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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: “PNT” in line 1 and “AESA” line 4. The acronyms PNT and AESA should be accompanied by the language they represent when first introduced.
Claims 4-5, 12, 14, 20 objected to because of the following informalities: “PN” in claim 4 line 1, claim 5 line 2, claim 12 line 1, claim 14 line 1, claim 20 line 1, respectively. The acronyms PN should be accompanied by the language they represent when first introduced.
Claim 11 objected to because of the following informalities: 1) “PNT” in line 1 and “AESA” line 6. The acronyms PNT and AESA should be accompanied by the language they represent when first introduced. 2) “a AESA antenna” in line 6. It appears that “a” should be “an”. 3) “scan a narrow high-gain beam” in line 7. It appears that it should be “scan with a narrow high-gain beam”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 objected to because of the following informalities: 1) “PNT” in line 1 and “INS” line 10. The acronyms PNT and INS should be accompanied by the language they represent when first introduced. 2) “between of said receiving unit between updates” in line 11. It appears that it should be “of said receiving unit between updates”.
Claim 19 objected to because of the following informalities: “AESA” in line 1. The acronyms AESA should be accompanied by the language they represent when first introduced.
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 1-20 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 limitations: 1) "at least one satellite" in line 3. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the "at least one satellite" in line 3 relates to the “at least one satellite” defined in line 2. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as "the at least one satellite ". 2) “an AESA antenna coupled to each satellite and receiver” in line 4. It is indefinite because: i) it is not clear whether or not the “each satellite and receiver” in line 4 relate to the “at least one satellite” defined in line 2 and the “at least one receiver unit” defined in line 3. ii) it is not clear where the “an AESA antenna” is located because the “an AESA antenna” can only be coupled to either “each satellite” or the “each receiver”. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “an AESA antenna coupled to each of the at least one receiver unit ”. 3) “at least one receiver” in line 5. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “at least one receiver” in line 5 relates to the “at least one receiver unit” defined in line 3. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “the at least one receiver unit”. 4) “in between” in lines 5-6. It is indefinite because it is not clear which one of “in” and “between” is used in the claim. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “in”. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claims 2-10 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1 because each of dependent claims 2-10 is unclear, at least, in that it depends on unclear independent claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the limitations: 1) “at least one satellite” in line 1. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether the “at least one satellite” in line 1 is the same as the “at least one satellite” defined in claim 1 line 2. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “the at least one satellite”. 2) “a receiver” in line 2. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “a receiver” in line 2 is the same as the “at least one receiver unit” defined in claim 1 line 3. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “the at least one receiver unit”. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the master clock” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “master clock” is not defined or mentioned. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “a master reference clock”. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the satellites” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “satellites” is not defined or mentioned. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “the at least one satellite”. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 11 recites the limitations: 1) “each satellite and receiver” in lines 4, 6, and 10. It is indefinite because: i) it is not clear whether or not the “each satellite and receiver” in lines 4, 6, and 10 relate to the “a plurality of satellites” defined in line 2 and the “a plurality of receiver units” defined in line 3. ii) it is not clear whether or not the “each satellite and receiver” in lines 4, 6, and 10 are the same. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “each of the plurality of satellites and each of the plurality of receiver units ”. 2) “an AESA antenna coupled to each satellite and receiver” in line 4. It is indefinite because: i) it is not clear whether or not the “each satellite and receiver” in line 4 relate to the “at least one satellite” defined in line 2 and the “at least one receiver unit” defined in line 3. ii) it is not clear where the “an AESA antenna” is located because the “an AESA antenna” can only be coupled to either “each satellite” or the “each receiver”. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “an AESA antenna coupled to each of the plurality of receiver units ”. 3) “an inertial navigation system coupled to each satellite and receiver” in line 10. It is indefinite because: i) it is not clear whether or not the “each satellite and receiver” in line 4 relate to the “at least one satellite” defined in line 2 and the “at least one receiver unit” defined in line 3. ii) it is not clear where the “an inertial navigation system” is located because the “an inertial navigation system” can only be coupled to either “each satellite” or “each receiver”. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “an inertial navigation system coupled to each of the plurality of the receiver units ”. 4) “said receiver unit” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “receiver unit” is not defined or mentioned. It is not clear which one in “a plurality of receiver units” mentioned in line 3 “said receiver unit” represents. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “each receiver unit in the plurality of receiver units”. 5) “in between” in line 13. It is indefinite because it is not clear which one of “in” and “between” is used in the claim. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “in”. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claims 12-17 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 11 because each of dependent claims 12-17 is unclear, at least, in that it depends on unclear independent claim 11.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “each satellite and receiver” in lines 1-2. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “each satellite and receiver” relate to the “a plurality of satellites” defined in claim 11 line 2 and the “a plurality of receiver units” defined in claim 11 line 3. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “each of the plurality of satellites and each of the plurality of receiver units ”. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 14 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 13 because dependent claim 14 is unclear, at least, in that it depends on unclear claim 13.
