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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in EP on 4/20/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the EP23169058.7 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they do not include “signal processing unit 110” from para. [0070].
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of method claims 1-12 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.
The step recited in claim 1 lines 12-13 is therefore not required to be performed unless the statistic is above a predetermined threshold, and the step recited in claim 1 lines 13-16 is not required to be performed unless the statistic is not above a predetermined threshold. As the statistic is necessarily either above the predetermined threshold or not above the predetermined threshold, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claims 1-12 requires only one of these steps. See MPEP 2111.04 II and Ex parte Schulhauser.
In claim 10, the step “responsive to determining that the number of space vehicles is greater than a predetermined space vehicle number threshold, carrying out the method of claim 1” is not required to be performed unless it is determined that the number of space vehicles is greater than the threshold.
In claim 11, the step “responsive to determining that the dilution of precision is below a predetermined dilution of precision threshold, carrying out the method of claim 1” is not required to be performed unless it is determined that the dilution of precision is below the threshold.
In claim 12, the step “responsive to the residual being below the maximum threshold, performing the determining a statistic and the determining the position” is not required to be performed unless it is determined that the residual is below the maximum threshold.
Examiner recommends, for claims 10-12, explicitly reciting a step for determining that the condition is met. For example, in claim 10:
“determining that the number of space vehicles is greater than a predetermined space vehicle number threshold; and
in response to the determining, carrying out the method of claim 1.
In claim 1 lines 15-16, “wherein at least one of the L1 and/or L2 signals are excluded from the subset” is understood in view of specification para. [0012] “Thus, the position determination may be made using only a subset of signals, excluding at least one L1 and/or L2 signal”. Therefore, of the group of L1 and L2 signals, at least one signal is excluded.
In claim 1 line 13, an “overall position based on at least the L1 and/or L2 signals and the L5 signals” is understood in view of para. [0025] “determining the overall position based on an estimated position from all the signals” to mean a position determined based on all received signals.
In claim 13 lines 3-4, the “signal processing unit” would be understood by persons of ordinary skill as having a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.
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 1-15 and 17-21 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.
Regarding claim 1 lines 8-9 and claim 13 lines 9-10, the scope of “an estimated measurement to the space vehicle based on data from a previous time period” in “wherein the residual is the difference between the pseudo-range and an estimated measurement to the space vehicle based on data from a previous time period” cannot be clearly determined because it is unclear how to interpret the scope of “an estimated measurement”.
The language “an estimated measurement” would appear to comprise any type of measurement. However, according to specification para. [0008] “The range from the predicted position is compared to the pseudo-range based on an individual signal from a space vehicle: this is known as the residual”, it appears that the estimated measurement is a range from a predicted position. Examiner recommends amending for consistency with the specification.
Regarding claim 1 line 10, “the L1/L2” signals lacks clear antecedent basis. Further, it is unclear if “L1/L2” refers to “L1 and L2”, “L1 or L2”, or “L1 and/or L2”. Examiner recommends amending to “the L1 and/or L2 signals” for consistency with the previous claim language.
Regarding claim 1 line 12 and claim 13 line 13, “the position” lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Regarding claim 13 lines 14-17, it is unclear how to interpret “determine an overall position based on a subset of the signals if the statistic is not below a predetermined threshold, the subset comprising the L5 signals and wherein at least one of the L1 and/or L2 signals are excluded from the subset”. According to specification para. [0025] “determining the overall position based on an estimated position from all the signals”, an overall position is a position determined based on all received signals, and this is consistent with how “overall position” is used in claim 1. However claim 13 recites an overall position determined based on a subset of signals. It is unclear how an overall position, as understood in view of the specification, can be determined based on a subset of signals.
The remaining claims are dependent.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee (US 20200132855 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Lee teaches a method of determining an overall position comprising:
determining a number of space vehicles transmitting a L5 and a L1 and/or L2 signal (para. [0060] “L1”, “L5”; para. [0129] “If it is determined that the number of satellites that transmit GNSS signals is less than or equal to a predetermined number”).
As discussed above with respect to claim interpretation, the step “responsive to determining that the number of space vehicles is greater than a predetermined space vehicle number threshold, carrying out the method of claim 1” is not required to be performed unless it is determined that the number of space vehicles is greater than the threshold. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim therefore does not require this step.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Alizadeh-Shabdiz (US 20110080318 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Alizadeh-Shabdiz teaches a method of determining an overall position comprising:
determining a dilution of precision of space vehicles (abstract “determining a Dilution of Precision Metric”).
As discussed above with respect to claim interpretation, the step “responsive to determining that the dilution of precision is below a predetermined dilution of precision threshold, carrying out the method of claim 1” is not required to be performed unless it is determined that the dilution of precision is below the threshold. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim therefore does not require this step.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9, 12-15, and 17-21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claims 1 and 13, the steps:
receiving GNSS signals from a plurality of space vehicles which emit at least an L5 signal and an L1 and/or L2 band signal; and
determining, for each L5 signal and L1 and/or L2 signal, a pseudo-range based on the signal,
are well-known in the art – for example see Williamson (US 20050114023 A1) para. [0006], as is the step:
determining a residual for each L5 signal and L1 and/or L2 signal from each space vehicle, wherein the residual is the difference between the pseudo-range and an estimated measurement to the space vehicle based on data from a previous time period – for example see van Diggelen (US 20100103039 A1) para. [0029].
In addition:
Zalewski (US 20180011198 A1) teaches mitigating multipath interference by comparing a parameter value that is directly derived from L1, L2, and L5 signals (abstract; para. [0030]), the parameter being an atmospherically induced error in the signals (claim 2);
Kobayashi (US 20090079626 A1) teaches mitigating multipath interference by comparing the electric field intensity of L1, L2, and L5 signals (111, 112, 131, Fig. 1; Fig. 5; paras. [0028]-[0029]);
Cookman (US 20210132236 A1) teaches mitigating multipath interference by computing a difference between first and second pseudorange measurements based on first and second signals received from a satellite on first and second carrier frequencies and (410-440, Fig. 4) and determining position based on a subset of signals if multipath interference is determined (450, Fig. 4);
Peng (US 20240147408 A1) teaches determining multipath based on signal quality residuals or comparisons of signal quality values for signals of different frequencies (para. [0082], Fig. 8, claim 1);
Schipper (US 5917445 A) teaches determining residuals and comparing the residuals to a threshold in order to identify possible multipath errors (11:20-34); and
Syrjarinne (US 20220137234 A1) teaches determining whether GNSS signals are likely affected by multipath interference, and if so, excluding L1 signals as they tend to be more affected by multipath than L5 signals (para. [0016]).
However the prior art does not teach or make obvious mitigating multipath interference by:
determining a statistic based on a comparison between residuals of the L1/L2 signals and the residuals of the L5 signals;
determining the position based on a subset of the signals if the statistic is above a predetermined threshold or determining an overall position based on at least the L1 and/or L2 signals and the L5 signals if the statistic is not above a predetermined threshold, the subset comprising the L5 signals and wherein at least one of the L1 and/or L2 signals are excluded from the subset.
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