DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Priority
This application discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in prior application no 14/388,808 with priority of PRO 61/617,186, filed on 03/29/2012, and names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application. Accordingly, this application may constitute a continuation or division. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent. US 11,140,645 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, all the limitations of the claim 1 in the instant application are included in the claim 1 of US Patent US 11,140,645 B2.
US 18/818,650 (Instant Application)
US 11,140,645 B2 (Patent)
A method for sensor operation, comprising: deploying a network of sensors, the sensors having respective clocks that are not mutually synchronized;
receiving, in at least a group of the sensors, respective signals emitted from each of a plurality of sources, and recording respective times of arrival of the signals at the sensors according to the respective clocks;
providing location information comprising respective sensor locations of the sensors; and synchronizing the respective clocks based on the recorded times of arrival and on the location information.
1. A method for transmitter operation, comprising:
receiving recorded time of arrival (TOA) and
and synchronizing the respective clocks of the sources or finding locations of the sensors based on the calculated synchronization values;
which are configured to transmit the signals at times determined according to the respective clocks,
wherein the sensors do not serve as sources of the transmitted signals; obtaining location information comprising respective source locations of the sources;
calculating synchronization values for the sources comprising at least one of respective offsets and skews of the clocks thereof as a function of the location information comprising the respective source locations, and the received recorded TOA measurements from the sensors, without dependence on measurements of transmissions emitted by the sensors to the sources;
Claim 2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,140,645 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of the claim 2 of the instant application is anticipated by the claim 7 of said patent.
US 18/818,650 (Instant Application)
US 11,140,645 B2 (Patent)
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein synchronizing the respective clocks comprises estimating offsets and skews between the respective clocks.
7. The method according to claim 1, wherein synchronizing the respective clocks comprises estimating offsets and skews between the respective clocks.
Claim 3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,140,645 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of the claim 3 of the instant application is anticipated by the claim 13 of said patent.
US 18/818,650 (Instant Application)
US 11,140,645 B2 (Patent)
3. The method according to claim 1, wherein the method comprises computing the source locations based on the sensor locations and the recorded times of arrival.
13. The system according to claim 3, wherein the processor is configured to compute the sensor locations based on the source locations and the recorded TOA measurements.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,140,645 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of the claim 4 of the instant application is anticipated by the claim 14 of said patent.
US 18/818,650 (Instant Application)
US 11,140,645 B2 (Patent)
4. The method according to claim 3, wherein computing the source locations comprises applying an estimator to a set of equations relating the recorded times of arrival and the source and sensor locations.
14. The system according to claim 13, wherein the processor is configured to apply an estimator to a set of equations relating the recorded TOA measurements and the source and sensor locations in order to compute the sensor locations.
Claim 5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,140,645 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of the claim 5 of the instant application is anticipated by the claim 15 of said patent.
US 18/818,650 (Instant Application)
US 11,140,645 B2 (Patent)
5. The method according to claim 4, wherein applying the maximum likelihood estimator comprises applying an iterative optimization process to the set of the equations.
15. The system according to claim 14, wherein the processor is configured to apply the estimator to the set of the equations in an iterative optimization process.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,140,645 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of the claim 6 of the instant application is anticipated by the claim 12 of said patent.
US 18/818,650 (Instant Application)
US 11,140,645 B2 (Patent)
6. The method according to claim 5, wherein the optimization process derives a set of linear constraints on offsets and skews of the respective clocks based on the received signals.
12. The system according to claim 3, wherein the processor is configured to estimate offsets and skews between the respective clocks.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,140,645 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of the claim 7 of the instant application is anticipated by the claim 8 of said patent.
US 18/818,650 (Instant Application)
US 11,140,645 B2 (Patent)
8. The method according to claim 1, and comprising detecting a fault in the network of the sensors based on the location information and the recorded times of arrival.
10. The method according to claim 1, and comprising detecting a fault in the network based on the location information and the recorded TOA measurements.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,140,645 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of the claim 9 of the instant application is anticipated by the claim 11 of said patent.
US 18/818,650 (Instant Application)
US 11,140,645 B2 (Patent)
The method according to claim 1, wherein receiving the respective signals comprises receiving radio signals.