Claim 16 recites the limitations: 1) “the beams” in line 1. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not “the beams” represents the “a narrow high-gain beam” defined in claim 11 line 7. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “the narrow high-gain beams”. 2) “three satellites” in line 1. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “three satellites” in line 1 relate to the “a plurality of satellites” defined in claim 11 line 2. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “three satellites in the plurality of satellites”. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 17 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 16 because dependent claim 17 is unclear, at least, in that it depends on unclear claim 16.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “between updates” in line 11. It is indefinite because it is not clear which one of the “a time and range update” mentioned in lines 3, 6, and 9, the “a first update” in line 2, the “a second update” in line 4, and the “a third update” in line 7 the “updates” in line 11 relate to. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “between the time and range updates at the first location, the second location, and the third location”. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claims 19-20 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 18 because each of dependent claims 19-20 is unclear, at least, in that it depends on unclear independent claim 18.
The term “high” in claim 2 line 2, claim 11 line 7, claim 19 line 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. “gain” in claim 2 line 2, claim 11 line 7, claim 19 line 2 has been rendered indefinite by the use of the term “high”.
Claims 12-17 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 11 because each of dependent claims 12-17 is unclear, at least, in that it depends on unclear independent claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cohen (US 20160011318, hereafter Cohen).
Regarding claim 18, Cohen (‘318) discloses that A method for determining PNT using a receiving unit { Fig.1; abstract lines 1-5 (Significant, cost-effective improvement is introduced for Position, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) on a global basis, particularly enhancing the performance of Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS), an example of which is the Global Positioning System (GPS). ); claim 1 (A method for Supporting resilient carrier phase positioning of at least one user device utilizing a service data processor, measurements received from Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) satellites, and measurements received from low Earth orbit (LEO) satellites,)}, comprising the steps of:
performing a first update by bidirectionally linking to a first satellite using two-way time transfer to acquire a time and range update at a first location {Fig.1 (see marks below); Fig.15; Fig.16 (Receiver); [0089] lines 10-12 (Crosslinks provide two-way timing and ranging measurements between any given pair of SurePointTM satellites in view of each other that is independent of GNSS); [0127] line 1 (FIG. 15 shows the user equipment hardware); [0128] lines 1-2 (FIG. 16 shows the Receiver Navigation Processing Architecture.); Examiner’s note: each satellite is at a location at a time. Receiver at user accept multiple satellite data for “bidirectionally linking” };
PNG
media_image1.png
548
802
media_image1.png
Greyscale
performing a second update, a fixed amount of time after said first update, by bidirectionally linking to a second satellite using two-way time transfer to acquire a time and range update at a second location {Fig.1 (see marks above); Fig.15; Fig.16 (Receiver); Fig.44 (see mark below); [0089] lines 10-12 (Crosslinks provide two-way timing and ranging measurements between any given pair of SurePointTM satellites in view of each other that is independent of GNSS); [0127] line 1 (FIG. 15 shows the user equipment hardware); [0128] lines 1-2 (FIG. 16 shows the Receiver Navigation Processing Architecture.); Examiner’s note: each satellite is at a location at a time. Receiver at user accept multiple satellite data for “bidirectionally linking” };
PNG
media_image2.png
397
861
media_image2.png
Greyscale
