier signals, identifying a first and a second signal among the three carriers signals as pair of signals to obtain the pair of the pseudo-ranges measurements (Basile et al. “In this approach, the ionospheric delay information, computed by using the geometric-free combination of two-frequency pseudo-ranges, is smoothed by a Hatch filter before being applied to the pseudo-range, while the two-frequency carrier phases are linearly combined in the traditional IF combination.” p. 1393, right-hand column), and a third carrier signal, and further includes:
if the second carrier signal is available, selecting the first carrier signal and the second carrier signal as the pair of carrier signals (Basile et al. “For better GPS-Galileo interoperability, PPP results based on the ionosphere free (IF) combination between GPS L1 and L5 and Galileo E1 and E5a were considered.” – p. 1390, left-hand column; where GPS L1 and L5 must be available in order to used);
if the second carrier signal is not available and a third carrier signal corresponding to a third band is available, selecting the first carrier signal and the third carrier signal are selected as the pair of carrier signals; and
if the third and second carrier signal are not available, discarding the corresponding satellite.
Examiner notes that dependent claim 7 is a method claim which includes the following contingent limitations:
selecting the first carrier signal and the second carrier signal as the pair of carrier signals
selecting the first carrier signal and the third carrier signal are selected as the pair of carrier signals
discarding the corresponding satellite
Where:
The recitation of “if the second carrier signal is available” indicates that “selecting the first carrier signal and the second carrier signal as the pair of carrier signals” is contingent on the condition of the second carrier signal being available.
The recitation of “if the second carrier signal is not available and a third carrier signal corresponding to a third band is available” indicates that “selecting the first carrier signal and the third carrier signal are selected as the pair of carrier signals” is contingent on the condition of the second carrier signal being unavailable and the third carrier signal being available.
The recitation of “if the third and second carrier signal are not available” indicates that “discarding the corresponding satellite” is contingent on the condition of the third and second carrier signals being unavailable.
When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed.” Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) (See MPEP 2111.04, II. Contingent Limitations)
Under broadest reasonable interpretation of this method claim, each of the conditions listed in the claim are mutually exclusive alternatives. Therefore, only one of the conditions and associated step needs to be taught by the prior art in order for the method to be performed. This method claim is performed by Bastile et al. where the condition that the first carrier signal, GPS L1, and the second carrier signal, GPS L5, are available, selected, and used (Basile et al. p. 1390, left-hand column).
Regarding claim 8, Basile et al. as modified above discloses:
The method according to claim 6, including selecting as the carrier signals which identify the pair of the pseudo-ranges measurements the pseudo-ranges measurements corresponding to the signal carriers that determine the lower noise amplification value in evaluating IFLC pseudo-range measurements (Basile et al. “The combination that guarantees the minimum noise amplification factor can be used for positioning purposes.” – p. 1394, right-hand column, last paragraph).
Regarding claim 9, Basile et al. as modified above discloses:
The method according to claim 6, wherein the ionospheric error correction values are estimated for at least three signal carriers corresponding to three bands (Basile et al. “The method introduced in the previous section allows user to be free from the constraint of IF observables and, therefore, to look for multi-frequency combinations aimed to minimize the noise on the pseudoranges. The next gengeration GNSS satellites will broadcast open signals over three frequencies.” – p. 1394, Section A, first paragraph), in particular GPS bands (Basile et al. “Fig. 11 shows a color map of the noise amplification factor associated with the geometry preserving combination between GPS L1, L2 and L5.” – p. 1395, right-hand column, last paragraph).
Regarding claim 10, Basile et al. as modified above discloses:
The method according to claim 9 wherein:
the ionospheric error correction values corresponding to the two selected carrier signals are obtained as output of the low pass filter (Basile et al. equations 5 and 6 are output by the Hatch filter, p. 1393-1394); and
the ionospheric error correction value corresponding to the not selected carrier signals is derived by the ionospheric error correction value corresponding to the first carrier signals through the corresponding carrier scaling factor (Basile et al. ionospheric amplification factor q, p. 1394, right-hand column; Table IV, p. 1395, right-hand column).