11. The system according to claim 4, wherein the cellular communications network operates in accordance with a Long-Term Evolution (LTE) standard family, and wherein the user equipment is configured to make observed time difference of arrival (OTDOA) measurements based on the signals received from the base stations, and the processor is configured to perform at least one of synchronizing the operation of the base stations and finding locations of the user equipment based on the OTDOA measurements.
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,140,645 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of the claim 20 of the instant application is anticipated by the claim 8 of said patent.
US 18/818,650 (Instant Application)
US 11,140,645 B2 (Patent)
20. The method according to claim 1, and comprising navigating based on the recorded times of arrival and the location information.
8. The method according to claim 1, wherein the method comprises computing the sensor locations based on the source locations and the recorded TOA measurements.
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.
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-6, 8-9, and 19-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Narasimhan et al (US 2011/0055907 A1), hereinafter, “Narasimhan” in view of Maloney et al (US 2008/0161015 A1), hereinafter, “Maloney”.
Regarding claim 1, Narasimhan discloses: A method for sensor operation (Narasimhan: fig 1-2 and 8, Sensor 102, para [0038], where, “The sensors are deployed in line, i.e., directly in the network traffic path, inspecting all traffic as it passes through the sensor”), comprising: deploying a network of sensors, the sensors having respective clocks that are not mutually synchronized (Narasimhan: fig 1, Sensor 102, para [0112] and para [0115], where, a network 100 is deployed with Sensors 102, where, the Sensors having the respective clocks are not synchronized with the system clock);
receiving, in at least a group of the sensors respective signals emitted from each of a plurality of sources (Narasimhan: fig 8, Sensors 102-A and 102-B are the group of Sensors, para [0118], where, receives a peer record for a host entry from its peer sensor, e.g., 102-B), and recording respective times of arrival of the signals at the sensors according to the respective clocks (Narasimhan: fig 8, Sensors 102-A and 102-B are the group of Sensors, para [0112] and [0118], where, receives a peer record for a host entry from its peer sensor, e.g., 102-B, para [0115]); Narasimhan does not explicitly teach: providing location information comprising respective sensor locations of the sensors; and synchronizing the respective clocks based on the recorded times of arrival and on the location information.
Maloney teaches: providing location information comprising respective sensor locations of the sensors (Maloney: fig 5-6, para [0050], where, “To support TOA and TDOA determinations of useful locations, the digitization or sampling of the signals at the distributed sensor sites must be synchronized and time-tagged to within (at most) one-half microsecond. This may be achieved through the use of stable, calibrated oscillators, such as those in rubidium clocks or Global Positioning System (GPS) time bases, and maintained with periodic recalibration of the timing standards in each sensor site. The stability or drift rate of the oscillator standard determines how often the recalibration with signals from known locations must be performed”); and
synchronizing the respective clocks based on the recorded times of arrival and on the location information (Maloney: fig 5-6, para [0050], where, “To support TOA and TDOA determinations of useful locations, the digitization or sampling of the signals at the distributed sensor sites must be synchronized and time-tagged to within (at most) one-half microsecond. This may be achieved through the use of stable, calibrated oscillators, such as those in rubidium clocks or Global Positioning System (GPS) time bases, and maintained with periodic recalibration of the timing standards in each sensor site”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use “providing location information comprising respective sensor locations of the sensors; and synchronizing the respective clocks based on the recorded times of arrival and on the location information” taught by Maloney into Narasimhan in order to increase efficiency and reduces the cost of implementation of correlation techniques (Maloney: para [0049]).
Regarding claims 2 and 6, Narasimhan modified by Maloney disclose: wherein synchronizing the respective clocks comprises estimating offsets and skews between the respective clocks (Maloney: fig 5-6, para [0050], where, TDOA represents time Skew and considered phase-difference offsets must be performed).
Regarding claim 3, Narasimhan modified by Maloney disclose: wherein the method comprises computing the source locations based on the sensor locations (Maloney: fig 5-6, para [0050], where, “The stability or drift rate of the oscillator standard determines how often the recalibration with signals from known locations must be performed”), and the recorded times of arrival (Narasimhan: fig 7, para [0075], where, the states are recorded in a host table).
Regarding claim 4, Narasimhan modified by Maloney disclose: wherein computing the source locations (Narasimhan: fig 12, para [0169], where, “The process 1200 generates a nonce from a single source value, and can be implemented in the sensor 102”): comprises applying an estimator to a set of equations relating the recorded times of arrival and the source and sensor locations (Maloney: fig 5-6, para [0050], where, “To support TOA and TDOA determinations of useful locations, the digitization or sampling of the signals at the distributed sensor sites must be synchronized and time-tagged to within (at most) one-half microsecond. This may be achieved through the use of stable, calibrated oscillators, such as those in rubidium clocks or Global Positioning System (GPS) time bases, and maintained with periodic recalibration of the timing standards in each sensor site. The stability or drift rate of the oscillator standard determines how often the recalibration with signals from known locations must be performed”).
Regarding claim 5, Narasimhan modified by Maloney disclose: wherein applying the maximum likelihood estimator comprises applying an iterative optimization process to the set of the equations (Maloney: fig 5-6, para [0054], where, “Examples of such analysis approaches include maximum likelihood or least squares estimators, joint probabilistic data association algorithms, probability density function multi-target tracking systems for continuous parameters”).
Regarding claim 8, Narasimhan modified by Maloney disclose: and comprising detecting a fault in the network of the sensors based on the location information and the recorded times of arrival (Maloney: fig 5-6, para [0043], where, the error detection pattern is based on “where the differences in the TOAs, i.e., the TDOAs, can be calculated and/or where all location-related parametric data can be used to estimate the associated location of the transmitter”).
Regarding claim 9, Narasimhan modified by Maloney disclose: wherein receiving the respective signals comprises receiving radio signals (Maloney: fig 5-6, para [0043], where, “Locations of transmitters of RF signals can be determined from the geometric interpretation of measurements of parameters such as the differences in the times of arrival or the directional angles of arrival of their signals at multiple receiving sites of known location”).
Regarding claim 19, Narasimhan modified by Maloney disclose:19. The method according to claim 1, wherein receiving the respective signals comprises, upon detecting a loss of signal from one of the sources (Maloney: para [0020], where, “a signal source, such as a cellular telephone, the accuracy of its location determined from measurements of differences in times of signal arrival or of directions of signal arrival at known locations is directly related to the accuracy of the applied TDOA and AOA measurement processes”), selecting a new source, and recording the respective times of arrival of the signals from the new source (Maloney: fig 5-6, para [0043], where, the error detection pattern is based on “where the differences in the TOAs, i.e., the TDOAs, can be calculated and/or where all location-related parametric data can be used to estimate the associated location of the transmitter”).
Regarding claim 20, Narasimhan modified by Maloney disclose:20. The method according to claim 1, and comprising navigating based on the recorded times of arrival and the location information (Maloney: fig 4-5, para [0050], where, using GPS corresponding to TOA or TDOA recording).
Claim 10-18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Narasimhan et al (US 2011/0055907 A1), hereinafter, “Narasimhan” in view of Maloney et al (US 2008/0161015 A1), hereinafter, “Maloney” further in view of Whitehead et al (US 8686900 B2), hereinafter, “Whitehead”.
Regarding claim 10, neither Narasimhan nor Maloney disclose: wherein the sources comprise at least one satellite source.
Whitehead teaches: wherein the sources comprise at least one satellite source (Whitehead: GNSS Background: Section (4) where, “GNSS includes the Global Positioning System (GPS), which was established by the United States government and employs a constellation of 24 or more satellites in well-defined orbits at an altitude of approximately 26,500 km”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use “wherein the sources comprise at least one satellite source” taught by Whitehead into the system of Narasimhan and Maloney in order to solve the integer ambiguity problem, the master selects the slave antenna to be measured based on the GPS satellite almanac to provide the best geometry (or one of the best) (Whitehead: Section (18).
Regarding claim 11, Narasimhan modified by Maloney further modified by Whitehead disclose: The method according to claim 10, wherein the at least one satellite source comprises three or more satellite sources (Whitehead: fig 1, Satellite 8, A-D, where, the Satellite includes A-D Satellites).
Regarding claim 12, Narasimhan modified by Maloney further modified by Whitehead disclose: wherein the plurality of the sources comprises the at least one satellite source and at least one terrestrial source (Whitehead: Section: (19), where, “Additional applications include marine vessels, terrestrial vehicles and aircraft with partially blocked GNSS antennas. Multipath effects are mitigated by averaging the GNSS signals received by multiple antennas or by an antenna(s) and multiple locations”).
Regarding claim 13, Narasimhan modified by Maloney further modified by Whitehead disclose: wherein synchronizing the respective clocks comprises using the times of arrival of the respective signals emitted from only a single satellite source and a single terrestrial source in order to synchronize the respective clocks of the sensors (Whitehead: Section: (16), where, “the use of two receivers, which either share the same clock, or have a clock synchronization technique to eliminate the receiver clock errors. The reference receiver (herein called the master) is connected to a single antenna whereas the slave receiver, which is clock synchronized with the master, has a multitude of antennas connected to it, which are switched in and out to take a measurement at each antenna location”).
Regarding claim 14, Narasimhan modified by Maloney further modified by Whitehead disclose: and comprising finding a location of the at least one terrestrial source (Whitehead: Section: (15), where, “other current and future positioning technology using signals from satellites, with or without augmentation from terrestrial sources”) based on the recorded times of arrival.
Regarding claim 15, Narasimhan modified by Maloney further modified by Whitehead disclose: 15. The method according to claim 10, and comprising finding a direction of the at least one satellite source based on the recorded times of arrival (Maloney: para [0036], where, “For the measurement of the TDOA between the signal representations received at two sites, both signals are used in a common correlator or the "known" signal waveform is used in separate correlators, each of which determines a Time Of Arrival (TOA) from which the difference can be obtained by subtraction. FIG. 5 represents the functional component configuration and data flows applied in the autonomous sensor-site operation in which a "known," locally derived or stored replica is used in the correlation processing to obtain AOA or TOA measurements”).
Regarding claim 16, Narasimhan modified by Maloney further modified by Whitehead disclose: wherein the at least one satellite source is not a Global Satellite Navigation Systems (GNSS) satellite (Whitehead: fig 1, Section: (17), where, “The GPS slave (e.g., rover) receiver computes the location vector from a double or single difference of the GPS rover and reference carrier phases for a plurality of GNSS satellites”).
Claim 17-18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Narasimhan et al (US 2011/0055907 A1), hereinafter, “Narasimhan” in view of Maloney et al (US 2008/0161015 A1), hereinafter, “Maloney” further in view of Gum et al (US 8531332 B2), hereinafter, “Gum”.
Regarding claim 17, neither Narasimhan nor Maloney explicitly disclose: wherein synchronizing the respective clocks comprises detecting an attempt to spoof a satellite source, and discarding the signals received from the spoofed satellite source.
Gum teaches: wherein synchronizing the respective clocks comprises detecting an attempt to spoof a satellite source, and discarding the signals received from the spoofed satellite source (Gum: Section: (6), where, “a variety of satellite positioning systems, mobile terminals, communication networks including mobile wireless communication systems, and/or position determination systems may be used to facilitate implementation of the anti-spoofing detection system disclosed in this document”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use “wherein synchronizing the respective clocks comprises detecting an attempt to spoof a satellite source, and discarding the signals received from the spoofed satellite source” taught by Gum into the system of Narasimhan and Maloney in order to improving battery life (Gum: Section (18).
Regarding claim 18, Narasimhan modified by Maloney further modified by Gum disclose: The method according to claim 10, wherein synchronizing the respective clocks comprises applying an orthogonal decomposition to a measurement space of the satellites (Gum: Section: (11) and (14), where, supports OFDM (Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is 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.
Conclusion
Prior Arts considered but not used: (1) Zhang et al. (US20140016621 A1), (2) Werb et al (US 2006/0187866 A1), and (3) Duchesneau et al (US 2016/0248631 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIZAM U AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-9561. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fry, 7:00 AM-6:00 PM PST.
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, Huy Vu can be reached on 571-272-3155. 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.
/NIZAM U AHMED/ Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights