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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 USC 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd ¶:
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd ¶ as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regard as the invention.
In claim 1, line 3 recites "a precise orbit determination and timing result".
According to MPEP 2173.05(b): “When a term of degree is presented in a claim, first a determination is to be made as to whether the specification provides some standard for measuring that degree. If it does not, a determination is made as to whether one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the prior art and the status of the art, would be nevertheless reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Even if the specification uses the same term of degree as in the claim, a rejection may be proper if the scope of the term is not understood when read in light of the specification. While, as a general proposition, broadening modifiers are standard tools in claim drafting in order to avoid reliance on the doctrine of equivalents in infringement actions, when the scope of the claim is unclear a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112[(b)/2nd ¶] is proper. See In re Wiggins, 179 USPQ 421 at 423.” (emphasis added).
It is unclear what standard there is for measuring how precise the orbit determination and timing result must be to be considered “a precise orbit determination and timing result”. Since there is no basis disclosed for determining this, the scope of the claim(s) is unclear and a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd ¶ is proper. Claims 2-8 are dependent upon claim 1. Claim 9 includes the same language. Claim 2 uses similar language on p. 2, line 7 and p. 3, line 1. Additionally, the recitation on p. 3, line 1 should recite "the post-processed precise orbit determination and timing" since it is referring to the same post-processed precise orbit determination and timing as p. 2, line 7.
In claim 1, lines 13-14 recites "a first derivative term correction amount of
the hardware delay to a temperature". However, it is unclear what this means. Is it trying to say first derivative term correction amount of the hardware delay is due to a temperature change? Claims 2-8 are dependent upon claim 1. Claim 9 includes the same language. Similar language appears in claim 8 in line 17, line 18, and lines 19-20.
In claim 1, lines 17-19 recites "so as to realize in-orbit calibration of the
PCO of the downlink navigation antenna of the LEO satellite Ls and the hardware delay of the downlink navigation antenna of the LEO satellite Ls". However, the claim does not explicitly recite calibrating, but only recites "so as to realize ... calibration". Thus, the claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether a step of calibrating the PCO and the hardware delay is part of the claimed invention. In order to further examine the claim, the Office will interpret the claim as requiring a calibration of the PCO of the downlink navigation antenna of the LEO satellite Ls and the hardware delay of the downlink navigation antenna of the LEO satellite Ls. Claims 2-8 are dependent upon claim 1. Claim 9 includes the same language.
“We note that the patent drafter is in the best position to resolve the ambiguity in the patent claims, and it is highly desirable that patent examiners demand that applicants do so in appropriate circumstances so that the patent can be amended during prosecution rather than attempting to resolve the ambiguity in litigation.”, Halliburton Energy Services Inc. v. M-I LLC., 85 USPQ2d 1654 at 1663.
Claim Interpretation
In claim 1, the Office interprets the claim as requiring a calibration of the PCO of the downlink navigation antenna of the LEO satellite Ls and the hardware delay of the downlink navigation antenna of the LEO satellite Ls. See the 35 USC 112 rejection of claim 1 in section 1c, above.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)/6th ¶
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f)/6th ¶ (hereinafter 112(f)):
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), 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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), except as otherwise indicated in an Office Action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
· Claim(s) 9: a first calculation module, configured to: calculate, by using a precise orbit determination and timing result of the LEO satellite Ls and ground calibrations, a ground calibrated phase center orbit initial value of the downlink navigation antenna of the LEO satellite Ls and a ground calibrated satellite clock bias initial value of the LEO satellite Ls,
· Claim(s) 9: a second calculation module, configured to: calculate, based on the ground calibrated phase center orbit initial value and the ground calibrated satellite clock bias initial value, a correction amount of the downlink navigation antenna by separating GNSS signals and downlink navigation signals of the LEO satellite Ls, or by combining the GNSS signals with the downlink navigation signals of the LEO satellite Ls; wherein the correction amount of the downlink navigation antenna comprises: a PCO correction amount, a constant term correction amount of the hardware delay, and a first derivative term correction amount of the hardware delay to a temperature,
· Claim(s) 9: a correction module, configured to: correct, based on the correction amount of the downlink navigation antenna, the PCO of the downlink navigation antenna of the LEO satellite Ls and the hardware delay of the downlink navigation antenna of the LEO satellite Ls, so as to realize in-orbit calibration of the PCO of the downlink navigation antenna of the LEO satellite Ls and the hardware delay of the downlink navigation antenna of the LEO satellite Ls.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meng (CN 110793528 A) in view of Wu (CN 116893438 A) in view of Brenner (US 2004/0056796 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Meng discloses a method for calibrating a phase center offset (PCO) and a hardware delay of a downlink navigation antenna of a low-Earth orbit (LEO) satellite Ls, comprising:
calculating, by using a precise orbit determination and timing result of the LEO satellite Ls and ground calibrations, a ground calibrated phase center orbit initial value of the downlink navigation antenna of the LEO satellite Ls and a ground calibrated satellite clock bias initial value of the LEO satellite Ls (p. 5, ¶3-4; p. 7, ¶10 to p. 8, ¶5) [where the three equations at the bottom of p. 3 (the page number at the bottom) of the Chinese document correspond to the cited portion of p. 5 of the translation, and the equations in ¶31-33 of the Chinese document correspond to the cited portion of p. 8 of the translation; where the time delay corresponds to the claimed clock bias, where an uncompensated/uncalibrated time delay will bias the clock time of the LEO satellite; where calibration before leaving the factory corresponds to ground calibration; and where satellite attitude information provided by the LEO satellite platform attitude control system in real time is based on the orbit and timing of the LEO satellite (i.e. the attitude value would be different if the determined orbit were different or the determined time were different), where the orbit and timing of the LEO satellite is determined to a certain level of precision];
calculating, based on the ground calibrated phase center orbit initial value and the ground calibrated satellite clock bias initial value, a correction amount of the downlink navigation antenna by separating global navigation satellite system (GNSS) signals of a GNSS system and LEO satellite downlink navigation signals of the LEO satellite Ls, or by combining the GNSS signals of the GNSS system with the LEO satellite downlink navigation signals of the LEO satellite Ls; wherein the correction amount of the downlink navigation antenna comprises: a PCO correction amount and a constant term correction amount of the hardware delay; and correcting, based on the correction amount of the downlink navigation antenna, the PCO of the downlink navigation antenna of the LEO satellite Ls and the hardware delay of the downlink navigation antenna of the LEO satellite Ls, so as to realize in-orbit calibration of the PCO of the downlink navigation antenna of the LEO satellite Ls and the hardware delay of the downlink navigation antenna of the LEO satellite Ls (p. 4, ¶1-6) [where the PCO and hardware delay are corrected using calculated PCO corrections (antenna phase center correction amount) and hardware delay corrections (low-orbit satellite equipment time delay error correction); and where GNSS and LEO signals are separated in that the LEO satellite is calibrated using the GNSS signals prior to transmitting the LEO signals].
Meng fails to disclose the correction amount of the downlink navigation antenna comprises a first derivative term correction amount of the hardware delay to a temperature.
We teaches a correction amount comprises a first derivative term correction amount of the hardware delay (p. 3, final ¶; p. 4, ¶3) [where a derivative of a value is the rate of change in the value].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the accuracy of the hardware delay correction by correcting for effects that change as a function of time.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the hardware delay correction is more accurate.
Brenner teaches that one cause of a hardware delay changing over time is due to a temperature (¶76).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to include a rate of change of hardware delay in the calibration for the hardware delay in order to further increase the accuracy of the hardware delay correction.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the hardware delay correction is more accurate.
In regard to claim 8, Meng further discloses formulas for correcting the PCO of the downlink navigation antenna of the LEO satellite Ls and the hardware delay of the downlink navigation antenna of the LEO satellite Ls are as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
142
332
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where Δ{circumflex over (x)}.sub.PCO.sup.Ls represents a solved value of an in-orbit calibrated PCO of the downlink navigation antenna of the LEO satellite Ls; ALSO Δ{circumflex over (x)}.sub.PCO.sup.Ls0 represents a calibrated value of a ground calibrated PCO under a downlink navigation antenna coordinate system of the LEO satellite Ls; δ{circumflex over (x)}.sub.PCO.sup.Ls represents a solved value of the PCO correction amount; {tilde over (d)}.sub.IF.sup.Ls represents an in-orbit calibrated constant term of the hardware delay of the downlink navigation antenna of the LEO satellite Ls; d.sub.IF.sup.Ls0 represents a ground calibrated constant term of the hardware delay of the downlink navigation antenna of the LEO satellite Ls; custom-character represents a resolved value of the constant term correction amount of the hardware delay (p. 4, ¶1-6) [where the PCO and hardware delay are corrected using calculated PCO corrections (antenna phase center correction amount) and hardware delay corrections (low-orbit satellite equipment time delay error correction)].
Wu further teaches formulas for correcting the PCO of the downlink navigation antenna of the LEO satellite Ls and the hardware delay of the downlink navigation antenna of the LEO satellite Ls are as follows:
PNG
media_image2.png
64
250
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where {dot over (d)}.sub.IF.sup.Ls represents an in-orbit calibrated first derivative term of the hardware delay of the downlink navigation antenna of the LEO satellite Ls; {dot over (d)}.sub.IF.sup.Ls0 represents a ground calibrated first derivative term of the hardware delay of the downlink navigation antenna of the LEO satellite Ls; and custom-character represents a solved value of the first derivative term correction amount of the hardware delay (p. 3, final ¶; p. 4, ¶3) [where a derivative of a value is the rate of change in the value].
