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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 16-30 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 3/12/2024 are considered.
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 16-30 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.
The term “L” and “N” in claim 16 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The term “L” and “N” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. "L" and “N” render the claim indefinite because they could possibly include the number zero. Therefore, the ratio of L/N, which include the possibility of L/0 or 0/0 would render the ratio indefinite.
The term “M-ary” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “M” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. "M" could possibly include the number zero.
The term “L” in claim 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “L” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. "L" could possibly include the number zero.
The term “M-ary” in claim 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “M” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. "M" could possibly include the number zero.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "an implicit time marker" in the second to last line. Is this the same or different implicit time marker in line 11? There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “L” and “N” in claim 19 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The term “L” and “N” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. "L" and “N” render the claim indefinite because they could possibly include the number zero. Therefore, the ratio of L/N, which include the possibility of L/0 or 0/0 would render the ratio indefinite.
The term “N” in claim 23 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “N” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. "N" could possibly include the number zero.
The term “K” in claim 23 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “K” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. "K" could possibly include the number zero.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "N transitions” in line 7. It is unclear if this N of the N transitions is the same N of the N symbols in the proceeding claims or not. Therefore, the claim language is found indefinite.
The term “M-ary” in claim 24 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “M” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. "M" could possibly include the number zero.
The term “L” and “N” in claim 30 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The term “L” and “N” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. "L" and “N” render the claim indefinite because they could possibly include the number zero. Therefore, the ratio of L/N, which include the possibility of L/0 or 0/0 would render the ratio indefinite.
Claim limitation “means” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 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 § 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) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lukcin et al (Hereinafter Lukcin), US 2016/0161614, in view of Pelliccioni et al (Hereinafter Pelliccioni), “De Bruijn sequences as spreading codes in extreme Doppler conditions: Analysis and results”, IEEE International Conference on Wireless for Space and Extreme Environments, IEEE, November 7 2013, pages 1-6, XP03255039.
Lukcin and Pelliccioni were cited by the applicant in the IDS.
As per claim 17, Lukcin teaches the invention including a radio transmitter configured to resolve time ambiguity in a radio navigation satellite system between said radio transmitter of said radio navigation satellite system having a first time scale and a radio receiver of said radio navigation satellite system having a second time scale (reception time in associated with transmission time), said radio transmitter being configured to transmit a radio signal to said radio receiver (pp. 0012-0014), characterized in that said radio transmitter comprising:
A sequence generating means, configured to generate an overlay sequence (pp. 0171: secondary code) comprising a set of symbols per time ambiguity interval (pp. 0172-0174: long tiered code with a duration), said set of symbols having a predetermined length L (pp. 0172-0174: secondary code length), said overlay sequence satisfying a condition of single occurrence of a subset of symbols within said set of symbols of said time ambiguity interval, each said time ambiguity interval comprising an implicit timer marker (pp. 0172-0174, 0181-0182: integer part); and
A transmitting means, configured to transmit a radio signal to said radio receiver, said radio signal comprising said overlay sequence modulated onto a primary code, said primary code being modulated on a carrier of said radio signal, said overlay sequence comprising a set of symbols per time ambiguity interval, said set of symbols having a predetermined length L, each said time ambiguity interval comprising an implicit time marker (pp. 0171-0174, 0181-0182).
Lukcin does not teach wherein said overlay sequence consists of a M-ary sequence which is based on a M-ary De Bruijn sequence. However, the use of M-ary De Bruijn sequence is well known and expected in the art. Pelliccioni teaches to implement De Bruijn sequences as sequence codes (section III). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the teachings of Lukcin and Pelliccioni and improve the correct dispreading of the signals with the benefit of auto-correlating in using De Bruijn sequences.
As per claim 18, Lukcin and Pelliccioni teach the invention as claimed in claim 17. Lukcin further teaches said sequence generation means, further is configured to generate a plurality of overlay sequences, which are different from each other (pp. 0119, 0133, 0171-0174, 0181-0182).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Garcia Molina et al, US 2023/0065422
Shpak et al, US 2021/0357907
Hubbell et al, US 2017/0044602
Sutton et al, US 2011/0206091
Hart et al, US 2010/0063742
A shortened statutory period for reply to this Office action is set to expire Three MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNY S LIN whose telephone number is (571) 272-3968.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Noel Beharry can be reached on 571-270-5630. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
KENNY S. LIN
Examiner
Art Unit 2416
/Kenny S Lin/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2416
February 6, 2026