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 .
Examiner’s Note
For applicant’s benefit, portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) See MPEP 2123.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 19 March, 2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 5, 9, and 12 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites “the ephemerides” which is suggested to be amended to “the ephemeris data” to properly reference the previously recited “ephemeris data” in claim 1 which claim 5 depends on.
Claim 9 recites “a GNSS receiver” which is suggested to be amended to “[[a]] the GNSS receiver”. Additionally, claim 9 recites “a method” which is suggested to be amended to “[[a]] the method”.
Claim 12 recites “a localization system” which is suggested to be amended to “[[a]] the localization system”. Additionally, claim 9 recites “a method” which is suggested to be amended to “[[a]] the method”.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/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.
Claim 2 recites “in step d), as an additional condition for the GNSS spoofing, it is checked whether the time stamp determined in step a) and the time stamp determined in step b) match” which renders the claim indefinite, because the scope of the claim would not be reasonably ascertainable by one of ordinary skill in the art. Specifically, it is unclear if the step of “it is checked whether the time stamp determined in step a) and the time stamp determined in step b) match” is always carried out, or if the step is only carried out if GNSS spoofing is detected. For purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret it as a contingency that is only carried out in the case of detected GNSS spoofing.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) are directed to a system and a method and recite(s) judicial exceptions as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis below. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis below. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as explained in the Step 2B analysis below.
Independent claim 1:
Claim 1:
A method for detecting global navigation satellite system ("GNSS") spoofing in a GNSS receiver of a localization system, comprising: a) detecting ephemeris data or almanac data of a GNSS satellite in a time step; b) detecting ephemeris data or almanac data of the same GNSS satellite in a subsequent time step; c) comparing the ephemeris data or almanac data detected in step a) with the ephemeris data or almanac data detected in step b), and d) detecting GNSS spoofing when the ephemeris data or almanac data detected in step a) and in step b) deviate from each other.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 1 recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim is directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and is eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes)?
Yes. Claim 1 recites “A method for detecting global navigation satellite system ("GNSS") spoofing in a GNSS receiver of a localization system, comprising: a) detecting ephemeris data or almanac data of a GNSS satellite in a time step; b) detecting ephemeris data or almanac data of the same GNSS satellite in a subsequent time step; c) comparing the ephemeris data or almanac data detected in step a) with the ephemeris data or almanac data detected in step b), and d) detecting GNSS spoofing when the ephemeris data or almanac data detected in step a) and in step b) deviate from each other.”
The focus of the claim (i.e., “c) comparing the ephemeris data or almanac data detected in step a) with the ephemeris data or almanac data detected in step b), and d) detecting GNSS spoofing when the ephemeris data or almanac data detected in step a) and in step b) deviate from each other”) is on selecting certain information and analyzing it. These observations or evaluations are simply mathematical concepts (e.g., algorithms, spatial relationships, geometry, etc.). When given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the disclosure, “c) comparing the ephemeris data or almanac data detected in step a) with the ephemeris data or almanac data detected in step b), and d) detecting GNSS spoofing when the ephemeris data or almanac data detected in step a) and in step b) deviate from each other” are simply selection and mathematical manipulation of data. Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from an abstract idea.
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional limitation(s) of “a) detecting ephemeris data or almanac data of a GNSS satellite in a time step; b) detecting ephemeris data or almanac data of the same GNSS satellite in a subsequent time step” are recited at a high level of generality. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. The further limitation(s) are considered insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. The limitation(s) of “a GNSS receiver; a GNSS satellite” represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on generic devices, and can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). The additional limitation(s) represent no more than mere attempt to recite a field in which the device is intended to be applied. Furthermore, the limitation of “d) detecting GNSS spoofing when the ephemeris data or almanac data detected in step a) and in step b) deviate from each other” contains contingent claim language. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of a method claim.
Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
Step 2 considers whether the claim provides limitations which amount to “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mathematical concept of claim 1.
The additional limitation(s) of “a) detecting ephemeris data or almanac data of a GNSS satellite in a time step; b) detecting ephemeris data or almanac data of the same GNSS satellite in a subsequent time step” are recited in a manner that is well understood, generic and conventional. The additional recitation(s) do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation(s) are at a high level of generality and are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The limitation(s) are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not provide meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mathematical concept of claim 1 and does not state an inventive concept. The limitation(s) are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually.
Applicant’s disclosure does not provide evidence that the additional element(s) recited in claim 1 (i.e., the claim element(s) in addition to the abstract idea) is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This issue is explained by the Federal Circuit, as follows:
It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention “significantly more” than that ineligible concept. In Alice, the Supreme Court held that claims directed to a computer-implemented scheme for mitigating settlement risks claimed a patent-ineligible abstract idea. 134 S.Ct. at 2352, 2355—56. Some of the claims at issue covered computer systems configured to mitigate risks through various financial transactions. Id. After determining that those claims were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, the Court considered whether the recitation of a generic computer added “significantly more” to the claims. Id. at 2357. Critically, the Court did not consider whether it was well-understood, routine, and conventional to execute the claimed intermediated settlement method on a generic computer. Instead, the Court only assessed whether the claim limitations other than the invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it was directed were well-understood, routine and conventional. Id. at 2359-60. BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (2018) (emphases added).
Therefore, independent claim 1 is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-12:
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claims 2-12 recite a series of steps and therefore, fall under a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis. Claim(s) 3-12 will not be evaluated separately because the claim(s) contain the same or sufficiently similar defects as those noted for claim 2 below.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mathematical concept (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from the abstract idea.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. The claim(s) in this case specifies what information it is desirable to gather and analyze; but it does not include any requirement for performing the claimed function(s) by use of anything not entirely conventional and generic.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 2-12 are ineligible.
Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 1-12 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, and 5-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Syrjarinne et al. (US 2021/0109226 A1 cited in Applicant’s IDS “SYRJARINNE”).
Regarding claim 1, SYRJARINNE discloses a method for detecting global navigation satellite system ("GNSS") spoofing in a GNSS receiver of a localization system, comprising:
a) detecting ephemeris data or almanac data of a GNSS satellite in a time step (the first GNSS navigation data contain at least one of ephemeris data of GNSS satellite 101 and clock data of GNSS satellite 101 for a first time period [0129]); (extended first GNSS navigation data are determined by mobile device 2 at least partially based on the first GNSS navigation data received in step 301 [0132]). It is further noted that the limitation “ephemeris data or almanac data” is in alternative form; therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight. In this case, the claimed “ephemeris data” corresponds to ephemeris data as disclosed by SYRJARINNE.
b) detecting ephemeris data or almanac data of the same GNSS satellite in a subsequent time step (the second GNSS navigation data contain at least one of ephemeris data of GNSS satellite 101 and clock data of GNSS satellite 101 for a second time period [0139]); (the first time period may end before the second time period starts such that the first time period and the second time period are different (i.e. do not overlap) [0140])
c) comparing the ephemeris data or almanac data detected in step a) with the ephemeris data or almanac data detected in step b) (comparing the second GNSS navigation data with the extended first GNSS navigation data determined in step 302 at least partially based on the first GNSS navigation data [0153])
and d) detecting GNSS spoofing when the ephemeris data or almanac data detected in step a) and in step b) deviate from each other (mobile device 2 is thus enabled to identify the second GNSS navigation data received in step 303 as potentially manipulated or as trustworthy (i.e. to be not potentially manipulated) at least partially based on the first GNSS navigation data previously received in step 301 by comparing the second GNSS navigation data with the extended first GNSS navigation data determined in step 302 at least partially based on the first GNSS navigation data [0153]). Examiner’s note: Claim 1 recites a method for detecting global navigation satellite system ("GNSS") spoofing in a GNSS receiver of a localization system. Limitation “detecting GNSS spoofing when the ephemeris data or almanac data detected in step a) and in step b) deviate from each other” contains contingent claim language. See MPEP 2111.04. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. In this case, the method claim requires step A (i.e. “detecting GNSS spoofing”) if a first condition (i.e. “when the ephemeris data or almanac data detected in step a) and in step b) deviate from each other”) happens. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of a method claim.
Regarding claim 2, SYRJARINNE discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein a time stamp included in the ephemeris data or almanac data detected in step a) is also determined in step a) (the first GNSS navigation data contain at least one of ephemeris data of GNSS satellite 101 and clock data of GNSS satellite 101 for a first time period [0129], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1); (extended first GNSS navigation data are determined by mobile device 2 at least partially based on the first GNSS navigation data received in step 301 [0132], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1). It is further noted that although SYRJARINNE does not explicitly disclose a time stamp, SYRJARINNE discloses the ephemeris data to enable determining an orbital position of the at least one GNSS satellite at a (e.g. any) given time [0048]. Therefore, the disclosed ephemeris data inherently contains time information, a time stamp included in the ephemeris data or almanac data detected in step b) is also determined in step b) (the second GNSS navigation data contain at least one of ephemeris data of GNSS satellite 101 and clock data of GNSS satellite 101 for a second time period [0139], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1). It is further noted that although SYRJARINNE does not explicitly disclose a time stamp, SYRJARINNE discloses the ephemeris data to enable determining an orbital position of the at least one GNSS satellite at a (e.g. any) given time [0048]. Therefore, the disclosed ephemeris data inherently contains time information, in step d), as an additional condition for the GNSS spoofing, it is checked whether the time stamp determined in step a) and the time stamp determined in step b) match (Examiner’s note: Claim 2 recites a method. Limitation “in step d), as an additional condition for the GNSS spoofing, it is checked whether the time stamp determined in step a) and the time stamp determined in step b) match” contains contingent claim language. See MPEP 2111.04. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. In this case, the method claim requires step A (i.e. “it is checked whether the time stamp determined in step a) and the time stamp determined in step b) match”) if a first condition (i.e. “the GNSS spoofing”) happens. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of a method claim).
Regarding claim 3, SYRJARINNE discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the detected ephemeris data from step a) are stored in a memory for comparison with the ephemeris data of the same GNSS satellite detected in the subsequent time step of step b) (the first GNSS navigation data received in step 301 may be stored in program memory 201 [0131]); (the extended first GNSS navigation data determined in step 302 may be stored in program memory 201 [0137]).
Regarding claim 5, SYRJARINNE discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein in step d) the GNSS spoofing is detected based on a validity period of the ephemerides or almanac data of the GNSS satellite (the first time period may define a temporal validity of the first GNSS navigation data, the extension time period may define a temporal validity of the extended first GNSS navigation data, and the second time period may define a temporal validity of the second GNSS navigation data [0021]); (it is assumed that the respective GNSS navigation data contain ephemeris data that enable determining an orbital position of the respective GNSS satellite at any given time within a limited time period and clock data that enable determining a deviation of a clock of the respective GNSS satellite from a GNSS system time at any given time within a limited time period [0110]).
Regarding claim 6, SYRJARINNE discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the GNSS satellite is not tracked when the ephemeris data or almanac data detected in step a) and in step b) deviate from each other. Examiner’s note: Claim 6 recites a method. Limitation “the GNSS satellite is not tracked when the ephemeris data or almanac data detected in step a) and in step b) deviate from each other” contains contingent claim language. See MPEP 2111.04. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. In this case, the method claim requires step A (i.e. “the GNSS satellite is not tracked”) if a first condition (i.e. “when the ephemeris data or almanac data detected in step a) and in step b) deviate from each other”) happens. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of a method claim.
Regarding claim 7, SYRJARINNE discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the ephemeris data or almanac data detected in step a) and/or the ephemeris data or almanac data detected in step b) are removed from current localization calculations when the ephemeris data or almanac data detected in step a) and in step b) differ from each other (if it is determined in step 304 that the second GNSS navigation data received in step 303 are potentially manipulated, the second GNSS navigation data may for example be identified as potentially manipulated or may be rejected [0151]). Examiner’s note: Claim 7 recites a method. Limitation “the ephemeris data or almanac data detected in step a) and/or the ephemeris data or almanac data detected in step b) are removed from current localization calculations when the ephemeris data or almanac data detected in step a) and in step b) differ from each other” contains contingent claim language. See MPEP 2111.04. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. In this case, the method claim requires step A (i.e. “the ephemeris data or almanac data detected in step a) and/or the ephemeris data or almanac data detected in step b) are removed from current localization calculations”) if a first condition (i.e. “when the ephemeris data or almanac data detected in step a) and in step b) differ from each other”) happens. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of a method claim.
Regarding claim 8, SYRJARINNE discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein localization calculations are restarted when the ephemeris data or almanac data detected in step a) and in step b) deviate from each other. Examiner’s note: Claim 8 recites a method. Limitation “localization calculations are restarted when the ephemeris data or almanac data detected in step a) and in step b) deviate from each other” contains contingent claim language. See MPEP 2111.04. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. In this case, the method claim requires step A (i.e. “localization calculations are restarted”) if a first condition (i.e. “when the ephemeris data or almanac data detected in step a) and in step b) deviate from each other”) happens. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of a method claim.
Regarding claim 9, SYRJARINNE discloses a control unit (processor 200 executes a computer program code stored in program memory 201 (e.g. computer program code causing mobile device 2 to perform any one embodiment of the disclosed method (e.g. the steps of any one embodiment of the disclosed method) or a part thereof (e.g. at least some steps of any one embodiment of the disclosed method) (as for instance further described below with reference to FIG. 3), when executed on processor 200), and interfaces with a main memory 202 [0117]) for a GNSS receiver (GNSS sensor 204 enables mobile device 2 to receive GNSS navigation data contained in a message conveyed in an observed GNSS signal [0122]) configured to perform a method according to claim 1 (Examiner’s note: see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, SYRJARINNE discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein a computer program is configured to perform the method (processor 200 executes a computer program code stored in program memory 201 (e.g. computer program code causing mobile device 2 to perform any one embodiment of the disclosed method (e.g. the steps of any one embodiment of the disclosed method) or a part thereof (e.g. at least some steps of any one embodiment of the disclosed method) (as for instance further described below with reference to FIG. 3), when executed on processor 200), and interfaces with a main memory 202 [0117]).
Regarding claim 11, SYRJARINNE discloses a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium on which the computer program according to claim 10 is stored (processor 200 executes a computer program code stored in program memory 201 (e.g. computer program code causing mobile device 2 to perform any one embodiment of the disclosed method (e.g. the steps of any one embodiment of the disclosed method) or a part thereof (e.g. at least some steps of any one embodiment of the disclosed method) (as for instance further described below with reference to FIG. 3), when executed on processor 200), and interfaces with a main memory 202 [0117], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 10).
Regarding claim 12, SYRJARINNE discloses a localization system for a vehicle, which localization system is configured to perform a method according to claim 1 (processor 200 executes a computer program code stored in program memory 201 (e.g. computer program code causing mobile device 2 to perform any one embodiment of the disclosed method (e.g. the steps of any one embodiment of the disclosed method) or a part thereof (e.g. at least some steps of any one embodiment of the disclosed method) (as for instance further described below with reference to FIG. 3), when executed on processor 200), and interfaces with a main memory 202 [0117]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SYRJARINNE, in view of Han (US 2008/0111736 A1 “HAN”).
Regarding claim 4, SYRJARINNE discloses (Examiner’s note: What SYRJARINNE does not disclose is strike-through) the method according to claim 1, wherein in step c) the ephemeris data or almanac data detected in step a) and the ephemeris data or almanac data detected in step b) are compared with each other (mobile device 2 is thus enabled to identify the second GNSS navigation data received in step 303 as potentially manipulated or as trustworthy (i.e. to be not potentially manipulated) at least partially based on the first GNSS navigation data previously received in step 301 by comparing the second GNSS navigation data with the extended first GNSS navigation data determined in step 302 at least partially based on the first GNSS navigation data [0153], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1)
In a same or similar field of endeavor, HAN relates generally to navigational receivers, and more particularly to systems and methods that enable navigational receivers to download navigation data from weak satellite signals. Specifically, HAN teaches that FIG. 3 illustrates a bit correction procedure for a given downloaded navigation or ephemeris data word. The Most Significant Bits (MSB) bits of the downloaded word and derived word are compared bit by bit to look for possible mismatches, as shown in block 302 [0030].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of SYRJARINNE to include the teachings of HAN, because doing so would improve mismatch detection accuracy and effectively improve detection rate, as recognized by HAN. In addition, both of the prior art references, SYRJARINNE and HAN, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, navigation data correction.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rao (US 2018/0081066 A1) is considered pertinent art for the disclosure overall, and in particular the details of satellite navigation receiver (SNR) extracting ephemeris data from sub-frames of navigation data of each of the navigation signals. The SNR compares the ephemeris data of each navigation signal with the ephemeris data of another navigation signal. The SNR detects cross correlation when the code comparison results in a mismatch and discards the navigation signal with the mismatched ranging code.
Garin (US 2007/0247354 A1) is considered pertinent art for the disclosure of a correction term based on data received from a network obtained from an extended ephemeris prediction file. It is applied to a Kepler almanac data to produce corrected estimated satellite position results.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAILEY R LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4910. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, WILLIAM J KELLEHER can be reached at (571) 272-7753. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Hailey R Le/Examiner, Art Unit 3648 February 20, 2026