In the combination, the derivative terms are based on the temperature.
In regard to claim 9, Meng discloses a system for calibrating a PCO and a hardware delay of a downlink navigation antenna of an LEO satellite Ls, comprising:
a first calculation module, configured to: calculate, by using a precise orbit determination and timing result of the LEO satellite Ls and ground calibrations, a ground calibrated phase center orbit initial value of the downlink navigation antenna of the LEO satellite Ls and a ground calibrated satellite clock bias initial value of the LEO satellite Ls (p. 5, ¶3-4; p. 7, ¶10 to p. 8, ¶5) [where the three equations at the bottom of p. 3 (the page number at the bottom) of the Chinese document correspond to the cited portion of p. 5 of the translation, and the equations in ¶31-33 of the Chinese document correspond to the cited portion of p. 8 of the translation; where the time delay corresponds to the claimed clock bias, where an uncompensated/uncalibrated time delay will bias the clock time of the LEO satellite; where calibration before leaving the factory corresponds to ground calibration; and where satellite attitude information provided by the LEO satellite platform attitude control system in real time is based on the orbit and timing of the LEO satellite (i.e. the attitude value would be different if the determined orbit were different or the determined time were different), where the orbit and timing of the LEO satellite is determined to a certain level of precision];
a second calculation module, configured to: calculate, based on the ground calibrated phase center orbit initial value and the ground calibrated satellite clock bias initial value, a correction amount of the downlink navigation antenna by separating global navigation satellite system (GNSS) signals of a GNSS system and LEO satellite downlink navigation signals of the LEO satellite Ls, or by combining the GNSS signals of the GNSS system with the LEO satellite downlink navigation signals of the LEO satellite Ls; wherein the correction amount of the downlink navigation antenna comprises: a PCO correction amount and a constant term correction amount of the hardware delay; and a correction module, configured to: correct, based on the correction amount of the downlink navigation antenna, the PCO of the downlink navigation antenna of the LEO satellite Ls and the hardware delay of the downlink navigation antenna of the LEO satellite Ls, so as to realize in-orbit calibration of the PCO of the downlink navigation antenna of the LEO satellite Ls and the hardware delay of the downlink navigation antenna of the LEO satellite Ls (p. 4, ¶1-6) [where the PCO and hardware delay are corrected using calculated PCO corrections (antenna phase center correction amount) and hardware delay corrections (low-orbit satellite equipment time delay error correction); and where GNSS and LEO signals are separated in that the LEO satellite is calibrated using the GNSS signals prior to transmitting the LEO signals].
Meng fails to disclose the correction amount of the downlink navigation antenna comprises a first derivative term correction amount of the hardware delay to a temperature.
We teaches a correction amount comprises a first derivative term correction amount of the hardware delay (p. 3, final ¶; p. 4, ¶3) [where a derivative of a value is the rate of change in the value].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the accuracy of the hardware delay correction by correcting for effects that change as a function of time.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the hardware delay correction is more accurate.
Brenner teaches that one cause of a hardware delay changing over time is due to a temperature (¶76).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to include a rate of change of hardware delay in the calibration for the hardware delay in order to further increase the accuracy of the hardware delay correction.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the hardware delay correction is more accurate.
The following reference(s) is/are also found relevant:
Cohen (US 2016/0011318 A1), which teaches calibrating an LEO navigation satellite by combining GNSS signals and LEO signals (¶122).
Applicant is encouraged to consider these documents in formulating their response (if one is required) to this Office Action, in order to expedite prosecution of this application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 2-7 would be allowable if amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC 112, set forth in this Office Action, without the addition of new matter, and if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for Allowance/Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance/allowable subject matter:
The references cited, alone or in combination, do not teach or make obvious the following limitation(s):
quoted from claim 2, in combination with the claim as a whole:
"the ground calibrated phase center orbit initial value {circumflex over
PNG
media_image3.png
46
64
media_image3.png
Greyscale
of the downlink navigation antenna of the LEO satellite Ls is calculated through the following formula:
PNG
media_image4.png
1388
1080
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
490
1082
media_image5.png
Greyscale
and c represents a speed of light".
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance".
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fred H. Mull whose telephone number is 571-272-6975. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from approximately 9-5:30 Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 https://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Resha Desai, can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
Fred H. Mull
Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/F. H. M./
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights