DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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.
Claims 1-20 are is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a chip-scale atomic clock configured to…determine a difference between a phase of the GNSS 1PPS signal and a phase of the chip-scale atomic clock 1PPS signal” which is indefinite, because it is unclear how the atomic clock knows the phase of the GNSS 1PPS signal when the atomic clock is not necessarily operably connected in any way to the GNSS receiver. For the atomic clock to determine the claimed difference, it must be able to receive the corresponding signal from the GNSS receiver. Dependent claims 2-12 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 1 recites “detect GNSS spoofing based on the difference between the phase of the GNSS 1PPS signal and the phase of the chip-scale atomic clock 1PPS signal” which is indefinite, because it appears to contradict Applicant’s specification. Specifically, Applicant states that “using the combination of the Kalman filter, disciplining, and detection allows for earlier GNSS spoofing detection compared to currently available techniques” (see para. [0069]). However, according to claim 1 as it is currently written, the detection is based solely off of the difference between the phases of the GNSS 1PPS signal and the atomic clock 1PPS signal, which is obtained directly from the chip-scale atomic clock itself. This reading would imply that not of the other capabilities of the processor, e.g., receiving the difference, implementing a Kalman filter, disciplining the filter, etc., are actually required to detect GNSS spoofing. Such a contradiction between the scope of the claim, Applicant’s own disclosure, and simple logic creates a lack of clarity as to the scope of claim 1, i.e., what is actually required in order to detect GNSS spoofing by the system. Independent claims 13 and 18 are likewise rejected, and dependent claims 2-12, 14-17, and 19-20 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the coarse synchronization commands include a coarse phase adjustment and/or a coarse frequency adjustment based on an initial phase difference between the GNSS 1PPS signal and the chip-scale atomic clock 1PPS signal” which is indefinite, because the coarse synchronization commands are not themselves elements of the invention. In an apparatus claim, only the structural elements of the apparatus can be further limited, whether by structural limitations or functional limitations. While the coarse synchronization commands are claimed in claim 1 as a part of a functional limitation of the processor, the coarse synchronization commands themselves are not structural elements of the invention, but rather generic processing instructions claimed at a high level of abstraction. Therefore, whether, and to what extent, an additional limitation of the coarse synchronization commands serves to further limit the invention of claim 1 is unclear. Claim 4 is likewise rejected for the recited limitations of the fine steer commands.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the system is configured to maintain a steer history buffer that includes a record of fine steer commands used to discipline the chip-scale atomic clock” which is indefinite, because it is unclear to claim a capability of the system as a whole when the system has already been claimed to have multiple discrete elements that make up the system. In other words, it is not clear which claimed elements of the system, if any, are actually configured to maintain said steer history buffer.
Claim 13 recites “a phase of a chip-scale atomic clock 1PPS signal” which is indefinite, because it is unclear if said signal is originating from the previously recited chip-scale atomic clock, or if the signal is originating from a different atomic clock or some other claimed or unclaimed element of the invention. Claim 18 is likewise rejected, and dependent claims 14-17 and 19-20 fail to cure the deficiency.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Elgersma et al. (US 2022/0221588 A1), hereinafter Elgersma.
Regarding claim 1, Elgersma discloses a system, comprising:
a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receiver (GNSS receiver 102; fig. 1A) configured to be coupled to an antenna (as shown in fig. 1A), wherein the GNSS receiver is configured to receive GNSS signals from GNSS satellites via the antenna (see para. [0024]) and to output a GNSS 1PPS signal (para. [0024], regarding the GNSS receiver 102 is configured to output a GNSS time signal to the processing system 106, and the GNSS time signal is derived from a pulse-per-second signal);
a chip-scale atomic clock (CSAC 104; fig. 1A) configured to output a chip-scale atomic clock 1PPS signal (para. [0025], regarding the chip-scale atomic clock 104 is configured to output a chip-scale atomic clock time signal to the processing system 106; fig. 1A) and to determine a difference between a phase of the GNSS 1PPS signal and a phase of the chip-scale atomic clock 1PPS signal (para. [0026], regarding the GNSS time signal is differenced with the chip-scale atomic clock time signal prior to input into the processing system 106); and
at least one processor communicatively coupled to the chip-scale atomic clock (processing system 106; fig. 1A), wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
receive the difference between the phase of the GNSS 1PPS signal and the phase of the chip-scale atomic clock 1PPS signal (see again para. [0026]);
implement a Kalman filter configured to determine a phase error estimate for the chip-scale atomic clock and a frequency error estimate for the chip-scale atomic clock based on the difference between the phase of the GNSS 1PPS signal and the phase of the chip-scale atomic clock 1PPS signal (para. [0037], regarding the processing system 106 is configured to output a Kalman-filtered output of the difference between the GNSS time signal and the chip-scale atomic clock time signal, and the system time is generated by adding the chip-scale atomic clock time signal to the Kalman-filtered output; see also para. [0044]);
discipline, with the Kalman filter, the chip-scale atomic clock using coarse synchronization commands and fine steer commands that are based on the phase error estimate for the chip-scale atomic clock and the frequency error estimate for the chip-scale atomic clock (para. [0075], regarding when initialization of the chip-scale atomic clock is complete, the method 700 proceeds with switching to a disciplining mode where the chip-scale atomic clock time signal is modified (disciplined) using the GNSS time signal (block 704); during the disciplining mode of operation, the chip-scale atomic clock time signal and/or the chip-scale atomic clock frequency is modified in view of the GNSS time signal and/or the GNSS frequency; Examiner notes that the mere intent to use a particular type of command does not structurally distinguish the invention from the prior art, see MPEP §2114(II)); and
detect GNSS spoofing based on the difference between the phase of the GNSS 1PPS signal and the phase of the chip-scale atomic clock 1PPS signal (para. [0083], regarding the Kalman filter is configured to reject the GNSS time measurement (also referred to as GPS phase in FIGS. 8-9) if the difference between the GNSS time measurement and the chip-scale atomic clock time measurement (also referred to as CSAC phase in FIGS. 8-9) is greater than the time error bounds of the chip-scale atomic clock; see also fig. 8).
Regarding claim 3, Elgersma discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to discipline, with the Kalman filter, the chip-scale atomic clock using the coarse synchronization commands until the difference between the phase of the GNSS 1PPS signal and the phase of the chip-scale atomic clock 1PPS signal is below a threshold (para. [0035], regarding the first mode of operation is performed until the difference between the GNSS time signal and the chip-scale atomic clock time signal is below a predetermined time threshold that corresponds to an acceptable amount of error for a chip-scale atomic clock).
Regarding claim 7, Elgersma discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to stop disciplining the chip-scale atomic clock in response to detecting GNSS spoofing (as shown in fig. 7), wherein the chip-scale atomic clock is configured to operate in a coasting state when the chip-scale atomic clock is not being disciplined (para. [0078], regarding when it is determined that GNSS cannot be trusted (GNSS spoofing detected), the method 700 proceeds with switching the navigation system to a coasting mode where the chip-scale atomic clock time signal is not modified (disciplined) using the GNSS time signal (block 708); fig. 7).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
a) Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b) Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c) Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d) Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elgersma et al. (US 2022/0221588 A1), hereinafter Elgersma.
Regarding claim 5, Elgersma discloses the invention in claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to discipline, with the Kalman filter, the chip-scale atomic clock using the fine steer commands until a fault with the GNSS receiver is detected.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to end the process when a fault with the GNSS receiver is detected, since the equivalence of ending a process when it is completed and ending a process when a fault is detected for their use in the signal processing art and the selection of any known equivalents to ending a process upon completion would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4, 6, and 8-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With regard to independent claims 13 and 18, the prior art does not appear to teach the combined limitations of the claimed invention, specifically, disciplining the chip-scale atomic clock using coarse synchronization commands and fine steer commands that are based on the phase error estimate for the chip-scale atomic clock and the frequency error estimate for the chip-scale atomic clock. Furthermore, the prior art does not appear to teach the combined limitations of the dependent claims noted above, with respect to the prior art cited hereinabove.
Conclusion
The cited references made of record in the contemporaneously filed PTO-892 form and not relied upon in the instant office action are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and may have one or more of the elements in Applicant’s disclosure and at least claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADY W FRAZIER whose telephone number is (469)295-9263. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm CT.
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 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.
/BRADY W FRAZIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights