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 .
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 1-12 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.
Initially, the following is noted.
“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing recent cases wherein the court expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment); E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Interpretation of descriptive statements in a patent’s written description is a difficult task, as an inherent tension exists as to whether a statement is a clear lexicographic definition or a description of a preferred embodiment. The problem is to interpret claims ‘in view of the specification’ without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims.”); Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1869-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Although the specification discussed only a single embodiment, the court held that it was improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where, as a matter of logic or grammar, the language of the method claims did not impose a specific order on the performance of the method steps, and the specification did not directly or implicitly require a particular order). When an element is claimed using language falling under the scope of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph (often broadly referred to as means- (or step-) plus- function language), the specification must be consulted to determine the structure, material, or acts corresponding to the function recited in the claim, and the claimed element is construed as limited to the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (see MPEP § 2181- MPEP § 2186).
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (referring to “the danger” of importing claim limitations from the specification). See also Varco, L.P. v. Pason Sys. USA Corp., 436 F.3d 1368, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (stating how the Federal Circuit “will not at any time” bring in claim limitations from the specification); Comark Commc'ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186-67 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (following that limitations from the specification are not to be read into the claims).
The claim fails to clearly and distinctly define the metes and bound of the inventive subject matter. Applicant appears to be attempting to incorporate limitations from the specification into the claims, which as noted above is improper.
Regarding claims 1, and similarly claims 10 and 19, the claims are rejected as being incomplete for omitting essential step(s) or an end result. The omitted step(s) is the step(s) wherein the claimed limitation is actually doing something tangible with the end result, i.e. the smoothed code phase is put to use or output a concrete result.
Still regarding claim 1, and similarly claims 10 and 19, how in what manner a smoothed code phase for the second positioning signal is generated from the delta carrier phase, the first code phase, and the second code phase is unclear and not readily understood. The claimed language is simply a list of desired results and do little to clearly and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 10, and similarly claim 19, it is unclear of what exactly the purpose and/or functions of the claimed “a first receiver” and “a second receiver”. It appears the receivers do not perform any receiving or processing steps. It also appears the claim is incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: the connection and/or communication, if any, among “a first receiver”, “a second receiver”, and a processor/memory.
Other claims are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim(s).
It is Applicant’s responsibility to draft a clear and concise set of claims defining the metes and bounds of Applicant’s invention. Applicant should review all of the outstanding claims in response hereto. All of the claims should be reviewed for issues related to clarity and scope as the errors/issues are not constrained to those listed above.
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, 5-7, 10, 14-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the method and systems for generating a smoothed code phase that is accomplished through a series of mental processes and/or mathematical manipulation. The claims also require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities (i.e. generic computer/processor are disclosed throughout Applicant’s disclosure). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all claims elements, both individually and in combination, are directed to the manipulation of data by a general purpose computer and/or performing by a person. Thus, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217—18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75—77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices {Alice, 573 U.S. at 219—20, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas {Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594—95 (1978)); and mental processes {Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” {Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” {id. at 184 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267—68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour {Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Supreme Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 192 (“We view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract...is not accorded the protection of our patent laws,…and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent- eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].”” Id. ((alteration in the original) quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requiring] generic computer implementation fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of § 101. USPTO’s January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“Memorandum”). Under Step 2A of that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Analysis
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim 1 (and its dependents) recites a method. Thus, the claim is a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 10 (and its dependents) recites a system. Thus, the claim is a machine and/or manufacture, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 19 (and its dependent) recites a system. Thus, the claim is a machine and/or manufacture, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One – Recitation of Judicial Exception
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, we evaluate whether the claims recites a judicial exception. For abstract ideas, Prong One represents a change as compared to prior guidance because we here determine whether the claim recites mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes.
Claim 1, and similarly claim 10 and 19, recites the steps of:
extracting, from the first sequence of samples, a delta carrier phase;
generating a first code phase, for the second positioning signal, from the second sequence of samples;
generating a second code phase, for the second positioning signal, from the third sequence of samples;
generating, from: the delta carrier phase, the first code phase, and the second code phase, a smoothed code phase for the second positioning signal
The “extracting” step may be performed by observing and evaluating the received data/samples which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation and evaluation.
The “generating” steps may be practically performed in the human mind using observation and evaluation of the received data/samples and/or mathematical calculations.
Therefore, such steps of as claimed in claims 1, 10, and 19 encompass processes that can be performed mentally and/or mathematical calculations; thus, fall within “mental processes” and/or “mathematical concepts” groupings of abstract ideas.
In addition, dependent claims 5-7, 14-16, and 19 further claiming information gleaned from the mental processes and/or mathematical calculations.
Regarding claims 5-7, 14-16, and 19, the further steps of generating a smoothed code phase as claimed may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, and/or mathematical calculations.
Therefore, dependent claims 5-7, 14-16, and 19 also falls within the “mental processes” and/or “mathematical concepts” groupings of abstract ideas.
Since the claims recite an abstract idea, the analysis proceeds to Prong Two to determine whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two – Practical Application
If a claim recites a judicial exception, in Prong Two we next determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not directed to the judicial exception. This evaluation requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The only additional elements of claim 1, and similarly claims 10 and 19, is the “receiving” and “transmitting” steps. This limitation, at a high-level of generality, merely recites data gathering step for further analyzing/determining steps. As such, it amounts to no more than insignificant extra--solution activity to the judicial exception.
In addition, “a first receiver” and “a second receiver” as claimed in claims 10 and 19 acts only for data communication and gathering and do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity which simply provide what all receives provide. Further, claims 1, 5-7, 10, 14-16, and 19 require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities (i.e. generic computer/processor disclosed throughout Applicant’s disclosure). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all claims elements, both individually and in combination, are directed to the manipulation of data by a general purpose computer and/or performing by a person. Accordingly, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Step 2B – Inventive Concept
For Step 2B of the analysis, it is determined whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, convention” in the field.
As stated above, claims 1, 5-7, 10, 14-16, and 19 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Since this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements amount to no more than data gathering steps and mental processes. Merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide an inventive concept.
The courts have considered the following examples to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowed over prior art. However, 35 USC 112(b) and 35 USC 101 rejection must be overcome.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2022/0381921 discloses a method of measuring a satellite signal includes: receiving, at an apparatus, the satellite signal; determining, at the apparatus, a first code phase of the satellite signal, corresponding to a first time period, based on a first portion of the satellite signal that has a first bandwidth; determining, at the apparatus, a second code phase of the satellite signal, corresponding to a second time period, based on a second portion of the satellite signal that has a second bandwidth, where the second bandwidth is larger than the first bandwidth, and where the second time period is separate from the first time period; and determining, at the apparatus, a carrier phase of the satellite signal based on the first portion of the satellite signal and a third portion of the satellite signal that has the first bandwidth and spans the second time period.
US 11,585,948 discloses techniques for utilizing a mobile device to estimate ionospheric delays in GNSS transmissions. An example method of determining a position of a mobile device includes obtaining a pseudorange measurements and carrier-phase measurements for a satellite at a first frequency band and a second frequency band, determining a bias estimate for the satellite based on a plurality of pseudorange measurements and carrier-phase measurements, determining a delta carrier-phase measurement for the satellite based on the carrier-phase measurements at the first frequency band and the second frequency band, and determining the position of the mobile device based at least in part on the delta carrier-phase measurement, and the pseudorange measurements, the carrier-phase measurements, or both.
US 10,670,733 discloses a satellite geopositioning method on the basis of satellites each transmitting dual-frequency signals. The method comprises, for each satellite, a step of computation of four pseudo-distances on the basis of the two codes and the two carriers of the received dual-frequency geopositioning signals, a step of correction of the ionospheric delays over each computed pseudo-distance by applying an ionospheric error propagation model, a step of carrier code smoothing using a Kalman filter in order to provide a pseudo-distance measurement without measurement noise and to correct the residual ionospheric error. The position is estimated by using the corrected pseudo-distances computed for each satellite.
WO 2023/158508 discloses a receiver comprises a mixer that is capable of mixing a selected, received GNSS signal and the local carrier frequency signal or local carrier IF signal to provide a baseband signal. A filter is configured to low-pass filter and to decimate the received samples of digital baseband signal that is encoded by a received pseudo random noise code (PN) sequence. A control module is configured to align temporally one or more received samples of the received PN sequence, or a portion thereof, in a buffer data storage device with a clock edge or symbol transition of the clock signal of a set of local samples of corresponding PN local sequence, or portion thereof, of a local signal or PN replica signal.
CN 107193026 discloses a pseudo-location smooth method and system of positioning terminal, said method comprises obtaining the satellite observation data, the observation data includes an observation value based on the observation data selection reference star based on the observation value and the selected reference star to differential processing, obtaining the differential observation value of the observation value after the difference comprises pseudorange, the said differential observation value by locating the Kalman filter to update the state vector to obtain the smoothed pseudorange location result. In the invention, obtaining observation data, the locating end for increment after differential carrier phase, Doppler and pseudorange directly updating the state vector without considering the local clock bias, can effectively reduce the pseudo range positioning error, and increase the positioning accuracy.
JP 2010286354 discloses an apparatus that performs Doppler frequency estimation, code acquisition, code tracking, and carrier tracking of a positioning signal in order to demodulate the positioning signal. A control unit acquires code correlation data for every prescribed code phase difference over the entire code as primary search processing, and detects a code phase that becomes the maximum code correlation data. Then, the control unit acquires code correlation data for each prescribed code phase difference within a search range set from results of the primary search processing, and detects a code phase that becomes the maximum code correlation data. The control unit calculates a Doppler frequency, namely a frequency error between a carrier frequency for search and an actual carrier frequency from a time interval and the amount of code shift from a code phase that becomes the maximum code correlation data in primary search processing to a code phase that becomes the maximum code correlation data in first secondary search processing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUONG P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 10:00-10:00 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, JACK KEITH can be reached at (571) 272-6878. 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.
/CHUONG P NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights