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 INTERPRETATION
The broadest reasonable interpretation of method claims 6-20 requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.
In claim 6 lines 4-6, the step “adjusting, by the second receiver, the second local clock time by applying the correction factor time to the second local clock time when the correction factor time is within a predetermined correction threshold” is not required to be performed unless the correction factor time is within the predetermined correction threshold. The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 6 therefore does not require this step. See MPEP 2111.04 II and Ex parte Schulhauser.
Claims 7-9 depend on claim 6 and recite further steps related to adjusting the second local clock time that are not required to be performed unless the correction factor time is within the predetermined correction threshold.
Claim 10 recites the detection of an anomaly, the anomaly being one of three types i)-iii). Claims 11-20 depend on claim 10 and recite steps that are performed “in response to” the anomaly being one of the three types. The steps recited in claims 11-14 are not required to be performed unless the anomaly detected in claim 10 is i) the loss of the second signal. The steps recited in claims 15-16 are not required to be performed unless the anomaly detected in claim 10 is ii) the discontinuity in the second signal. The steps recited in claims 17-20 are not required to be performed unless the anomaly detected in claim 10 is iii) the correction factor time exceeding the predetermined correction threshold. As only one of the types of anomalies is required to be detected in claim 10, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claims 10-20 requires the features of only one of the claim groups 11-14, 15-16, and 17-20.
In claim 15, “utilizing, by the second receiver, the associated time of the plurality of signals from the source with caution” is understood in view of para. [0044] of the specification “In this context, “with caution” means to de-prioritize or de-weight a particular signal and/or solution, for example, such as when combining the signal with other signals and/or solutions to arrive at an aggregate, ensemble solution.”
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, 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkatraman (US 20120177027 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Venkatraman (US 20120177027 A1) teaches a method, comprising:
receiving, by a timing validation service (TMV) (timing information server 212, Fig. 2 as described in paras. [0041]-[0042]) from a first receiver at a first node (204, Fig. 2), a first delay time (para. [0038] “true transit times T202-204 and T202-206 can be determined”, where the true transit time T202-204 is the first delay time) and a first timing measurement (para. [0037] “pseudo-transit times... T204-T’” and/or “local times of arrival... T204” in view of para. [0041] “In an alternate aspect... the APs can transmit the timing information obtained from the GNSS satellites measurements to the timing server”), the first timing measurement generated by comparing a first time associated with a first signal to a first local clock time associated with the first node (para. [0037] describes the “pseudo-transit times” as the difference “T204-T'”, where T204 is a local time of arrival and meets the “first local clock time”, and T’ is “a first time associated with a first signal”), the first signal being of a plurality of signals transmitted by a transmitter at a source (satellite 202, Fig. 2, is the source of the first signal), wherein each signal of the plurality of signals has an associated time (para. [0035] teaches satellite 202 is a GNSS satellite, and each GNSS satellite signal inherently contains a transmission time – see para. [0037] “a common signal from the satellite transmitted at GPS time T”);
receiving, by the TMV from a second receiver at a second node of a plurality of nodes in a network (206, Fig. 2), a second delay time (para. [0038] “true transit times T202-204 and T202-206 can be determined”, where the true transit time T202-206 is the second delay time) and a second timing measurement (para. [0037] “pseudo-transit times... T206-T’’ ” and/or “local times of arrival... T206” in view of para. [0041] “In an alternate aspect... the APs can transmit the timing information obtained from the GNSS satellites measurements to the timing server”), the second timing measurement generated by comparing a second time associated with a second signal to a second local clock time at the second node (para. [0037] describes the “pseudo-transit times” as the difference “T206-T'’ ”, where T206 is a local time of arrival and meets the “first local clock time”, and T’’ is “a first time associated with a first signal”), the second signal being of the plurality of signals transmitted by the transmitter at the source (satellite 202, Fig. 2, is the source of the second signal);
generating, by the TMV, a correction factor time (T204-206 in para. [0038]) based on the first timing measurement, the first delay time, the second timing measurement, and the second delay time (para. [0038] equations (1) and (2) for T204-206 in view of para. [0042] “the synchronization... calculations can be performed by a timing server”).
Venkatraman does not, at least explicitly, teach transmitting, by the TMV to the second node, the correction factor time. However it would have been obvious to modify Venkatraman by transmitting the correction factor time to the second node in order to provide the second node with the means to compensate its own clock.
Regarding claim 2, Venkatraman teaches wherein: the first delay time is a first propagation delay based on a position of the transmitter at the source and a position of a first receiver antenna at the first node; and the second delay time is a second propagation delay based on the position of the transmitter at the source and a position of a second receiver antenna at the second node (para. [0038] “Since Aps 204 and 206 are fixed, their positions can be determined accurately and satellite 202’s position can also be determined accurately from the satellite ephemeris. Accordingly, the true ranges between satellite 202 and the Aps 204 and 206, and correspondingly, the true transit times T202-204 and T202-206 can be determined”).
Regarding claim 4, Venkatraman teaches wherein the source is a satellite-based position, navigation, timing (PNT) network including one or more of a geo-stationary satellite (para. [0039] “geostationary satellite”), Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) (para. [0037] “GNSS”), Low-Earth Orbiting Satellite (LEOS), or terrestrial-based timing source.
Regarding claim 5, Venkatraman teaches wherein the second receiver is a beacon or listening device of a purpose-built terrestrial PNT system (para. [0036] describes second receiver 206 as an access point AP, which can be considered such).
Regarding claim 10, Venkatraman’s TMV will, at least implicitly, detect an anomaly comprising a loss of the second signal.
Regarding claim 11, if Venkatraman’s second signal is lost, it does not appear to be possible to use its associated time, meeting the language.
Claims 15-20 are directed to steps taken contingent upon the anomaly detected in claim 10 being the discontinuity in the second signal or the correction factor time exceeding the predetermined correction threshold, recited only in the alternative in claim 10. As discussed above with respect to claim interpretation, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims therefore does not require these steps.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkatraman (US 20120177027 A1) in view of Nelson (US 6268823 B1).
Regarding claim 3, “wherein the first delay time and the second delay time further comprise a respective processing delay time and a respective implementation delay time” is understood in view of paras. [0032] and [0034] of the specification to comprise compensating the delay times for delays due to factors such as ionospheric and tropospheric delay, multipath reflection, etc. It is well-known to perform such compensation. For example, Nelson 5:63 – 6:19 describes estimating a delay time based not only on satellite and receiver positions (see esp. 6:1-2) as taught by Venkatraman in para. [0038], but also based on ionospheric and tropospheric delay, relativistic effects, and clock errors (6:10-20). The accuracy of the estimated delay time is thereby improved. It would have been obvious to modify Venkatraman in view of Nelson in order to improve the accuracy of the estimated delay time.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkatraman (US 20120177027 A1) in view of Geier (US 20040239558 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Venkatraman does not teach comparing, by the TMV, the correction factor time to a predetermined correction threshold; and adjusting, by the second receiver, the second local clock time by applying the correction factor time to the second local clock time when the correction factor time is within a predetermined correction threshold.
However it is generally known to compare a correction to a threshold in this manner. For example, Geier teaches comparing a correction to a threshold and deciding whether or not to apply the correction accordingly (para. [0036] “the magnitude of the correction vector is compared with a pre-determined threshold at block 360. The pre-determined threshold is established based upon the desired accuracy of the position solution. If the magnitude of the correction vector does not exceed the threshold, it is not necessary to correct the position solution of the present iteration with the correction vector”).
It would have been obvious to modify Venkatraman in view of Geier by applying the correction factor time when it is within a predetermined correction threshold in order to avoid spurious correction or overcorrection.
Regarding claim 7, Venkatraman teaches estimating a position of a mobile device (abstract “determine position information for devices on the network”; claim 8 “a position of the mobile station can be determined by performing pseudo-range calculations on signals transmitted between the access points and the mobile station”). Venkatraman does not, at least explicitly, teach:
before the adjusting of the second local clock time with the correction factor time, determining a first estimated position of a mobile device; and
after the adjusting of the second local clock time with the correction factor time, determining a second estimated position of the mobile device;
wherein the second estimated position of the mobile device is a more accurate position as compared to the first estimated position of the mobile device.
However, Ventrakaman’s application of the correction factor time will inherently result in more accurate positions. Positions estimated after applying the correction factor time will therefore necessarily be more accurate than positions estimated before applying the correction factor time.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 and 12-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSI J GALT whose telephone number is (571)270-1469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM - 5PM 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, WILLIAM KELLEHER can be reached at (571)272-7753. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CASSI J GALT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights