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: “Computer-implemented method” in line 1. It appears that “a” is missing. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-5, 7-10 objected to because of the following informalities: “method” in line 1. It appears that “The” is missing. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities: 1) “method” in line 1. It appears that “a” is missing. 2) consistency of claimed language “N satellite radionavigation measurements” in line 3 and “the received measurements” in line 5, “the N measurements” in line 15. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 10 objected to because of the following informalities: “the localization method” in line 3. It appears that “localization” should not be there. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 objected to because of the following informalities: “recorded a program” in line 1. It appears that it should be “a recorded program”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13 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) "the set" in line 9. It is indefinite because it is not clear which one of “a set of training data” in line 4, “each set of measurements” in line 7, “a set of metrics” in line 7, and “at least one set of residuals” in lines 7-8 "the set" in line 9 represent. 2) “a set of residuals” in line 16. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “a set of residuals” in line 16 is part of the “at least one set of residuals” mentioned in lines 7-8. 3) “residuals” in line 19. It is indefinite because: i) it is not clear what the “residuals” is about. ii) it is not clear which one of the “at least one set of residuals” mentioned in lines 7-8 and the “a set of residuals” mentioned in line 16 the “residuals” in line 19 relates to. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claims 2-13 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1 because each of dependent claims 2-13 is unclear, at least, in that it depends on unclear independent claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the two systems” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “two systems” is not mentioned. Appropriate clarification is required.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the received signal” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “received signal” is not mentioned. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 6 recites the limitations: 1) “measurements” in line 7. It is indefinite because it is not clear what the “measurements” are and whether or not the “measurements” in line 7 relates to “the received measurements” mentioned in line 5. 2) “the training method according to any one of the preceding claims” in lines 9-10. It is indefinite because: i) the claimed language is multiple dependency, which is not clear which claim “the training method according to”. ii) There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the “training method” is not mentioned. 3) “residuals” in line 15. It is indefinite because: i) it is not clear what the “residuals” is about. ii) it is not clear whether or not the “residuals” in line 15 relates to the “at least one set of residuals” mentioned in line 6. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claims 7-11 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 6 because each of dependent claims 7-11 is unclear, at least, in that it depends on unclear independent claim 6.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a receiver” in lines 2-3. It is indefinite because: i) it is not clear whether or not the “a receiver” in lines 2-3 is the “a satellite radionavigation receiver” mentioned in claim 6 line 1. ii) it is not clear what relationship between the “a satellite radionavigation receiver” mentioned in claim 6 line 1 and the “a receiver” in lines 2-3. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 8 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 7 because dependent claim 8 is unclear, at least, in that it depends on unclear claim 7.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “this” in line 2. It is indefinite because it is not clear what the “this” represents. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “a receiver” in line 3. It is indefinite because: i) it is not clear whether or not the “a receiver” in line 3 is the “a satellite radionavigation receiver” mentioned in claim 6 line 1. ii) it is not clear what relationship between the “a satellite radionavigation receiver” mentioned in claim 6 line 1 and the “a receiver” in line 3. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the received signal” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “received signal” is not mentioned. Appropriate clarification is required.
Conclusion
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