performing a third update, a fixed amount of time after said second update, by bidirectionally linking to a third satellite using two-way time transfer to acquire a time and range update at a third location { Fig.7; Fig.15; Fig.16 (Receiver); Fig.44 (see mark below); [0089] lines 10-12 (Crosslinks provide two-way timing and ranging measurements between any given pair of SurePointTM satellites in view of each other that is independent of GNSS); [0127] line 1 (FIG. 15 shows the user equipment hardware); [0128] lines 1-2 (FIG. 16 shows the Receiver Navigation Processing Architecture.); Examiner’s note: each satellite is at a location at a time. Receiver at user accept multiple satellite data for “bidirectionally linking”};
PNG
media_image3.png
397
861
media_image3.png
Greyscale
determining INS data, using an inertial navigation system, said INS data including the relative motion between of said receiving unit between updates { Fig.15 (user equipment hardware) item IMU; [0011] lines 7-8 (Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs); [0115] lines 13-16 (and an inertial measurement unit model, whose perturbations are functions of Cartesian position and velocity bias and attitude, accelerometer, and gyro biases.)}; and
determining the PNT of said receiving unit utilizing an extended Kalman filter, said INS data, and said updates {Fig.15; Fig.16; [0128] lines 5-6 (A Kalman Filter time update); [0128] lines 1-6 (FIG. 16 shows the Receiver Navigation Processing Architecture. The state is defined as vector position, velocity, attitude, user clock time and rate, accelerometer bias, gyro bias, Zenith troposphere, and a clock and clock rate term for each GNSS and SurePointTM Satellite in view); [0141] lines 1-5 (From GPS satellite observables, the inertial biases are generally observable, with the exception of the position offset over an inertial measurement unit time constant. Therefore, when the inertial model is integrated with the above observation equation); [0147] lines 1-3 (a Kalman filter implementation of the observation equations is combined with refined clock and orbit models.) }.
Regarding claim 20, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claim 4. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 4, shown below.
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.
Claims 1-9, 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen (‘318) in view of Campbell et al. (US 10,566,683, hereafter Campbell).
Regarding claim 1, Cohen (‘318) discloses that A PNT system { Fig.1; abstract lines 1-5 (Significant, cost-effective improvement is introduced for Position, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) on a global basis, particularly enhancing the performance of Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS), an example of which is the Global Positioning System (GPS). ) [0028] lines 1-2 (Fig.1, system)} comprising:
at least one satellite configured to transmit PNT signal transmissions at a fixed interval { Fig.1 (GNSS satellites); Fig.39 (GPS, LEO); Examiner’s note: GPS broadcast PNT data with a data format, which is inherent for the claimed language “transmit PNT signal transmissions at a fixed interval”.};
at least one receiver unit bidirectionally linked to at least one satellite { Fig.15; Fig.16; Fig.26 (see marks for “bidirectionally linked to at least one satellite”) [0127] line 1 (FIG. 15 shows the user equipment hardware); [0128] lines 1-2 (FIG. 16 shows the Receiver Navigation Processing Architecture.); [0196] lines 1-2 (FIG. 26 shows the concept of operations for proof of user position.) };
PNG
media_image4.png
538
755
media_image4.png
Greyscale
an inertial navigation system coupled to at least one receiver configured to provide PNT in between each occurrence of the fixed interval { Fig.15 (user equipment hardware) item IMU; Fig.16 (receiver Navigation Processing Architecture); [0011] lines 7-8 (Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs),); [0127] line 1 (FIG. 15 shows the user equipment hardware); [0128] lines 1-2 (FIG. 16 shows the Receiver Navigation Processing Architecture.); [0141] lines 1-5 (From GPS satellite observables, the inertial biases are generally observable, with the exception of the position offset over an inertial measurement unit time constant. Therefore, when the inertial model is integrated with the above observation equation); Examiner’s note: IMU for “an inertial navigation system”. Fig.15 for “an inertial navigation system coupled to at least one receiver”. [0141] lines 1-5 for “provide PNT in between each occurrence of the fixed interval”}.
However, Cohen (‘318) does not explicitly disclose “an AESA antenna coupled to each satellite and receiver”. In the same field of endeavor, Campbell (‘683) discloses that
an AESA antenna coupled to each satellite and receiver { Fig.1; Fig.4 items 108 (Tx ESA), 102 (Rx ESA); col.4 lines 14-15 (aircraft 12, equipped with, communication system 50), 61-62 (multi - panel AESA, for the communication system 50); col.6 lines 32-33 (a phased array module 120 for the communication system 50 (FIG. 2)) };
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Cohen (‘318) with the teachings of Campbell (‘683) (use AESA antenna for communication between satellite and receiver) to use AESA antenna for communication between satellite and receiver. Doing so would provide narrow beam so as to precisely point to an interest area for more accurate position determination, as recognized by Campbell (‘683) {col.6 lines 9-10 (for more accurate position determination), 21-22 (allow a narrow beam to be more precisely pointed in some embodiments)}.
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1, Cohen (‘318) does not explicitly disclose that “each AESA antenna is configured to scan a narrow high-gain beam over a volume of interest”. In the same field of endeavor, Campbell (‘683) discloses that in the PNT system,
each AESA antenna is configured to scan a narrow high-gain beam over a volume of interest {Fig.4 items 210a-d, 214a-b; col.6 lines 21-22 (allow a narrow beam to be more precisely pointed in some embodiments); col.7 lines 48 (the appropriate amount of gain and phase), 56-58 (variable gain amplifiers 210A-D, summers 214A and 214B)}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Cohen (‘318) with the teachings of Campbell (‘683) (use AESA antenna having narrow beam with appropriate amount of gain for communication between satellite and receiver) to use AESA antenna having narrow beam with appropriate amount of gain for communication between satellite and receiver. Doing so would provide narrow beam so as to precisely point to an interest area for more accurate position determination, as recognized by Campbell (‘683) {col.6 lines 9-10 (for more accurate position determination), 21-22 (allow a narrow beam to be more precisely pointed in some embodiments)}.
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Cohen (‘318) and Campbell (‘683) discloses that in the PNT system,
each receiver unit is bidirectionally linked to each satellite using two-way time transfer {see Cohen (‘318) [0089] lines 10-12 (Crosslinks provide two-way timing and ranging measurements between any given pair of SurePointTM satellites in view of each other that is independent of GNSS)}.
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claims 1 and 3, the combination of Cohen (‘318) and Campbell (‘683) discloses that in the PNT system,
each satellite is further configured to transmit PN codes with correlations for pseudo-range calculations {see Cohen (‘318) Fig.25 (watermark PRN generator, real-Time Correlators, watermark correlators, GNSS signal); [0095] lines 2-3 (GPS C/A code); [0100] lines 7-8 (A transmit processing function employs a pseudo-random noise code generator); [0114] lines 1-4 (the pseudorange from a transmitter to a receiver is given by the Sum of the vacuum medium speed of light distance and the transmitter and receiver clock offsets); [0117] lines 5-6 (raw pseudorange measurements from GPS); Examiner’s note: GPS C/A code is PRN code. GNSS signal is “for pseudo-range calculations” }.
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Cohen (‘318) and Campbell (‘683) discloses that in the PNT system,
at least one satellite includes a unidirectional link to a receiver { see Cohen (‘318) Fig.26 see link to GNSS},
wherein said unidirectional link is configured to use PN codes with correlations for pseudo-range calculations at the receiver { see Cohen (‘318) Fig.25 (watermark PRN generator, real-Time Correlators, watermark correlators, GNSS signal); [0095] lines 2-3 (GPS C/A code) [0100] lines 7-8 (A transmit processing function employs a pseudo-random noise code generator); [0114] lines 1-4 (the pseudorange from a transmitter to a receiver is given by the Sum of the vacuum medium speed of light distance and the transmitter and receiver clock offsets); [0117] lines 5-6 (raw pseudorange measurements from GPS); Examiner’s note: GPS C/A code is PRN code. GNSS signal is “for pseudo-range calculations” }.
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Cohen (‘318) and Campbell (‘683) discloses that the PNT system further comprising
a control station including a master reference clock {see Cohen (‘318) Fig.1 (ground reference station); [0093] lines 6-8 (ground stations have a direct hard line feed from the United States Naval Obseratory (USNO) Master Clock to maintain a reference)}.
Regarding claim 7, which depends on claims 1 and 6, the combination of Cohen (‘318) and Campbell (‘683) discloses that in the PNT system,
each satellite performs periodic time updates by utilizing two-way time transfer with said master reference clock { Fig.1 (ground reference station, crosslinks) see part with mark below; [0089] lines 10-12 (Crosslinks provide two-way timing and ranging measurements between any given pair of SurePointTM satellites in view of each other that is independent of GNSS); [0092] lines 1-3 (Real-time updates from the same set of observables listed above for orbit determination are also applicable to calibrating the spacecraft clocks in real time.); [0093] lines 6-8 (ground stations have a direct hard line feed from the United States Naval Obseratory (USNO) Master Clock to maintain a reference) }.
PNG
media_image5.png
587
822
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Cohen (‘318) and Campbell (‘683) discloses that in the PNT system,
each satellite further includes an oscillator calibrated by the master clock using two-way time transfer {see Cohen (‘318) [0089] lines 10-12 (Crosslinks provide two-way timing and ranging measurements between any given pair of SurePointTM satellites in view of each other that is independent of GNSS); [0093] lines 6-8 (ground stations have a direct hard line feed from the United States Naval Obseratory (USNO) Master Clock to maintain a reference); [0219] lines 5-6 (GPS and LEO clocks are also assumed to be calibrated by the ground network); [0232] lines 1-2 (The satellite design Supports the use of an oscillator); [0303] lines 7-11 (A network of ground reference stations monitors the GNSS broadcast globally and calibrates all signal parameters to the centimeter level. The calibration parameters are uplinked and disseminated via the crosslinks)}.
Regarding claim 9, which depends on claim 1, Cohen (‘318) does not explicitly disclose that “the AESA antennas utilize a time division multiplexing scheme when scanning”. In the same field of endeavor, Campbell (‘683) discloses that
the AESA antennas utilize a time division multiplexing scheme when scanning { Fig.4 items 206a-d, 208a-d; col.7 lines 25-28 (receive ESAs 102, 104 and 106 each include subarrays 156A and 156B including antenna elements 158, interface circuits 160Aand 160B, summer circuits 162A and 162B), 54-56 (interface circuits 160A and 160 B each include, a set of phase control circuits 206A-D, a set of phase control or time delay circuits 208A-D); Examiner’s note: “time delay” for “a time division multiplexing scheme”}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Cohen (‘318) with the teachings of Campbell (‘683) (use AESA antenna with time delay for communication between satellite and receiver) to use AESA antenna with time delay for communication between satellite and receiver. Doing so would provide narrow beam as well as different polarization signals so as to precisely point to an interest area for more accurate position determination, as recognized by Campbell (‘683) {col.6 lines 9-10 (for more accurate position determination), 21-22 (allow a narrow beam to be more precisely pointed in some embodiments); col.7 lines 59-61 (summers 214A and 214B provided the receive signals, on a first path for the first polarization signals and a second path for the second polarization signals)}.
Regarding claim 11, Cohen (‘318) discloses that A PNT system { Fig.1; abstract lines 1-5 (Significant, cost-effective improvement is introduced for Position, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) on a global basis, particularly enhancing the performance of Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS), an example of which is the Global Positioning System (GPS). ) [0028] lines 1-2 (Fig.1, system)} comprising:
a plurality of satellites { Fig.1 (GNSS satellites, nanosatellites); Fig.39 (GPS, LEO)};
a plurality of receiver units {Fig.1 (users); Examiner’s note: Fig.1 shows that users are receivers};
a bidirectional link between each satellite and receiver { Fig.15; Fig.16; Fig.26 (see marks below for “bidirectionally linked to at least one satellite”); [0127] line 1 (FIG. 15 shows the user equipment hardware); [0128] lines 1-2 (FIG. 16 shows the Receiver Navigation Processing Architecture.); [0196] lines 1-2 (FIG. 26 shows the concept of operations for proof of user position.) }, wherein said bidirectional link is configured to use two-way time transfer { [0089] lines 10-12 (Crosslinks provide two-way timing and ranging measurements between any given pair of SurePointTM satellites in view of each other that is independent of GNSS)},
PNG
media_image4.png
538
755
media_image4.png
Greyscale
{Fig.1 (GNSS satellites); Figs.14-16; Fig.39 (GPS, LEO); [0095] lines 9-10 (known repeating characteristics in the GPS data stream); Examiner’s note: GPS broadcast PNT data with a data format, which is inherent for the claimed language “a fixed interval of time”. Operations of Figs.14-16 are based on observed satellite data, which is for “each update period”, therefore after receiving GPS/GNSS data, that is, “after a fixed interval of time”}; and
an inertial navigation system coupled to each satellite and receiver {Fig.15 (user equipment hardware) item IMU; Fig.16 (receiver Navigation Processing Architecture); [0011] lines 7-8 (Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs),); [0127] line 1 (FIG. 15 shows the user equipment hardware); [0128] lines 1-2 (FIG. 16 shows the Receiver Navigation Processing Architecture.)},
wherein at each update period, said receiver unit is configured to establish a connection to at least one satellite to determine PNT {Fig.1; Fig.16 (receiver Navigation Processing Architecture); Fig.44 (timeline); [0128] lines 1-5 (FIG. 16 shows the Receiver Navigation Processing Architecture. The state is defined as vector position, velocity, attitude, user clock time and rate, accelerometer bias, gyro bias, Zenith troposphere, and a clock and clock rate term for each GNSS and SurePointTM Satellite in view); Examiner’s note: Fig.1 for “establish a connection to at least one satellite to determine PNT”; Fig.16 for “at each update period” and “establish a connection to at least one satellite to determine PNT”}; and
wherein said inertial navigation system is configured to provide PNT in between each update period by utilizing an extended Kalman filter {[0128] lines 6-7 (A Kalman Filter time update); [0141] lines 1-5 (From GPS satellite observables, the inertial biases are generally observable, with the exception of the position offset over an inertial measurement unit time constant. Therefore, when the inertial model is integrated with the above observation equation); [0147] lines 1-3 (a Kalman filter implementation of the observation equations is combined with refined clock and orbit models.) }.
