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
Claims 2, 14 objected to because of the following informalities: “reception energy, power” in lines 4-5. It appears that “reception energy” and “power” are the same.
Claims 3, 15 objected to because of the following informalities: “their frequency generator” in lines 2-3. It appears that “generator” should be “generators”. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claims 4, 16 objected to because of the following informalities: “phase measurement” in line 2. It appears that “s” is missing. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claims 5, 17 objected to because of the following informalities: “the same node” in lines 2-3. It appears that “the” should be “a”.
Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities: “PLLs” in line 2. The acronyms PLL should be accompanied by the language it represents 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) "fixing of phase ambiguity for or between signals of a transmitter (S) or signal round trips based on the signals from the transmitter (S) " in lines 1-3. It is indefinite because: i) it is not clear what signals the “fixing of phase ambiguity” is for. ii) it is not clear how the “signal round trips” has “phase ambiguity” issue. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as "fixing of phase ambiguity between signals of a transmitter (S) and the signals of the transmitter (S) received at a receiver". 2) “a plurality of nodes (E1, E2)” in line 4. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “a plurality of nodes” represent only two nodes. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “two nodes (E1, E2)”. 3) “a phase position of the radio signals” in line 7. It is indefinite because it is not clear how “the radio signals”, which are more than one signal, are expressed with “a phase position”, which is one phase position. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “a phase position of a radio signal in the received radio signals”. 4) “the nodes of the plurality of nodes” in line 9. It is indefinite because: i) there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the nodes” in the claim because the “nodes” is not mentioned before if “the nodes” is part of “the plurality of nodes”. ii) it is not clear whether or not “the nodes” is all of “the plurality of nodes”. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “the plurality of nodes”. 5) “to fix the phase ambiguity for each of at least two nodes or at least two signal round trips by means of at least two nodes from the plurality of nodes” in lines 16-18. It is indefinite because: i) as mentioned in lines 1-3 “fixing of phase ambiguity for or between signals of a transmitter (S) or signal round trips based on the signals from the transmitter (S)”, it is not clear how “the phase ambiguity” in line 16 is the same as the “phase ambiguity” mentioned in line 1. ii) it is not clear how the “signal round trips” has the “phase ambiguity” issue. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “to fix phase ambiguity for each of at least two nodes or at least two round trip signals by means of at least two nodes from the plurality of nodes”. 6) “taking a joint decision to fix the phase ambiguity by aggregating the decisions to fix the phase ambiguity regarding the at least two nodes” in lines 1-2 from bottom. It is indefinite because “the phase ambiguity” mentioned twice are different in concept but they are the same in the claim. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “taking a joint decision to fix the phase ambiguity by aggregating the decisions regarding the at least two nodes”. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claims 2-11 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1 because each of dependent claims 2-11 is unclear, at least, in that it depends on unclear independent claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation: “by averaging, selection or weighted averaging by determining probability values or weightings on the basis of reception energy, power, signal-to-noise ratio or signal quality of the two signals received at the nodes” in lines 3-6. It is indefinite because: 1) it is not clear what “averaging, selection or weighted averaging” is of. 2) it is not clear what “probability values” is of. 3) it is not clear what is calculated by “weightings”. 4) There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the two signals” in the claim because “two signals” is not mentioned. 5) it is not clear which nodes “the nodes” represents. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “by averaging, selection or weighted averaging, determining probability values or weightings of reception energy, power, signal-to-noise ratio or signal quality of the signals received at the at least two nodes”. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 3 recites the limitations: “configuring the plurality of nodes such that the phase relationship between frequency signals of their frequency generator is known” in lines 1-3. It is indefinite because: 1) there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “phase relationship” is not mentioned. 2) it is not clear what “their” represents. 3) it is not clear how “the plurality of nodes” have only one relationship among “the plurality of nodes” when “the plurality of nodes” is more than two nodes. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “configuring two nodes such that [[the]] a phase relationship between frequency signals of frequency generators of the two nodes is known” Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 6 recites the limitations: 1) “the phase measurement” in line 1. It is indefinite because it is not clear which one in “each node of the plurality of nodes performs at least one phase measurement per radio signal” in claim 1 lines 14-15 “the phase measurement” represents. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “the phase measurements”. 2) “signals” in line 2. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “signals” in line 2 relate to any of the “signals” mentioned in claim 1 lines 2-3 (“signals of a transmitter”, “the signals from the transmitter”), 6-7 (“radio signals”). Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “signals of the transmitter”. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claim 7 recites the limitations: “their PLLs” in line 2. It is indefinite because: 1) it is not clear what “their” represents. 2) it is not clear where PLLs are located. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “each node of the plurality of nodes comprising a PLL, and the PLLs of the plurality of nodes”. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 8 recites the limitations: 1) “the signals” in line 3. It is indefinite because it is not clear which one of “signals of a transmitter”, “the signals from the transmitter”, “radio signals”, and “at least two signals” mentioned in claim 1 lines 2-3, 6, and 11 “the signals” in line 3 represent. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “the radio signals”. 2) “or for” in line 4. It is not clear which one of “a method” in line 1 and “the signals” in line 3 is “for”. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “or the signals are used for”. 3) “or for” in line 5. It is not clear which one of “a method” in line 1 and “the signals” in line 3 is “for”. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “or the signals are used for”. 4) “a one way channel from a signal round trip” in lines 5-6. It is indefinite because it is not clear what is the relationship between the “a one way channel from a signal round trip” and “the signals” in line 3 or the “a method” in line 1. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “a one way channel from a signal round trip of the radio signals”. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claim 9 recites the limitation: “the frequency generator of the transmitter” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “frequency generator of the transmitter” is not defined. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “a transmitter frequency generator ”. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 12 recites the limitations: 1) “a phase position of the radio signals” in line 4 and “the phase position of the radio signals” in lines 10-11. It is indefinite because it is not clear how “the radio signals” , which are more than one signal, are expressed with one “phase position”. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation in line 4 is being interpreted as “a phase position of a radio signal in the received radio signals”. 2) “the nodes of the plurality of nodes” in line 7. It is indefinite because: i) there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the nodes” in the claim because the “nodes” is not mentioned before if “the nodes” is part of “the plurality of nodes”. ii) it is not clear whether or not “the nodes” is all of “the plurality of nodes”. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “ the plurality of nodes”. 3) “a decision to fix a phase ambiguity for at least two nodes of the plurality of nodes” in lines 12-13. It is indefinite because: as mentioned in lines 9-11 “wherein each node of the plurality of nodes is configured to make at least one phase measurement per radio signal or to determine the phase position of the radio signals”, i) it is not clear whether or not the “a phase ambiguity” is at each of the “at least two nodes of the plurality of nodes”. ii) it is not clear whether or not the “a phase ambiguity” is between the “at least two nodes of the plurality of nodes”. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “a decision to fix a phase ambiguity for each node of the plurality of nodes”. 4) “make the decision as a joint decision to fix the phase ambiguity by aggregation of the decisions to fix the phase ambiguity regarding the at least two nodes” in lines 1-3 from bottom. It is indefinite because: i) “the phase ambiguity” mentioned twice are different in concept but they are the same in the claim. ii) it is not clear what else decisions “the decisions” have because “a decision to fix a phase ambiguity for at least two nodes of the plurality of nodes” as indicated in lines 12-13. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “make the decision as a joint decision to fix system phase ambiguity by aggregation of decisions regarding each node ”. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claims 13-19 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 12 because each of dependent claims 13-19 is unclear, at least, in that it depends on unclear independent claim 12.
Claim 14 recites the limitation: “by averaging, selection or weighted averaging by determining probability values or weightings on the basis of reception energy, power, signal-to-noise ratio or signal quality of the signals received at the at least two nodes” in lines 3-6. It is indefinite because: 1) it is not clear what “averaging, selection or weighted averaging” is of. 2) it is not clear what “probability values” is of. 3) it is not clear what is calculated by “weightings”. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “by averaging, selection or weighted averaging, determining probability values or weightings of reception energy, power, signal-to-noise ratio or signal quality of the signals received at the at least two nodes”. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 15 recites the limitation: “the at least two nodes are configured such that a phase relationship between frequency signals of their frequency generator is known” in lines 1-3. It is indefinite because: 1) it is not clear what “their” represents. 2) it is not clear how “the at least two nodes” have only one relationship among “the at least two nodes” when “the at least two nodes” is more than two nodes. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “the at least two nodes are configured such that a phase relationship between frequency signals of frequency generators of two nodes is known”. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 17 recites the limitation: “The system according to Claim 12, wherein the at least two signals” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “at least two signals” is not mentioned. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “The system according to Claim 13, wherein the at least two signals”. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 19 recites the limitation: “wherein the transmitter” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “transmitter” is not mentioned. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “ further comprising a transmitter, the transmitter”. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 20 recites the limitations: “the decisions for fixing the phase ambiguity regarding the at least two radio receivers” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because: i) “decisions for fixing the phase ambiguity regarding the at least two radio receivers” is not mentioned or defined. Instead, “at least two decisions for eliminating phase ambiguity for one radio receiver” is defined in lines 1-2, which is not “the decisions for fixing the phase ambiguity regarding the at least two radio receivers”. ii) “the phase ambiguity regarding the at least two radio receivers” is not the “phase ambiguity” mentioned in line 1, which is “for one radio receiver” as defined in lines 1-2. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “the at least two decisions for fixing the phase ambiguity for the one receiver ”. Appropriate clarification is required.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”), see claims 11 and 19, are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 20 disclose statutory and non-statutory embodiments (under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claims when read in light of the specification and in view of one skilled in the art) and non-statutory subject matter is not eligible for patent protection.
Claim 20 recites “A use of at least two decisions”, which covers non-transitory media and transitory propagating signals. The transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter and not eligible for patent protection. The claim does not limit the “use” to the statutory embodiments. The BRI of “A use of at least two decisions” can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating signal per se. When the BRI of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-1357 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (a transitory, propagating signal does not fall within any statutory category). Thus, a claim to A use of at least two decisions that can be a compact disc or a carrier wave covers a non-statutory embodiment and therefore should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. So claim 20 fails step 1 of the eligibility analysis for “the four categories of statutory subject matter”, that is claim 20 failures to fall within a statutory class.
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.
Claims 12, 14-16, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 10,884,133, hereafter Kim).
Regarding claim 12, as modified below, Kim (‘133) discloses that A system {col.1 line 1 title (positioning system)} comprising:
a plurality of nodes, each node having at least one antenna and at least one frequency generator and each node being configured to receive radio signals and determine a phase position of the radio signals;
wherein the plurality of nodes is configured to communicate with one another or with a common central unit;
wherein the nodes of the plurality of nodes are at a distance from one another;
wherein each node of the plurality of nodes is configured to make at least one phase measurement per radio signal or to determine the phase position of the radio signals;
wherein the system is configured to make a decision to fix a phase ambiguity for at least two nodes of the plurality of nodes, and
the system is configured to make the decision as a joint decision to fix the phase ambiguity by aggregation of the decisions to fix the phase ambiguity regarding the at least two nodes.
{The claim limitations above are the same or substantially the same scope as the corresponding claim limitations in claim 1. Therefore the claim limitations above are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 1. See the rejections of claim 1}.
Regarding claims 14-16, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claims 2-4, respectively. Accordingly, claims 14-16 are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claims 2-4, respectively, shown below.
Regarding claims 18-19, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claims 10-11, respectively. Accordingly, claims 18-19 are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claims 10-11, respectively, 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 1-11, 13, 17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (‘133) (as applied to claim 12 above for claims 13 and 17 and further) in view of Dai et al. (US 8,659,474, hereafter Dai).
Regarding claim 1, Kim (‘133) discloses that A method for improving decision-making on fixing of phase ambiguity for or between signals of a transmitter (S) or signal round trips based on the signals from the transmitter (S) { Col.2 lines 16-19 (The carrier phase measurements ambiguities can be partially resolved by taking a difference of signals received by multiple, e.g. two receivers, which cancel at least some of the ambiguities); Col.4 lines 1-2 (a method for position estimation), 5-6 (a first carrier phase of a carrier signal emitted by a satellite), 10-11 (measuring a second carrier phase of the carrier signal emitted by the satellite), 15-18 (determining an integer ambiguity difference between the first carrier phase ambiguity and the second carrier phase ambiguity from a difference in the measurements of the first carrier phase and the second carrier phase)}, comprising:
providing an arrangement of a plurality of nodes (E1, E2), said nodes each having at least one antenna and at least one frequency generator and each being configured to receive radio signals {Fig.1 items 130 (receiver A), 131 (receiver B); Fig.8 item 801 (antenna); col.5 lines 9-10 (first receiver 130, second receiver 131, ), 13-15 (the phase lock loop (PLL) outputs (133) and (135) from two receivers (130) and (131)); col.6 line 11 (radio signals from the two satellites); col.15 line 13 (FIG. 8 shows a block diagram of a receiver), 17 (an antenna 801)};
determining a phase position of the radio signals {Col.4 lines 5-6 (measuring a first carrier phase of a carrier signal emitted by a satellite), 10-11 (measuring a second carrier phase of the carrier signal emitted by the satellite)};
configuring the plurality of nodes to communicate with one another or with a common central unit {Fig.1A item 133 and 135 to item 151; col.5 line 13-15 (the processor 151 collects the phase lock loop (PLL) outputs (133) and (135) from two receivers (130) and (131))}, wherein the nodes of the plurality of nodes are arranged at a distance from one another {Fig.1 items 130 (receiver A), 131 (receiver B), 140 (predetermined distance); col.5 lines 9-10 (The first receiver 130 is spatially separated from the second receiver 131 over a predetermined distance 140.) };
transmitting at least one radio signal comprising { Fig.1A item 102 (satellite N); col.6 lines 6-7 (a carrier signal transmitted from one satellite is received by two receivers) };
receiving the at least one radio signal by the plurality of nodes { Fig.1 items 102 (satellite N), 130 (receiver A), 131 (receiver B)};
wherein each node of the plurality of nodes performs at least one phase measurement per radio signal { Col.4 lines 5-6 (measuring a first carrier phase of a carrier signal emitted by a satellite), 10-11 (measuring a second carrier phase of the carrier signal emitted by the satellite) };
taking a decision to fix the phase ambiguity for each of at least two nodes or at least two signal round trips by means of at least two nodes from the plurality of nodes { Fig.1B items 161 (First carrier phase), 167 (second carrier phase); col.1 lines 57-58 (Integer Ambiguity Resolution (IAR), resolve carrier phase ambiguity have been propose); Col.4 lines 7-9 (the first carrier phase includes a first carrier phase ambiguity as an unknown integer number of wavelengths of the carrier signal travelled between the satellite and the first), 11-14 (the second carrier phase includes a second carrier phase ambiguity as an unknown integer number of wavelengths of the carrier signal travelled between the satellite and the second); col.5 line 18 (resolved carrier phase ambiguity in a carrier signal); col.13 line 66 (the IAR obtained by the receiver); Examiner’s note: “integer number” for “fix the phase ambiguity”}; and
taking a joint decision to fix the phase ambiguity by aggregating the decisions to fix the phase ambiguity regarding the at least two nodes { Fig.1B item 170 (Determining integer ambiguity difference); Examiner’s note: “difference” for “joint” and “aggregating” }.
However, Kim (‘133) does not explicit (see words with underline) “transmitting at least one radio signal comprising at least two signals by the transmitter”. In the same field of endeavor, Dai (‘474) discloses that
transmitting at least one radio signal comprising at least two signals by the transmitter { Col.4 lines 1-6 (The global navigation satellites 110-1 to 110-N each transmit at least two carrier signals. In the case of the Global Positioning System (GPS), the carrier signals include the L1 and L2 signals having frequencies of 1.5754 GHz and 1.2276 GHz, and wavelengths of 0.1903 m and 0.2442 m, respectively) };
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying a known technique (e.g. GPS satellites transmit signals having L1 and L2 frequency bands) to a known device (e.g. GNS receiver) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g. obtain signals from two different frequencies at a GPS receiver) and result in an improved system (e.g. improved correction information so as to enable navigation receivers to achieve higher levels of accuracy, as recognized by Dai (‘474) {col.1 lines 55-57 (improved correction information so as to enable navigation receivers to achieve higher levels of accuracy)}).
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Kim (‘133) and Dai (‘474) discloses that in the method,
performing the aggregation includes using probability values or weightings of the decisions to fix the phase ambiguity of regarding the at least two nodes or by averaging, selection or weighted averaging by determining probability values or weightings on the basis of reception energy, power, signal-to-noise ratio or signal quality of the two signals received at the nodes {see Kim (‘133) Col.2 lines 63-67 (track values of the integer ambiguity difference over a period of time to produce a variance of a distribution of tracked values of the integer ambiguity difference. This distribution can be used to detect an impulse change in the value of the integer ambiguity difference); col.3 lines 1-2 (the distribution as a probability distribution) ; col.7 lines 41-42 (geometric relationship includes,
PNG
media_image1.png
20
207
media_image1.png
Greyscale
), 51-52 (
PNG
media_image2.png
22
52
media_image2.png
Greyscale
represents an error in the measurements plus noise.); Examiner’s note: “difference” for “weighted averaging”. col.7 lines 41-42 and 51-52 for “on the basis of reception energy, power, signal-to-noise ratio or signal quality of the two signals” because the geometry relates to the amount of “the phase ambiguity”, which is the “integer”}.
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Kim (‘133) and Dai (‘474) discloses that the method further comprising
configuring the plurality of nodes such that the phase relationship between frequency signals of their frequency generator is known {see Kim (‘133) Fig.1A item 140 (a predetermined distance); col.5 lines 9-10 (The first receiver 130 is spatially separated from the second receiver 131 over a predetermined distance 140.); Examiner’s note: “a predetermined distance” for “the phase relationship between frequency signals of their frequency generator is known”}.
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Kim (‘133) and Dai (‘474) discloses that in the method,
the joint decision is used to fix the phase ambiguity when using the phase measurement of the plurality of nodes {see Kim (‘133) Fig.1B item 160 (measuring a first carrier phase), 161 (First carrier phase), 165 (measuring a second carrier phase) 167 (second carrier phase), 170 (Determining integer ambiguity difference); col.2 lines 16-19 (The carrier phase measurements ambiguities can be partially resolved by taking a difference of signals received by multiple, e.g. two receivers, which cancel at least some of the ambiguities); Col.4 lines 5-6 (measuring a first carrier phase of a carrier signal emitted by a satellite), 10-11 (measuring a second carrier phase of the carrier signal emitted by the satellite); Examiner’s note: “difference” for “joint” and “aggregating” }.
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claim 1, Kim (‘133) does not explicitly disclose “wherein the at least two signals include signals at different frequencies or wherein the at least two signals include signals from the same node at different frequencies, and wherein the at least two signals are transmitted with a time offset or at different frequencies”. In the same field of endeavor, Dai (‘474) discloses that in the method,
wherein the at least two signals include signals at different frequencies {Col.4 lines 1-6 (The global navigation satellites 110-1 to 110-N each transmit at least two carrier signals. In the case of the Global Positioning System (GPS), the carrier signals include the L1 and L2 signals having frequencies of 1.5754 GHz and 1.2276 GHz, and wavelengths of 0.1903 m and 0.2442 m, respectively)} or wherein the at least two signals include signals from the same node at different frequencies {col.11 line 55 (L1/L2 carrier phase measurements)}, and
wherein the at least two signals are transmitted with a time offset or at different frequencies {Col.4 lines 1-6 (The global navigation satellites 110-1 to 110-N each transmit at least two carrier signals. In the case of the Global Positioning System (GPS), the carrier signals include the L1 and L2 signals having frequencies of 1.5754 GHz and 1.2276 GHz, and wavelengths of 0.1903 m and 0.2442 m, respectively); Examiner’s note: GPS satellite transmit L1/L2 using CDMA, which is a “time offset” format. }.
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying a known technique (e.g. GPS satellites transmit signals having L1 and L2 frequency bands in a fixed data format (e.g. CDMA)) to a known device (e.g. GNS receiver) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g. obtain signals from two different frequencies at a GPS receiver) and result in an improved system (e.g. improved correction information so as to enable navigation receivers to achieve higher levels of accuracy, as recognized by Dai (‘474) {col.1 lines 55-57 (improved correction information so as to enable navigation receivers to achieve higher levels of accuracy)}).
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Kim (‘133) and Dai (‘474) discloses that in the method,
the phase measurement is carried out on signals with different frequencies {see Kim (‘133) Col.4 lines 5-6 (measuring a first carrier phase of a carrier signal emitted by a satellite), 10-11 (measuring a second carrier phase of the carrier signal emitted by the satellite); col.15 lines 32 (GPS receivers), 36-38 (detect differences, the observed carrier frequencies on the same satellite signal.)}.
Regarding claim 7, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Kim (‘133) and Dai (‘474) discloses that in the method,
the plurality of nodes have a fixed or known spatial relationship to each other or their PLLs have a known phase relationship { see Kim (‘133) Fig.1A items 130 (receiver A), 131 (receiver B), 140 (predetermined distance) ; col.5 lines 9-10 (The first receiver 130 is spatially separated from the second receiver 131 over a predetermined distance 140.)}.
Regarding claim 8, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Kim (‘133) and Dai (‘474) discloses that in the method,
the method is used as part of a method for phase-based distance and/or position determination of the transmitter relative to a node of the plurality of nodes or the signals are used for distance or position determination of the transmitter relative to a node of the plurality of nodes or for analysis based on complex integers or for the derivation of a property of a one-way channel from a signal round trip { see Kim (‘133) Fig.1A items 120, 121 (distances); Col.4 lines 1-2 (a method for position estimation); col.5 lines 64-67 (For the carrier phase double differencing, a set of satellites 101, 102, 103, and 104 in view are used to receive multiple carrier signals travelled over distances 101, 11, 120, and 121.)}.
Regarding claim 9, which depends on claim 1, Kim (‘133) does not explicitly disclose “the frequency generator of the transmitter is not coherent between two frequencies or two activations”. In the same field of endeavor, Dai (‘474) discloses that in the method,
the frequency generator of the transmitter is not coherent between two frequencies or two activations { Col.4 lines 1-6 (The global navigation satellites 110-1 to 110-N each transmit at least two carrier signals. In the case of the Global Positioning System (GPS), the carrier signals include the L1 and L2 signals having frequencies of 1.5754 GHz and 1.2276 GHz, and wavelengths of 0.1903 m and 0.2442 m, respectively); col.5 lines 13 (GPS measurements), 18 (carrier phase measurements.); Examiner’s note: “frequencies of 1.5754 GHz and 1.2276 GHz” for “not coherent” because they have no common factor.}.
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying a known technique (e.g. GPS satellites transmit signals having L1 and L2 frequency bands) to a known device (e.g. GNS receiver) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g. obtain signals from two different frequencies at a GPS receiver) and result in an improved system (e.g. improved correction information so as to enable navigation receivers to achieve higher levels of accuracy, as recognized by Dai (‘474) {col.1 lines 55-57 (improved correction information so as to enable navigation receivers to achieve higher levels of accuracy)}).
Regarding claim 10, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Kim (‘133) and Dai (‘474) discloses that in the method,
the nodes of the plurality of nodes are part of a motor vehicle or part of a system or device {see Kim (‘133) Fig.1; Fig.2; Col.10 line 13 (two receivers located on a railway vehicle)} granting or preventing access {see Kim (‘133) Fig.1A items 102 (satellite N), 130 (receiver A), 131 (receiver B) ; Fig.2; col.6 lines 6-7 (a carrier signal transmitted from one satellite is received by two receivers), 31-33 (a structure 202 that partially blocks some to the GNSS signals 204, 206, 208, and 210 from GNSS satellites 216, and 218); Examiner’s note: receiver access satellite N signal, therefore satellite N is “granting access”. “blocks” for “preventing”.}.
Regarding claim 11, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Kim (‘133) and Dai (‘474) discloses that in the method,
the transmitter is a means of granting access {see Kim (‘133) Fig.1A items 102 (satellite N), 130 (receiver A), 131 (receiver B) ; col.6 lines 6-7 (a carrier signal transmitted from one satellite is received by two receivers); Examiner’s note: receiver access satellite N signal, therefore satellite N is “granting access”}.
Regarding claim 13, which depends on claim 12, Kim (‘133) discloses that the system further comprising
a transmitter configured to transmit at least one radio signal comprising { Fig.1A item 102 (satellite N); col.6 lines 6-7 (a carrier signal transmitted from one satellite is received by two receivers) }.