Regarding claim 11, Basile et al. as modified above discloses:
The method according any of claims 6, wherein the at least two signals in the plurality of carrier signals selected include more than three carrier signals (Basile et al. “Therefore, the minimum number of satellite required for PPP if five.” – p. 1391, right-hand column, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 12, Basile et al. as modified above discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein in the pseudo range measurements include GPS band L1 and one or both of GPS bands L5 and L2 (Basile et al. “Fig. 11 shows a color map of the noise amplification factor associated with the geometry preserving combination between GPS L1, L2 and L5.” – p. 1395, right-hand column, last paragraph).
Regarding claim 13, Basile et al. discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Basile et al. has been struck-through]
A GNSS receiver apparatus (Basile et al. “A two-constellation (GPS and Galileo) receiver…” – p. 1391, right-hand column), comprising:
(Basile et al. “A two-constellation (GPS and Galileo) receiver, placed at either site E or at the two junctions, will always, or almost, see at least five satellites with an HDOP better than 5.” – p. 1391, right-hand column; where a receiver obviously comprises at least one antenna to receive signals);
a pseudo-range calculation module configured to calculate, from a plurality of carrier signals in the satellite signals, a plurality of pseudo-range measurements (Basile et al. “two-frequency pseudo-ranges,” p. 1393, right-hand column, last paragraph); and
perform an (Basile et al. geometry free
P
1
-
P
2
, equation 5, p. 1393);
obtain a pair of raw ionospheric error correction values (Basile et al. equations 4 and 11, first two paragraphs of section V.A., p. 1393-1394) from respective subtraction operations in which a respective one of the pseudo-ranges measurements is subtracted from the
perform a noise-removing filtering of the raw ionospheric error correction values to obtain ionospheric error correction values (Basile et al. “In this approach, the ionospheric delay information, computed by using the geometric-free combination of two-frequency pseudo-ranges, is smoothed by a Hatch filter before being applied to the pseudo-range, while the two-frequency carrier phases are linearly combined in the traditional IF combination.” p. 1393, right-hand column);
obtain corrected pseudo-range values (Basile et al. equation 16, p. 1395, left-hand column) by compensating the pseudo-range measurements for predictable errors (Basile et al. “Code pseudo-Range
P
u
,
k
s
and carrier phase
L
u
,
k
s
transmitted on frequency
k
by satellite
s
, are simulated considering the main source of errors… They include… the receiver and satellite clock offsets
d
t
u
and
d
t
s
, the relativistic effect
δ
t
r
e
l
, the group delays for receiver (
d
u
,
k
) and satellite (
d
k
s
), the atmospheric delays due to… troposphere
T
u
s
…” p. 1389, left-hand column)and for the ionospheric error correction values (Basile et al. Ĩ1,j p. 1393, right-hand column, last paragraph); and
Examiner notes that although Basile et al. does not explicitly disclose one or more antennas, a navigation processor and performing a position calculation operation with the corrected pseudo-range measurements to output position, velocity, and time information of the GNSS receiver Basile et al. does disclose a receiver, processing simulated observations in kinematic PPP mode with POINT software (Basile et al. “A two-constellation (GPS and Galileo) receiver…” – p. 1391, right-hand column; where a receiver would obviously have one or more antennas; “To do this, simulated observations, 24 hours long, from ten static receivers spread worldwide (see Fig. 1) were processed with the POINT software…” – p. 1390, left-hand column; where the navigation processor is implied from processing the simulation in the software; “Also, the new method was tested with the kinematic simulation as in Section IV. Here, the GPS triple-frequency combined pseudo-range and Galileo E5 pseudo-range (both corrected with the smoothed ionosphere) are processed in kinematic PPP mode with the POINT software.” – p. 1396, left-hand column, where the position, velocity and time information are implied by the kinematic PPP mode.)
Yu et al. discloses:
A GNSS receiver apparatus (Yu et al. receiver system 100, Fig. 1), comprising:
one or more antennas (Yu et al. “the receiver system 100 comprises an antenna 106 for receiving a radio frequency signal, such as a microwave frequency satellite signal (e.g., one or more satellite carrier signals from multiple satellites, such as at least four orbiting satellites).” - ¶ [0039]; Fig. 1) configured to receiving a plurality of satellite signals from a plurality of satellites of a constellation of satellites (Yu et al. “Fig. 1 shows a receiver system 100 capable of receiving signals transmitted by satellites 101 that includes one or more carrier signals (e.g., a first carrier (L1), a second carrier (L2) and an additional third carrier (L5) of the Global Positioning System (GPS)) such that the receiver system 100 can determine position, velocity and altitude (e.g., yaw, tilt and roll angles) with very high accuracy and precision based on the received signals.” - ¶ [0037])
a navigation processor (Yu et al. “In one embodiment, the navigation, control and interface module 122 takes a pseudo-range measurements and carrier phase measurements and other related information from the satellites 101 to generate the positioning solution…” - ¶ [0077])
Vasudha et al. discloses:
perform an Ionosphere Free Linear Combination on a pair of the pseudo-ranges measurements to obtain an Ionospheric Free Linear Combination pseudo-range measurement (Vasudha et al. PRiono-free p. 139, right-hand column);
obtain a pair of raw ionospheric error correction values (Vasudha equations 11-12 for Delay at L5 and Delay at S1, p. 139, right-hand column) from respective subtraction operations in which a respective one of the pseudo-ranges measurements is subtracted from the Ionospheric Free Linear Combination pseudo-range measurement (Vasudha “Estimation of IRNSS Iono delays at L5 and S1 band (in meters) in conducted using iono-free pseudo-ranges. For obtaining delay at L5 band, subtract ion-free pseudo range from pseudo-range at L5 frequency and similarly for S1 band also,” equations 10-12 and last two paragraphs of p. 139, right-hand column);
perform a position calculation operation with the corrected pseudo-range measurements to output position, velocity, and time information of the GNSS receiver (Vasudha “The IRNSS is desired to provide exact constant real time position, velocity and time observables for users on a variety of platforms with a 24 hour X 7day service (i.e., from 00:00:00 to 23:59:59 every day uses) accessibility under all weather conditions [6].” – p. 136, right-hand column).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Vasudha et al. and Yu et al. into the invention of Basile et al. to yield the invention of claim 13 above. Basile et al., Yu et al. and Vasudha et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention for the following reasons:
Basile et al. discloses: performing precise point positioning using GPS L1 and GPS L5 bands and a linear combination to correct for ionospheric error to reduce noise and improve efficiency
Yu et al. discloses: a GNSS receiver performs precise point positioning using multiple carrier signals, GPS L1 , GPS L2, and GPS L5, and uses low pass filters to reduce aliased signal components to improve accuracy and precision
Vasudha et al. discloses: a dual-frequency GNSS receiver and a ionosphere free linear combination to correct for ionospheric error to improve accuracy and efficiency
Basile et al. discloses the limitations of claim 13 outlined above. Basile et al. implies the one or more antennas and navigation processor, which are explicitly taught by Yu et al. However, Basile et al. fails to explicitly disclose Ionosphere Free Linear Combination. This feature is disclosed by Vasudha et al. where an ionosphere free linear combination is used to determine the ionosphere delays (Vasudha p. 139, right-hand column). The combination of Basile et al., Yu et al. and Vasudha et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to mitigate, reduce or filter interference from one or more interference signals in order improve the accuracy and precision of position, velocity and altitude determinations (Yu et al. ¶ [0036]-[0037]) and improve the accuracy of the positioning of the receiver (Vasudha p. 136, right-hand column).
Regarding claim 18, Basile et al. discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Basile et al. has been struck-through]
A GNSS receiver (Basile et al. “A two-constellation (GPS and Galileo) receiver…” – p. 1391, right-hand column), comprising:
obtaining an (Basile et al. geometry free
P
1
-
P
2
, equation 5, p. 1393) by performing an (Basile et al. geometry free
P
1
-
P
2
, equation 5, p. 1393) from a plurality of pseudo-range measurements obtained from carrier signals from a plurality of satellite signals received by the GNSS receiver from a constellation of satellites (Basile et al. “A two-constellation (GPS and Galileo) receiver, placed at either site E or at the two junctions, will always, or almost, see at least five satellites with an HDOP better than 5.” – p. 1391, right-hand column);
obtaining a pair of raw ionospheric error correction values (Basile et al. equations 4 and 11, first two paragraphs of section V.A., p. 1393-1394) by performing a respective subtraction for each pseudo-range measurement of the pair of pseudo-range measurements including subtracting the corresponding pseudo-range measurement from the
obtaining ionospheric error correction values by performing a noise-removing filtering of the raw ionospheric error correction values (Basile et al. “In this approach, the ionospheric delay information, computed by using the geometric-free combination of two-frequency pseudo-ranges, is smoothed by a Hatch filter before being applied to the pseudo-range, while the two-frequency carrier phases are linearly combined in the traditional IF combination.” p. 1393, right-hand column); and
obtaining corrected pseudo-ranges by compensating the pseudo-range measurements for predictable errors (Basile et al. “Code pseudo-Range
P
u
,
k
s
and carrier phase
L
u
,
k
s
transmitted on frequency
k
by satellite
s
, are simulated considering the main source of errors… They include… the receiver and satellite clock offsets
d
t
u
and
d
t
s
, the relativistic effect
δ
t
r
e
l
, the group delays for receiver (
d
u
,
k
) and satellite (
d
k
s
), the atmospheric delays due to… troposphere
T
u
s
…” p. 1389, left-hand column) and for the ionospheric error correction values (Basile et al. Ĩ1,j p. 1393, right-hand column, last paragraph).
Examiner notes that although Basile et al. does not explicitly disclose one or more memories storing software instructions for the GNSS receiver and one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories and configured to execute software instructions to perform a process, Basile et al. does disclose processing simulated observations in kinematic PPP mode with POINT software (Basile et al. “To do this, simulated observations, 24 hours long, from ten static receivers spread worldwide (see Fig. 1) were processed with the POINT software…” – p. 1390, left-hand column; where it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include memory to store the instructions run by the processor to perform the simulations, measurements and calculations).
Yu et al. discloses:
A GNSS receiver (Yu et al. receiver system 100, Fig. 1), comprising:
one or more memories storing software instructions for the GNSS receiver (Yu et al. “electronic data processor for executing software instructions, logic, code or modules that are storable in any data storage device.” - ¶ [0033]; “the data storage 811 may comprise registers of an electronic data processor 827 (e.g., of the control module or GNSS receiver), nonvolatile random access electronic memory, electronic memory, magnetic storage device, a disk drive, or an optical storage device.” - ¶ [0208]); and
one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories and configured to execute software instructions to perform a process (Yu et al. “electronic data processor for executing software instructions, logic, code or modules that are storable in any data storage device.” - ¶ [0033]; “In one embodiment, the navigation, control and interface module 122 takes a pseudo-range measurements and carrier phase measurements and other related information from the satellites 101 to generate the positioning solution…” - ¶ [0077])
Vasudha et al. discloses:
obtaining an Ionospheric Free Linear Combination pseudo-range measurement by performing an Ionosphere Free Linear Combination on a pair of a pseudo-range measurements (Vasudha et al. PRiono-free p. 139, right-hand column);
obtaining a pair of raw ionospheric error correction values (Vasudha equations 11-12 for Delay at L5 and Delay at S1, p. 139, right-hand column) by performing a respective subtraction for each pseudo-range measurement of the pair of pseudo-range measurements including subtracting the corresponding pseudo-range measurement from the Ionospheric Free Linear Combination pseudo-range measurement (Vasudha “Estimation of IRNSS Iono delays at L5 and S1 band (in meters) in conducted using iono-free pseudo-ranges. For obtaining delay at L5 band, subtract ion-free pseudo range from pseudo-range at L5 frequency and similarly for S1 band also,” equations 10-12 and last two paragraphs of p. 139, right-hand column);
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Vasudha et al. into the invention of Basile et al. to yield the invention of claim 18 above. Basile et al., Yu et al. and Vasudha et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention for the following reasons:
Basile et al. discloses: performing precise point positioning using GPS L1 and GPS L5 bands and a linear combination to correct for ionospheric error to reduce noise and improve efficiency
Yu et al. discloses: a GNSS receiver performs precise point positioning using multiple carrier signals, GPS L1 , GPS L2, and GPS L5, and uses low pass filters to reduce aliased signal components to improve accuracy and precision
Vasudha et al. discloses: a dual-frequency GNSS receiver and a ionosphere free linear combination to correct for ionospheric error to improve accuracy and efficiency
Basile et al. discloses the limitations of claim 18 outlined above. Basile et al. implies the one or more memories and one or more processors, which are explicitly taught by Yu et al. However, Basile et al. fails to explicitly disclose Ionosphere Free Linear Combination. This feature is disclosed by Vasudha et al. where an ionosphere free linear combination is used to determine the ionosphere delays (Vasudha p. 139, right-hand column). The combination of Basile et al., Yu et al. and Vasudha et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to mitigate, reduce or filter interference from one or more interference signals in order improve the accuracy and precision of position, velocity and altitude determinations (Yu et al. ¶ [0036]-[0037]) and improve the accuracy of the positioning of the receiver (Vasudha p. 136, right-hand column).
Regarding claim 19, Basile et al. as modified above discloses:
The GNSS receiver of claim 18,
Examiner notes that although Basile et al. does not explicitly disclose the process includes performing a position calculation operation processing the corrected pseudo-range measurements and outputting position, velocity and time information of the GNSS receiver, Basile et al. does disclose processing simulated observations in kinematic PPP mode with POINT software (Basile et al. Also, the new method was tested with the kinematic simulation as in Section IV. Here, the GPS triple-frequency combined pseudo-range and Galileo E5 pseudo-range (both corrected with the smoothed ionosphere) are processed in kinematic PPP mode with the POINT software.” – p. 1396, left-hand column, where the position, velocity and time information are implied by the kinematic PPP mode.).
Yu et al. discloses:
performing a position calculation operation processing the corrected pseudo-range measurements and outputting position, velocity and time information of the GNSS receiver (Yu et al. “Fig. 1 shows a receiver system 100 capable of receiving signals transmitted by satellites 101 that includes one or more carrier signals (e.g., a first carrier (L1), a second carrier (L2) and an additional third carrier (L5) of the Global Positioning System (GPS)) such that the receiver system 100 can determine position, velocity and altitude (e.g., yaw, tilt and roll angles) with very high accuracy and precision based on the received signals.” - ¶ [0037]).
Vasudha et al. discloses:
performing a position calculation operation processing the corrected pseudo-range measurements and outputting position, velocity and time information of the GNSS receiver (Vasudha “The IRNSS is desired to provide exact constant real time position, velocity and time observables for users on a variety of platforms with a 24 hour X 7day service (i.e., from 00:00:00 to 23:59:59 every day uses) accessibility under all weather conditions [6].” – p. 136, right-hand column)
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Yu et al. and Vasudha et al. into the invention of Basile et al. to yield the invention of claim 19 above. Basile et al., Yu et al. and Vasudha et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention for the following reasons:
Basile et al. discloses: performing precise point positioning using GPS L1 and GPS L5 bands and a linear combination to correct for ionospheric error to reduce noise and improve efficiency
Yu et al. discloses: a GNSS receiver performs precise point positioning using multiple carrier signals, GPS L1 , GPS L2, and GPS L5, and uses low pass filters to reduce aliased signal components to improve accuracy and precision
Vasudha et al. discloses: a dual-frequency GNSS receiver and a ionosphere free linear combination to correct for ionospheric error to improve accuracy and efficiency
Basile et al. as modified above discloses the GNSS receiver of claim 18. Basile et al. implies performing a position calculation operation processing the corrected pseudo-range measurements and outputting position, velocity and time information of the GNSS receiver, which are explicitly taught by Yu et al. and Vasudha et al. The combination of Basile et al., Yu et al. and Vasudha et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to mitigate, reduce or filter interference from one or more interference signals in order improve the accuracy and precision of position, velocity and altitude determinations (Yu et al. ¶ [0036]-[0037]) and improve the accuracy of the positioning of the receiver (Vasudha p. 136, right-hand column).
Claim(s) 2-5, 14-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (“Multi-Frequency Precise Point Positioning Using GPS and Galileo Data with Smoothed Ionospheric Corrections,” cited by applicant in IDS dated 21 MAR 2024) in view of Vasudha et al. (“Comparative Evaluation of IRNSS Performance with Special Reference to Position Accuracy”) and Yu et al. (US 2022/0276389 A1) as applied to claims 1, 13 and 18 above, and further in view of Ciccarelli et al. (US 8,243,864 B2).
Regarding claim 2, Basile et al. as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Basile et al. has been struck-through]
The method according to claim 1 wherein the noise-removing filtering is a low pass filtering (Basile et al. Hatch filter is obviously a low pass filter, p. 1393, right-hand column)
Ciccarelli et al. discloses:
wherein the noise-removing filtering is a low pass filtering, and includes calculating a low pass filter constant (Ciccarelli et al. “The filter coefficients may be selected to adjust the filter bandwidth and/or to equalize the phase and amplitude responses of the digital filters 150 and 152 to achieve low ICI.” – Col. 8, lines 9-12; “The filter bandwidth may be adjusted solely based on the received signal strength.” – Col. 8, lines 49-50) as a function of the signal strength (Ciccarelli et al. “A jammer is an undesired interfering signal that is outside of the RF channel of interest and may be much higher (e.g., tens of dB higher) in amplitude than the desired signal.” – Col. 8, lines 59-62; “Jammer detector 160 may measure the signal strength of the baseband signals, compare the measure signal strength against the jammer threshold Thj, and provides an indication that jammers are present if the measure signal strength is greater than the jammer threshold Thj. Jammer detector 160 may include a low pass filter that filters baseband signal (or the received RF signal) and a power detector that measure the baseband power of the low pass filter output…. The filter, the delay unit, or both the filter and the delay unit may be adjusted based on the measured baseband power from the low pass filter output…” – Col. 9, lines 12-25).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Ciccarelli et al. into the invention of Basile et al. as modified above to yield the invention of claim 2. Basile et al., Yu et al., Vasudha et al. and Ciccarelli et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention for the following reasons:
Basile et al. discloses: performing precise point positioning using GPS L1 and GPS L5 bands and a linear combination to correct for ionospheric error to reduce noise and improve efficiency
Yu et al. discloses: a GNSS receiver performs precise point positioning using multiple carrier signals, GPS L1 , GPS L2, and GPS L5, and uses low pass filters to reduce aliased signal components to improve accuracy and precision
Vasudha et al. discloses: a dual-frequency GNSS receiver and a ionosphere free linear combination to correct for ionospheric error to improve accuracy and efficiency
Ciccarelli et al. discloses: low pass filters for use in wireless communication systems where the bandwidth of the low pass filter is adjustable based on the received signal strength, and where the low pass filter can be implemented as an infinite impulse response filter that is adjusted with a set of coefficients in order to maximize the SNR of the filtered signals
Basile et al. as modified above discloses the noise-removing filtering is a low pass filtering. However, Basile et al. fails to explicitly disclose calculating a low pass filter constant as a function of the signal strength. This feature is disclosed by Ciccarelli et al. where “The filter, the delay unit, or both the filter and the delay unit may be adjusted based on the measured baseband power from the low pass filter output…” (Ciccarelli et al. Col. 9, lines 12-25). The combination of Basile et al., Yu et al., Vasudha et al. and Ciccarelli et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to mitigate, reduce or filter interference from one or more interference signals in order improve the accuracy and precision of position, velocity and altitude determinations (Yu et al. ¶ [0036]-[0037]), improve the accuracy of the positioning (Vasudha p. 136, right-hand column) and “adjust the frequency response (e.g., bandwidth, filter order, and so on) of the filters such that the SNR of the filtered signals, after fall of the filtering at the wireless device, if maximized.” (Ciccarelli et al. Col. 5, lines 5-8).
Regarding claim 3, Basile et al. as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Basile et al. has been struck-through]
The method according to claim 2 (Basile et al. Hatch filter is an infinite impulse response filter, p. 1393, right-hand column).