However, Cohen (‘318) does not explicitly disclose (see words with underline) “a AESA antenna coupled to each satellite and receiver, wherein each AESA antenna is configured to scan a narrow high-gain beam over a volume of interest at each occurrence of an update period”. In the same field of endeavor, Campbell (‘683) discloses that
a AESA antenna coupled to each satellite and receiver { Fig.1; Fig.4 items 108 (Tx ESA), 102 (Rx ESA); col.4 lines 14-15 (aircraft 12, equipped with, communication system 50), 61-62 (multi - panel AESA, for the communication system 50); col.6 lines 32-33 (a phased array module 120 for the communication system 50 (FIG. 2)) },
wherein each AESA antenna is configured to scan a narrow high-gain beam over a volume of interest at each occurrence of an update period {Fig.4 items 210a-d, 214a-b; col.6 lines 6-8 (The GNSS receivers 112 and 114 communicate with GNSS satellites to determine positioning for the satellite communication system 50.), 21-22 (allow a narrow beam to be more precisely pointed in some embodiments); col.7 lines 10-12 (The processor 132 provides positioning data to the sub array controller 146 so that the beams are pointed in appropriate directions), 48 (the appropriate amount of gain and phase), 52-54 (variable gain amplifiers 210A-D, summers 214A and 214B); Examiner’s note: “determine positioning” for “at each occurrence of an update period”},
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Cohen (‘318) with the teachings of Campbell (‘683) (use AESA antenna for communication between satellite and receiver to determine position) to use AESA antenna for communication between satellite and receiver to determine position. Doing so would provide narrow beam so as to precisely point to an interest area for more accurate position determination, as recognized by Campbell (‘683) {col.6 lines 9-10 (for more accurate position determination), 21-22 (allow a narrow beam to be more precisely pointed in some embodiments)}.
Regarding claim 12, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claim 4. Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 4, shown above.
Regarding claims 13-14, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claim 5. Accordingly, claims 13-14 are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 5, shown above.
Regarding claim 15, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claim 6. Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 6, shown above.
Regarding claim 16, which depends on claim 11, the combination of Cohen (‘318) and Campbell (‘683) discloses that in the PNT system,
the intersection of the beams from three satellites creates an operational volume {see Cohen (‘318) Fig.1 (see marks below)}.
PNG
media_image6.png
565
793
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, which depends on claims 11 and 16, the combination of Cohen (‘318) and Campbell (‘683) discloses that in the PNT system,
the operational volume is configured such that a user in the operational volume is visible to at least three satellites {see Cohen (‘318) Fig.1 (see marks above in the rejection of claim 16).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen (‘318) and Campbell (‘683) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Turner et al . (US 10,707,961, hereafter Turner).
Regarding claim 10, which depends on claim 1, Cohen (‘318) discloses that in the PNT system,
the satellites are in communication with each other by an {Fig.1 (crosslink); [0089] lines 10-12 (Crosslinks provide two-way timing and ranging measurements between any given pair of SurePointTM satellites in view of each other that is independent of GNSS.); [0116] line 5 (crosslinks of a high enough frequency, such as Ka band)}.
PNG
media_image7.png
551
808
media_image7.png
Greyscale
However, Cohen (‘318) and Campbell (‘683) do not explicitly disclose (see word with underline) “the satellites are in communication with each other by an optical inter-satellite link”. In the same field of endeavor, Turner (‘961) discloses that
the satellites are in communication with each other by an optical inter-satellite link { Fig.1; Fig.12 (optical inter-satellite link (ISL) Beam 1, Beam 2); Abstract line 2 (two or more satellites using laser communications); col.8 line 54 (satellites use lasers for inter - satellite)}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Cohen (‘318) and Campbell (‘683) with the teachings of Turner (‘961) {use optical inter-satellite link for two or more satellites communications } to use optical inter-satellite link for two or more satellites communications. Doing so would provide high - speed communication in space so as to meet the needs for high data rate communication services , as recognized by Turner (‘961) {col.1 lines 24-25 (provide such high data rate communication services, meet these needs); col.2 line 1 (provide high - speed communication in space)}.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen (‘318) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Mizzoni et al. (US 9,054,414, hereafter Mizzoni).
Regarding claim 19, which depends on claim 18, Cohen (‘318) discloses that in the method,
each satellite includes an {Fig.1; Fig.3 (antenna); Fig.15; Fig.16 (receiver); Fig.47; [0099] lines 1-2 (Transmit/Receive module for the satellite payload is shown in FIG. 3); [0259] lines 3-7 (permits groups of satellites to operate in coherent unison for greater PNT-enabled purposes. Fig.45, 3,000 free-flying aperture elements are deployed in an orbit near the geosynchronous altitude); [0268] lines 1-2 (FIG. 47 shows an example of the pattern obtained from a regional distributed aperture); Examiner’s note: Fig.1, Fig.15, Fig.16 shows that receiver at user accepts multiple satellite data for “each update”. Fig.47 for “narrow high-gain beam”}.
However, Cohen (‘318) does not explicitly disclose (see word with underline) “each satellite includes an AESA antenna”. In the same field of endeavor, Mizzoni (‘414) discloses that
each satellite includes an AESA antenna {Fig.1 item 13 (an electronically steerable planar radiating array 13); col.5 lines 14-15 (the antenna system 1, which is designed to be installed on a LEO satellite), 21(an electronically steerable planar radiating array 13); col.7 lines 30-31 (electronically steerable planar radiating array 13) }.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Cohen (‘318) with the teachings of Mizzoni (‘414) {use electronically steerable planar radiating array on satellite} to use electronically steerable planar radiating array on satellite. Doing so would provide an antenna system with high gain narrow beam for satellites (e.g. LEO) that can compensate the different spatial attenuation of the satellite-Earth path so that the transmission of data from satellites to Earth stations can respect a further important requirement linked to the maximum power densities allowed on the Earth towards the Earth stations, as recognized by Mizzoni (‘414) {col.3 lines 15-19 (the transmission of data from LEO satellites to Earth stations must respect a further important requirement linked to the maximum power densities allowed on the Earth towards the Earth stations), 26-30 (provide an antenna system for LEO satellites that will enable alleviation, at least in part, of the disadvantages described previously and will enable the transmission requirements referred to previously to be met.); col.4 lines 56-57 (the antenna system comprises an electronically steerable planar radiating array), 62-64 (compensates , the different spatial attenuation of the satellite-Earth path); col.13 lines 8-11 (increasing the number of radiating elements (in fact, the antenna gain and the beam width in φ vary linearly as a function of the dimensions of the array 13 or 53), 21 (planar arrays present a high gain)}.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11,272,003 discloses that “each satellite further includes an oscillator calibrated by the master clock using two-way time transfer” { Col.6 lines 23 (The satellite 10 may include an atomic clock.), 29-31 (After the clock in the router 11 is calibrated, a time of the atomic clock in the GPS satellite and a time of the clock in the router 11 are synchronous), 40 (the router 11 may be a clock source), 43 (primary reference time clock ( ePRTC) }, which further support the rejection of claim 8.
US 20180175920 discloses that “the AESA antennas utilize a time division multiplexing scheme when scanning” { Abstract, lines 2 (AESA), 4 (time division) }, which further support the rejection of claim 9.
US9602580 discloses that “the satellites are in communication with each other by an optical inter-satellite link” { Col.5 line 19 (laser inter-satellite link (ISLs))); col.19 line 42 (optical inter-satellite link) }, which further support the rejection of claim 10.
US 9,360,323 discloses that “wherein each update period occurs after a fixed interval of time” {Fig.9}, “wherein at each update period, said receiver unit is configured to establish a connection to at least one satellite to determine PNT” {Fig.9}, which further support the rejection of claim 11.
US 20210208286 discloses that “the intersection of the beams from three satellites creates an operational volume” {Fig.4} and “the operational volume is configured such that a user in the operational volume is visible to at least three satellites” {Fig.4}, which further support the rejections of claims 16-17.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONGHONG LI whose telephone number is (571)272-5946. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/YONGHONG LI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3648