DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Initially, the following is noted.
“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing recent cases wherein the court expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment); E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Interpretation of descriptive statements in a patent’s written description is a difficult task, as an inherent tension exists as to whether a statement is a clear lexicographic definition or a description of a preferred embodiment. The problem is to interpret claims ‘in view of the specification’ without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims.”); Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1869-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Although the specification discussed only a single embodiment, the court held that it was improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where, as a matter of logic or grammar, the language of the method claims did not impose a specific order on the performance of the method steps, and the specification did not directly or implicitly require a particular order). When an element is claimed using language falling under the scope of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph (often broadly referred to as means- (or step-) plus- function language), the specification must be consulted to determine the structure, material, or acts corresponding to the function recited in the claim, and the claimed element is construed as limited to the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (see MPEP § 2181- MPEP § 2186).
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (referring to “the danger” of importing claim limitations from the specification). See also Varco, L.P. v. Pason Sys. USA Corp., 436 F.3d 1368, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (stating how the Federal Circuit “will not at any time” bring in claim limitations from the specification); Comark Commc'ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186-67 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (following that limitations from the specification are not to be read into the claims).
The claims fail to clearly and distinctly define the metes and bound of the inventive subject matter. Applicant appears to be attempting to incorporate limitations from the specification into the claims, which as noted above is improper.
Regarding claim 1, and similarly claims 12 and 20, it is unclear and not readily understood of how and in what manner an approximate location of the GNSS device is determined. Based on what information that the GNSS device used or processed for determining its approximate is not clear.
Still regarding claim 1, and similarly claims 12 and 20, the claims are rejected as being incomplete for omitting essential step(s), such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted step is: receiving pseudorange measurements from the satellite vehicles.
In addition still regarding claim 1, and similarly claims 12 and 20, the term “a portion” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a portion” 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.
Also still regarding claim 1, and similarly claims 12 and 20, the claims are rejected as being incomplete for omitting essential step(s) or an end result. The omitted step(s) is the step(s) wherein the claimed limitation is actually doing something tangible with the end result, i.e. the location estimate of the GNSS device is put to use or output a concrete result.
Regarding claim 6, what is meant and encompasses “one or more respective features of the respective GNSS signal” is unclear and not readily understood. It lacks any definite limits within the boundary of the claim.
Regarding claim 7, and similarly claim 16, how and in what manner “at least a subset of the plurality of pseudorange measurements” is determined or selected. It lacks any clarity as to what the metes and bounds of such encompasses.
Other claims are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim(s).
It is Applicant’s responsibility to draft a clear and concise set of claims defining the metes and bounds of Applicant’s invention. While the Office has noted numerous instances of these issues above, the claims consistently show that they lack a clear definition of the Applicant’s invention. Applicant should review all of the outstanding claims in response hereto. All of the claims should be reviewed for issues related to clarity and scope as the errors/issues are not constrained to those listed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowed over prior art. However, 35 USC 112(b) rejections must be overcome.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 12,248,082 discloses an invention that may improve the performance and accuracy of GNSS-based positioning, where a position-grid based ML may be implemented by a UE or a location server to improve the accuracy of identifying a warm-start position of the UE. In one aspect, a UE or a location server determines, for each grid point within a range of an initial position of a UE, a set of PR residuals based on PRs for each SV of a set of SVs. The UE or the location server determines an estimated position of the UE based on the sets of determined PR residuals.
US 11,378,699 discloses a system or method for generating GNSS corrections can include receiving satellite observations associated with a set of satellites at a reference station, determining atmospheric corrections valid within a geographical area; wherein geographical areas associated with different atmospheric corrections can be overlapping, and wherein the atmospheric corrections can be provided to a GNSS receiver when the locality of the GNSS receiver is within a transmission region of the geographical area.
US 7,911,378 discloses a method and system for approximating a position using a Global Navigational Satellite System (GNSS) having a plurality of GNSS satellites and an augmentation system, the method including the steps of obtaining an initial code pseudorange measurement and an initial carrier phase measurement from a signal transmitted by a GNSS satellite in the GNSS system, receiving a code correction from the augmentation system, using the code correction to correct the initial code pseudorange measurement and the initial carrier phase measurement to mitigate for errors in the signal, to result in a corrected code pseudorange measurement and a corrected carrier phase measurement, and using a code dominated measurement in a filter which outputs apposition and ambiguity estimate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUONG P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 10:00-10:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JACK KEITH can be reached at (571) 272-6878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHUONG P NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights