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 INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – 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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. These include the “means” recited in claims 15-20, with corresponding structure in paras. [0044]-[0047].
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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, 4-6, 8, 11-13, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Normark (US 20090002234 A1, cited on IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Normark teaches a method of controlling a satellite positioning system receiver of a mobile device (Fig. 1), the method comprising:
determining, at the mobile device, candidate satellite vehicle positioning signals corresponding to satellite vehicles above a horizon relative to the mobile device (para. [0041] “a group of potential signal sources S1-S9 of the satellites shown in FIG. 2 that are visible from a particular receiver position at a particular instant”; para. [0042] “a tentative group of potential signal sources is preferably derived from an almanac in the receiver”);
determining, based on at least one respective satellite vehicle signal parameter for each of the candidate satellite vehicle positioning signals (para. [0039] “estimate anticipated processing intensity by considering ... format of the signals... and/or the source’s elevation angle”; para. [0041] “elevation”; para. [0048] “estimate of the anticipated processing intensity, according to ... a received signal-to-noise ratio”), a subset of satellite vehicle positioning signals consisting of fewer than all of the candidate satellite vehicle positioning signals (para. [0054] “estimate the candidate subset... which is associated with the highest estimated quality of the position/time related data ... attainable without exceeding the maximum specified processing intensity”); and
causing each satellite signal channel in at least a subset of a plurality of satellite signal channels of the satellite positioning system receiver to measure a corresponding satellite vehicle positioning signal of the subset of satellite vehicle positioning signals (para. [0056] “one or more channels”, “one or more active channels”; para. [0061] “receives spread spectrum signals from the signal sources in the selected set”, where the receiving is inherently performed by the channels).
Regarding claims 8 and 15, in addition to what has already been discussed with respect to claim 1, Normark teaches a mobile device (Fig. 1) comprising at least one memory (computer readable medium 140 as per para. [0032]), a satellite positioning system receiver (radio front-end unit 110, interface unit 120 and radio signal processing unit 135 as per para. [0032]), and at least one controller communicatively coupled to the at least one memory and the satellite positioning signal receiver (processing unit 135 as per para. [0032]).
Regarding claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 18, and 19 Normark teaches satellite vehicle signal parameters comprising at least one measure of signal strength and at least one indication of satellite vehicle elevation (para. [0039] “estimate anticipated processing intensity by considering ... the source’s elevation angle”; para. [0048] “estimate of the anticipated processing intensity, according to ... a received signal-to-noise ratio”; para. [0041] “elevation”).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20 Normark teaches wherein the at least one respective satellite vehicle signal parameter for a first one of the candidate satellite vehicle positioning signals is different from the at least one respective satellite vehicle signal parameter for a second one of the candidate satellite vehicle positioning signals (para. [0039] “estimate anticipated processing intensity by considering ... format of the signals... and/or the source’s elevation angle”, where format and elevation angle comprise satellite vehicle signal parameters, and the format of one candidate satellite signal is a different signal parameter than the elevation angle of another candidate satellite signal).
Claims 1-4, 8-11, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baba (US 20090079630 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Baba teaches a method of controlling a satellite positioning system receiver of a mobile device (GPS wristwatch 10, Fig. 1), the method comprising:
determining, at the mobile device, candidate satellite vehicle positioning signals corresponding to satellite vehicles above a horizon relative to the mobile device (ST12 SATELLITE SEARCH, Figs. 9-11 and para. [0269]);
determining, based on at least one respective satellite vehicle signal parameter for each of the candidate satellite vehicle positioning signals (para. [0269] “SNR”), a subset of satellite vehicle positioning signals consisting of fewer than all of the candidate satellite vehicle positioning signals (para. [0269] “the eight GPS satellites 15 with the highest signal levels (SNR) are selected from among the GPS satellites 15 found by the satellite search process ST12”; para. [0277] “GPS satellites 15 with a signal strength below the predetermined level (such as an SNR less than 35) are not assigned to a reception channel”); and
causing each satellite signal channel in at least a subset of a plurality of satellite signal channels of the satellite positioning system receiver to measure a corresponding satellite vehicle positioning signal of the subset of satellite vehicle positioning signals (para. [0269] “each satellite is assigned to a particular channel, and the satellite capture determination process ST16 and the Z count acquisition determination process ST17 are applied to each channel”, where the “Z count” comprises a measurement; para. [0277] “GPS satellites 15 with a signal strength below the predetermined level (such as an SNR less than 35) are not assigned to a reception channel”).
Regarding claims 8 and 15, in addition to what has already been discussed with respect to claim 1, Baba teaches a mobile device (GPS wristwatch 10, Fig. 1; Fig. 3) comprising at least one memory (SRAM 37, FLASH MEMORY 33, storage unit 20A, Fig. 3), a satellite positioning system receiver (GPS device 40, Fig. 3), and at least one controller communicatively coupled to the at least one memory and the satellite positioning signal receiver (control unit 20, Fig. 3).
