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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on April 30, 2026, fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language, specifically, TW 1551879. Specifically, MPEP §609.01 requires that for non-English documents that are cited, the following must be provided:
(a) A concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, unless a complete translation is provided; and/or
(b) A written English language translation of a non-English language document, or portion thereof, if it is within the possession, custody or control of, or is readily available to any individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c).
With regard to the present application, Examiner notes that the translated abstracts of the non-English references alone are insufficient to serve as concise explanations of relevance due to the abbreviated nature of the abstracts, the complex subject matter of the instant application, and the lack of clarity as to why the non-English documents are specifically relevant to the present claimed invention.
It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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 15-18 are 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 15 recites “The GNSS receiving method of claim 11, further comprising: receiving an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) output signal” which is indefinite, because it appears to place the “receiving” step at the end of the method from claim 11, from which it depends. Such a reading, while seemingly obligatory, creates confusion because: 1) It is unknown who or what is “receiving” the ADC output signal, and 2) It is unclear why the method would recite receiving an output signal that is the basis for a data sequence output that has already been processed. Method claims are generally read, and understood, in a particular operational order, and dependent method claims should take care to spell it specifically where new steps occur in the method if other than at the end of the claim from which it depends. This practice ensures that a long-form reading of the dependent claim makes sense. Dependent claims 16-18 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 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yu et al. (US 2022/0357461 A1), hereinafter Yu.
Regarding claim 11, Yu discloses a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiving (abstract, regarding a method for acquiring a signal from a satellite in a global navigation satellite system) method comprising:
performing a multiplexing operation upon a data sequence output of a pre-sampling operation and a local replica output of a code generation operation (para. [0089], regarding in process 600, for each of a plurality of time periods 602, a plurality of segments 604 of a local PRN sequence are correlated (e.g., using a correlator 610) with corresponding segments 606 at a first offset to result in a first set of correlations; fig. 6), to generate a multiplexing output (correlation values 612; fig. 6); and
performing fast Fourier transform (FFT) upon the multiplexing output (para. [0095], regarding a process 700 of performing separate discrete Fourier transforms (DFT) for the correlations 612 produced for different code shift hypothesis; fig. 7).
Regarding claim 15, Yu discloses the invention in claim 11, and further discloses the invention further comprising: receiving an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) output signal (para. [0061], regarding channels 301a and 301b include analog to digital converters (ADC) 308a and 308b; fig. 3); and performing a resampling operation upon the ADC output signal to generate and output a data sequence input to the pre-sampling operation (para. [0061], regarding ADCs 308a and 308b sample the GNSS signal at a first sampling rate; see also para. [0081]), wherein the data sequence input is in a baseband (para. [0065-0066], regarding a sub-band selection module 402 selects the digital signal from the band corresponding to a satellite signal that the acquisition engine 316 is attempting to acquire; a mixer 404 down converts the signal to a baseband frequency; fig. 4).
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 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (US 2022/0357461 A1), hereinafter Yu.
Regarding claim 16, Yu discloses the invention in claim 15, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein a sampling rate of the data sequence input is lower than a sampling rate of the ADC output signal.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the invention such that a sampling rate of the data sequence input is lower than a sampling rate of the ADC output signal, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In this case, it would be obvious to try different ratios of the sampling rates between the ADC output signal and the data sequence input in order to optimize the GNSS receiving method.
Regarding claim 17, Yu discloses the invention in claim 15, and further discloses wherein the pre-sampling operation comprises: receiving a data sequence input (as shown in fig. 3); and storing data samples of the data sequence input into a sample memory in a sample-by-sample manner (para. [0133], regarding for a respective frequency hypothesis, the correlating, performing the discrete Fourier transform, and combining operations are performed for each of a plurality of satellites (e.g., without re-sampling the signal), by correlating the stored sampled data with a locally stored (or generated) replica of the PRN code (e.g., stored in PRN local sequence memory 416, FIG. 4) for each of those satellites).
Yu does not appear to specifically disclose wherein a maximum number of data samples stored in the sample memory is larger than a number of samples of a local replica generated from the code generation operation in one unit correlation time.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the invention such that a maximum number of data samples stored in the sample memory is larger than a number of samples of a local replica generated from the code generation operation in one unit correlation time, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In this case, it would be obvious to try different ratios of the sampling storage between the local replica and the data sequence input in order to optimize the GNSS receiving method.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (US 2022/0357461 A1), hereinafter Yu, in view of Yu et al. (US 2022/0276389 A1), hereinafter Keegan.
Regarding claim 19, Yu discloses the invention in claim 11, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein code Doppler compensation and carrier Doppler compensation are jointly achieved by the local replica output generated from the code generation operation.
However, Keegan is in the field of GNSS signal receivers (abstract) and teaches wherein code Doppler compensation and carrier Doppler compensation are jointly achieved by the local replica output generated from the code generation operation (para. [0173], regarding the LOS estimation module 704 estimates a compensating adjustment or time offset to the clock local oscillator (e.g., clock NCO) (e.g., of the clock tracking loop(s) 730), which is applied to the code local oscillator (e.g., code NCO) and/or the carrier local oscillator (e.g., carrier NCO) (e.g., of the channel baseband tracking loop(s) 711) to adjust the generated local code signal or code replica based on a Doppler shift of the received GNSS signal at the rover or mobile GNSS receiver).
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the invention such that code Doppler compensation and carrier Doppler compensation are jointly achieved by the local replica output generated from the code generation operation, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The purpose would be to ensure maximum efficiency of the local replica output while accounting for Doppler effects.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are allowed. The prior art does not appear to disclose the combined limitations of the claimed invention, specifically, a hypothesis scheduling machine (HSM), coupled to the multiplexer circuit, the pre-sampler circuit, and the code generator circuit, wherein under coordination of the HSM, the FFT circuit is shared between the pre-sampler circuit and the code generator circuit through the multiplexer circuit.
Claims 12-14 and 20 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. Claim 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art does not appear to disclose the combined limitations of the claimed invention as detailed in the rejections detailed hereinabove with regard to the cited prior art.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at 571-270-5144. 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