Ciccarelli et al. also discloses:
wherein the low pass filtering is obtained by an infinite impulse response filtering (Ciccarelli et al. “For a digital design, adjustable filter 610 may be implemented with a finite impulse response (FIR) filter or an infinite impulse response (IIR) filter having a frequency response (e.g., bandwidth and delay) that can be adjusted with a set of filter coefficients.” – Col. 11, lines 29-33).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Ciccarelli et al. into the invention of Basile et al. as modified above to yield the invention of claim 3. Basile et al., Yu et al., Vasudha et al. and Ciccarelli et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention for the following reasons:
Basile et al. discloses: performing precise point positioning using GPS L1 and GPS L5 bands and a linear combination to correct for ionospheric error to reduce noise and improve efficiency
Yu et al. discloses: a GNSS receiver performs precise point positioning using multiple carrier signals, GPS L1 , GPS L2, and GPS L5, and uses low pass filters to reduce aliased signal components to improve accuracy and precision
Vasudha et al. discloses: a dual-frequency GNSS receiver and a ionosphere free linear combination to correct for ionospheric error to improve accuracy and efficiency
Ciccarelli et al. discloses: low pass filters for use in wireless communication systems where the bandwidth of the low pass filter is adjustable based on the received signal strength, and where the low pass filter can be implemented as an infinite impulse response filter that is adjusted with a set of coefficients in order to maximize the SNR of the filtered signals
Basile et al. as modified above discloses the Hatch filter. However, Basile et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the low pass filtering is obtained by an infinite impulse response filtering. This feature is disclosed by Ciccarelli et al. where “adjustable filter 610 may be implemented with a finite impulse response (FIR) filter or an infinite impulse response (IIR) filter” (Ciccarelli et al. Col. 11, lines 29-33). The combination of Basile et al., Yu et al., Vasudha et al. and Ciccarelli et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to mitigate, reduce or filter interference from one or more interference signals in order improve the accuracy and precision of position, velocity and altitude determinations (Yu et al. ¶ [0036]-[0037]), improve the accuracy of the positioning (Vasudha p. 136, right-hand column) and “adjust the frequency response (e.g., bandwidth, filter order, and so on) of the filters such that the SNR of the filtered signals, after fall of the filtering at the wireless device, if maximized.” (Ciccarelli et al. Col. 5, lines 5-8).
Regarding claim 4, Basile et al. as modified above discloses:
The method according to claim 2,
Ciccarelli et al. discloses:
wherein in the signal strength ranges are identified a range of higher values and a range of lower values (Ciccarelli et al. “The filter bandwidth can be adjusted based on the power regime of the received signal. In an embodiment, the entire input power range is divided into three power regimes – low/weak, intermediate, and high/strong power regimes.” – Col. 4, line 63 – Col. 5, line 1), lower than the higher values, the function yielding higher values of the low pass filter constant when the signal strength lies in the range of higher values (Ciccarelli et al. “In the presence of a relatively strong received signal, it is desirable to increase the bandwidth of filters 122 and 124 in order to capture as much of the signal energy as possible and minimize ICI.” – Col. 6, lines 8-11) and yield lower values, lower than the higher values, when the signal strength lies in the range of lower values (Ciccarelli et al. “In contrast, when the received signal strength (e.g. RSSI) is low, it may be desirable to reduce the bandwidth of filters 122 and 124… The reduction in bandwidth reduces the noise bandwidth and also improves adjacent channel interference reaction.” – Col. 6, lines 12-19).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Ciccarelli et al. into the invention of Basile et al. as modified above to yield the invention of claim 4. Basile et al., Yu et al., Vasudha et al. and Ciccarelli et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention for the following reasons:
Basile et al. discloses: performing precise point positioning using GPS L1 and GPS L5 bands and a linear combination to correct for ionospheric error to reduce noise and improve efficiency
Yu et al. discloses: a GNSS receiver performs precise point positioning using multiple carrier signals, GPS L1 , GPS L2, and GPS L5, and uses low pass filters to reduce aliased signal components to improve accuracy and precision
Vasudha et al. discloses: a dual-frequency GNSS receiver and a ionosphere free linear combination to correct for ionospheric error to improve accuracy and efficiency
Ciccarelli et al. discloses: low pass filters for use in wireless communication systems where the bandwidth of the low pass filter is adjustable based on the received signal strength, and where the low pass filter can be implemented as an infinite impulse response filter that is adjusted with a set of coefficients in order to maximize the SNR of the filtered signals.
Basile et al. as modified above discloses the Hatch filter. However, Basile et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein in the signal strength ranges are identified a range of higher values and a range of lower values, lower than the higher values, the function yielding higher values of the low pass filter constant when the signal strength lies in the range of higher values and yield lower values, lower than the higher values, when the signal strength lies in the range of lower values. This feature is disclosed by Ciccarelli et al. where “The filter bandwidth can be adjusted based on the power regime of the received signal. In an embodiment, the entire input power range is divided into three power regimes – low/weak, intermediate, and high/strong power regimes.”(Ciccarelli et al. Col. 4, line 63 – Col. 5, line 1). The combination of Basile et al., Yu et al., Vasudha et al. and Ciccarelli et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to mitigate, reduce or filter interference from one or more interference signals in order improve the accuracy and precision of position, velocity and altitude determinations (Yu et al. ¶ [0036]-[0037]), improve the accuracy of the positioning of the receiver (Vasudha p. 136, right-hand column) and “adjust the frequency response (e.g., bandwidth, filter order, and so on) of the filters such that the SNR of the filtered signals, after fall of the filtering at the wireless device, if maximized.” (Ciccarelli et al. Col. 5, lines 5-8).
Regarding claim 5, Basile et al. as modified above discloses:
The method according to claim 4, wherein the low pass filter (Basile et al. Hatch filter is an infinite impulse response filter and the general difference equation that characterizes infinite impulse response filters is a scaled sigmoid function, p. 1393, right-hand column).
Ciccarelli et al. discloses:
wherein the low pass filter constant is calculated as a function of the signal strength (Ciccarelli et al. “Jammer detector 160 may include a low pass filter… The filter, the delay unit, or both the filter and the delay unit may be adjusted based on the measured baseband power from the low pass filter output…” – Col. 9, lines 12-25) through the scaling of a sigmoid function (Ciccarelli et al. “For a digital design, adjustable filter 610 may be implemented with a finite impulse response (FIR) filter or an infinite impulse response (IIR) filter having a frequency response (e.g., bandwidth and delay) that can be adjusted with a set of filter coefficients.” – Col. 11, lines 29-33; the general difference equation that characterizes infinite impulse response filters is a scaled sigmoid function)
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Ciccarelli et al. into the invention of Basile et al. as modified above to yield the invention of claim 5. Basile et al., Yu et al., Vasudha et al. and Ciccarelli et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention for the following reasons:
Basile et al. discloses: performing precise point positioning using GPS L1 and GPS L5 bands and a linear combination to correct for ionospheric error to reduce noise and improve efficiency
Yu et al. discloses: a GNSS receiver performs precise point positioning using multiple carrier signals, GPS L1 , GPS L2, and GPS L5, and uses low pass filters to reduce aliased signal components to improve accuracy and precision
Vasudha et al. discloses: a dual-frequency GNSS receiver and a ionosphere free linear combination to correct for ionospheric error to improve accuracy and efficiency
Ciccarelli et al. discloses: low pass filters for use in wireless communication systems where the bandwidth of the low pass filter is adjustable based on the received signal strength, and where the low pass filter can be implemented as an infinite impulse response filter that is adjusted with a set of coefficients in order to maximize the SNR of the filtered signals
Basile et al. as modified above discloses the Hatch filter. However, Basile et al. fails to explicitly disclose the low pass filter constant is calculated as a function of the signal strength. This feature is disclosed by Ciccarelli et al. where “Jammer detector 160 may include a low pass filter… The filter, the delay unit, or both the filter and the delay unit may be adjusted based on the measured baseband power from the low pass filter output…” (Ciccarelli et al. Col. 9, lines 12-25). The combination of Basile et al., Yu et al., Vasudha et al. and Ciccarelli et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to mitigate, reduce or filter interference from one or more interference signals in order improve the accuracy and precision of position, velocity and altitude determinations (Yu et al. ¶ [0036]-[0037]), improve the accuracy of the positioning (Vasudha p. 136, right-hand column) and “adjust the frequency response (e.g., bandwidth, filter order, and so on) of the filters such that the SNR of the filtered signals, after fall of the filtering at the wireless device, if maximized.” (Ciccarelli et al. Col. 5, lines 5-8).
Regarding claim 14, the same cited section and rationale as corresponding claim 2 is applied.
Regarding claim 15, the same cited section and rationale as corresponding claim 3 is applied.
Regarding claim 16, the same cited section and rationale as corresponding claim 4 is applied.
Regarding claim 17, the same cited section and rationale as corresponding claim 5 is applied.
Regarding claim 20, the same cited section and rationale as corresponding claim 2 is applied.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAOMI M WOLFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-3929. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 4:30 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571)270-5144. 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.
NAOMI M. WOLFORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/N.M.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 3648
7 FEB 2026
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648