However, Kim (‘133) does not explicit (see words with underline) “a transmitter configured to transmit at least one radio signal comprising at least two signals”. In the same field of endeavor, Dai (‘474) discloses that
a transmitter configured to transmit at least one radio signal comprising at least two signals { Col.4 lines 1-6 (The global navigation satellites 110-1 to 110-N each transmit at least two carrier signals. In the case of the Global Positioning System (GPS), the carrier signals include the L1 and L2 signals having frequencies of 1.5754 GHz and 1.2276 GHz, and wavelengths of 0.1903 m and 0.2442 m, respectively) };
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying a known technique (e.g. GPS satellites transmit signals having L1 and L2 frequency bands) to a known device (e.g. GNS receiver) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g. obtain signals from two different frequencies at a GPS receiver) and result in an improved system (e.g. improved correction information so as to enable navigation receivers to achieve higher levels of accuracy, as recognized by Dai (‘474) {col.1 lines 55-57 (improved correction information so as to enable navigation receivers to achieve higher levels of accuracy)}).
Regarding claim 17, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claim 5. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 5, shown above.
Regarding claim 20, Kim (‘133) discloses that A use of at least two decisions for eliminating phase ambiguity for one radio receiver with respect to a radio signal received by at least two radio receivers {Fig.1A-B; col.1 lines 57-58 (Integer Ambiguity Resolution (IAR), resolve carrier phase ambiguity have been propose); col.2 lines 16-19 (The carrier phase measurements ambiguities can be partially resolved by taking a difference of signals received by multiple, e.g. two receivers, which cancel at least some of the ambiguities), 61-62 (the geometric relationship is used to determine the integer ambiguity difference); Col.4 lines 5-9 (a first carrier phase of a carrier signal emitted by a satellite, the first carrier phase includes a first carrier phase ambiguity as an unknown integer number of wavelengths of the carrier signal travelled between the satellite and the first), 10-14 (measuring a second carrier phase of the carrier signal emitted by the satellite, the second carrier phase includes a second carrier phase ambiguity as an unknown integer number of wavelengths of the carrier signal travelled between the satellite and the second); col.5 line 18 (resolved carrier phase ambiguity in a carrier signal); col.13 line 66 (the IAR obtained by the receiver); col.6 lines 6-7 (a carrier signal transmitted from one satellite is received by two receivers)},
wherein the radio signal comprises { Fig.1A item 102 (satellite N); col.6 lines 6-7 (a carrier signal transmitted from one satellite is received by two receivers)}, and
the use includes making a joint decision for eliminating the phase ambiguity by aggregating the decisions for fixing the phase ambiguity regarding the at least two radio receivers { Fig.1B items 161 (First carrier phase), 167 (second carrier phase), 170 (Determining integer ambiguity difference); Col.4 lines 15-18 (determining an integer ambiguity difference between the first carrier phase ambiguity and the second carrier phase ambiguity from a difference in the measurements of the first carrier phase and the second carrier phase); Examiner’s note: “difference” for “joint” and “aggregating” }.
However, Kim (‘133) does not explicit (see words with underline) “the radio signal comprises at least two signals”. In the same field of endeavor, Dai (‘474) discloses that
the radio signal comprises at least two signals { Col.4 lines 1-6 (The global navigation satellites 110-1 to 110-N each transmit at least two carrier signals. In the case of the Global Positioning System (GPS), the carrier signals include the L1 and L2 signals having frequencies of 1.5754 GHz and 1.2276 GHz, and wavelengths of 0.1903 m and 0.2442 m, respectively) };
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying a known technique (e.g. GPS satellites transmit signals having L1 and L2 frequency bands) to a known device (e.g. GNS receiver) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g. obtain signals from two different frequencies at a GPS receiver) and result in an improved system (e.g. improved correction information so as to enable navigation receivers to achieve higher levels of accuracy, as recognized by Dai (‘474) {col.1 lines 55-57 (improved correction information so as to enable navigation receivers to achieve higher levels of accuracy)}).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Global Positioning System – Wikipedia.pdf” discloses that:
1) “transmitting at least one radio signal comprising at least two signals by the transmitter” {page 17 Table (GPS frequency overview)}, which further support the rejection of claims 1, 12, and 20.
2) “the at least two signals are transmitted with a time offset or at different frequencies” {page 7 lines 1-3 below title “Satellite frequencies” (All satellites broadcast at the same two frequencies, 1.57542 GHz (L1 signal) and 1.2276 GHz (L2 signal). CDMA); Examiner’s note: CDMA for “a time offset”}, which further support the rejection of claims 5 and 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