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Baba teaches ranking satellite vehicle positioning signals of the subset of satellite vehicle positioning signals based on the at least one respective satellite vehicle signal parameter for each of the candidate satellite vehicle positioning signals (para. [0273] “the signal acquisition unit 52 acquires a number identifying each GPS satellite... and sets the selection order sequentially from the highest signal level”).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, Baba teaches wherein the at least a subset of the plurality of satellite signal channels comprises N satellite signal channels and wherein causing each satellite signal channel in the at least a subset of the plurality of satellite signal channels to measure a corresponding satellite vehicle positioning signal comprises causing each satellite signal channel in the at least a subset of the plurality of satellite signal channels to measure one of N highest-ranked satellite vehicle positioning signals of the subset of satellite vehicle positioning signals (para. [0269] “the eight GPS satellites 15 with the highest signal levels (SNR) are selected from among the GPS satellites 15 found by the satellite search process ST12” and “each satellite is assigned to a particular channel, and the satellite capture determination process ST16 and the Z count acquisition determination process ST17 are applied to each channel”).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18, Baba teaches wherein a set comprising the at least one respective satellite vehicle signal parameter for each of the candidate satellite vehicle positioning signals comprises at least one measure of signal strength of a respective at least one satellite vehicle positioning signal of the subset of satellite vehicle positioning signals (para. [0269] “SNR”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 7 and 14, the closest prior art (Raman US 20060152409 A1) teaches determining, based on at least one respective satellite vehicle signal parameter for each of candidate satellite vehicle positioning signals, a subset of satellite vehicle positioning signals consisting of fewer than all of the candidate satellite vehicle positioning signals (para. [0037] “The GPS receiver 102 may begin with a low-sensitivity search to find the GPS signals 106 that are relatively strong”, where the relatively strong signals form the subset, and the parameter is signal strength),
where a set comprising the at least one respective satellite vehicle signal parameter for each of the candidate satellite vehicle positioning signals comprises at least one first parameter, based on a first coarse granularity measurement made of one of the candidate satellite vehicle positioning signals (para. [0037] “The GPS receiver 102 may begin with a low-sensitivity search to find the GPS signals 106 that are relatively strong”, where “low-sensitivity” meets “coarse granularity”, and the parameter is signal strength).
Normark (US 20090002234 A1, cited on IDS) teaches determining a subset of satellite vehicle positioning signals based on at least one respective satellite vehicle signal parameter for each of candidate satellite vehicle positioning signals, the parameter comprising a satellite vehicle elevation relative to the mobile device (para. [0039] “estimate anticipated processing intensity by considering ... the source’s elevation angle” as discussed in the rejections above above).
However the prior art does not teach or make obvious the combination:
wherein a set comprising the at least one respective satellite vehicle signal parameter for each of the candidate satellite vehicle positioning signals comprises at least one first parameter, based on a first coarse granularity measurement made of one of the candidate satellite vehicle positioning signals less than a threshold amount of time before a present time, and at least one second parameter comprising a satellite vehicle elevation relative to the mobile device or a second coarse granularity measurement made of one of the candidate satellite vehicle positioning signals more than the threshold amount of time before the present time.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Rowitch (US 20040041729 A1) teaches a method of controlling a satellite positioning system receiver of a mobile device (100, Fig. 1), the method comprising:
determining, at the mobile device, candidate satellite vehicle positioning signals corresponding to satellite vehicles above a horizon relative to the mobile device (para. [0035] “the PDE provides the subscriber station with acquisition assistance information (AAI) indicating which satellites are likely to be transmitting signals that the subscriber station can receive” or “From the almanac, the time, and the coarse knowledge of it position, the subscriber station predicts which satellites are visible to it”);
determining, based on at least one respective satellite vehicle signal parameter for each of the candidate satellite vehicle positioning signals (304, Fig. 3; para. [0036] “signal to noise ratio”), a subset of satellite vehicle positioning signals consisting of fewer than all of the candidate satellite vehicle positioning signals (306, 308, Fig. 3 and paras. [0037]-[0038], esp. “A fourth satellite set is defined as all the satellites in the first satellite set, but excluding the satellites in the second satellite set”); and
causing each satellite signal channel in at least a subset of a plurality of satellite signal channels of the satellite positioning system receiver to measure a corresponding satellite vehicle positioning signal of the subset of satellite vehicle positioning signals (312, 314, Fig. 3 in view of paras. [0040]-[0042]; para. [0081], where each “PN code” used in correlator 606 comprises a satellite signal channel).
Rowitch further teaches wherein a set comprising the at least one respective satellite vehicle signal parameter for each of the candidate satellite vehicle positioning signals comprises at least one measure of signal strength of a respective at least one satellite vehicle positioning signal of the subset of satellite vehicle positioning signals (304, Fig. 3; para. [0036] “signal to noise ratio”).
Park (US 20030231132 A1) teaches selecting satellites and assigning them to hardware channels (paras. [0009]-[0010]), and that it is conventional to select satellites with highest elevations (para. [0024]).
Pemble (US 6392593 B1) teaches a list of highest elevation satellites (214, Fig. 2), from which satellites are selected (310, Fig. 3) and assigned to channels (312, 314, Fig. 3).
Sheynblat (US 20010048387 A1) teaches a prioritized order of satellites, the priority determined based on elevation angle of satellites (para. [0044]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSI J GALT whose telephone number is (571)270-1469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM - 5PM 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 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.
/CASSI J GALT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648