DETAILED NON-FINAL OFFICE 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 .
Comments
The drawings of September 14, 2024 are hereby accepted as FORMAL.
Please note that any mention of a line number of a claim in this office action refers to the claims as they appear in the official claim listing in the image file wrapper (IFW).
Claim Interpretation
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.
Claim 14 is 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.
Overall, dependent claim 14 is indefinite and unclear in context. Particularly, on line 2 of claim 14, the claim language, “a plurality of a correlator” does not make sense in context. For purposes of examination, it is presumed that this claim language means that two or more of the listed elements on lines 2-4 are positively claimed.
Non-Statutory Subject Matter
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 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the “media” on line 1 of independent claim 8 and on line 1 of independent claim 19 are not claimed as being non-transitory, so the rejected claims could encompass signal claims.
Prior Art Rejections
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claims 1-3 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renard et al (FR 2739938 A1), hereinafter, Renard et al (‘938).
A person of ordinary skill-in-the-art would be a person having a degree in some form of engineering or in physics with several years of practical experience in the design and/or testing of tracking receivers, such as satellite positioning receivers.
Looking, first, to independent claim 1, Renard et al (‘938) plainly discloses a “multi-frequency signal receiver system” (line 1), noting, for example, page 5 at lines 14-18 (noting especially “receiver” on line 15 and “several carrier frequencies L1 (such as GLONASS)” on line 18), and, page 10 at lines 9-12 (noting especially “a receiver being able to receive” at lines 9-10 and “several carrier frequencies L1” at line 12).
The claim 1, “baseband processing system configured to implement a switching strategy … based at least on a switch indicator” (lines 2-6) is substantially met in Renard et al (‘938), at least, by drawing Figures 1 and 3, especially by Figure 3 as characterized in Renard et al (‘938) on page 10 at lines 5-7 (noting the downstream digital processing), except for the “fundamental state estimation” (lines 4-5) and the “switch indicator” (line 6).
The claim 1, “single frequency tracking (ST) mode” (line 4) is met in Renard et al (‘938) by the GPS mode (e.g., page 5 at line 17; page 10 at lines 10-11).
Similarly, in claim 1 the “multi-frequency tracking (MT) mode” (line 5) is met in Renard et al (‘938) by the GLONASS mode (e.g., page 5 at line 18; page 10 at line 12).
In Renard et al (‘938), the state estimation is not characterized as “fundamental.” Absent any clear meaning of a “fundamental state estimation” as opposed to simply a “state estimation,” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the state estimation from the multi-frequency tracking could be called “fundamental” in that it would contain more information than the state estimation from the single-frequency tracking.
As for the claim 1 limitation of a “switch indicator” (line 6), the last line of the abstract of Renard et al (‘938) says that one of the GPS or the GLONASS could be used if the other fails. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that failure of GPS or of GLONASS (e.g., a loss of signal strength) could be considered a “switch indicator” to switch to using only the one that has not failed, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
In that each and every claimed feature recited in independent claim 1 is plainly present in Renard et al (‘938) as modified above, claim 1 is obvious over Renard et al (‘938).
As for the further limitations of dependent claim 2, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try a “multi-frequency optimal tracking (OT) mode” in Renard et al (‘938) from among the various tracking modes in an effort to optimize tracking, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
Similarly, with respect to the further limitations of dependent claim 3, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try a “multi-frequency joint tracking (JT) mode” in Renard et al (‘938) from among the various tracking modes in an effort to optimize tracking, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
The remarks with respect to independent claim 8 are substantially those made above with respect to independent claim 1. In addition, the implementation of the claimed subject matter in claim 8 as “program instructions” would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention due to the use of processors and microprocessors in Renard et al (‘938) (e.g., see items 40, 50, and 80 in Figure 1) in which the “program instructions” would be stored in memory associated with the disclosed processors and microprocessors for the advantage of reduced bulk, weight, and cost.
As for the further limitations of dependent claim 9, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try a “multi-frequency optimal tracking (OT) mode” in Renard et al (‘938) from among the various tracking modes in an effort to optimize tracking, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
Similarly, with respect to the further limitations of dependent claim 10, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try a “multi-frequency joint tracking (JT) mode” in Renard et al (‘938) from among the various tracking modes in an effort to optimize tracking, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
Claims 4, 6, 7, 11-14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renard et al (‘938) in view of Brodie (‘066).
A person of ordinary skill-in-the-art would be a person having a degree in some form of engineering or in physics with several years of practical experience in the design and/or testing of tracking receivers, such as satellite positioning receivers.
As for claim 4, the claimed use of a “threshold” is not present in Renard et al (‘938) as modified above in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Brodie (‘066) teaches the use of measurement fault detection in satellite positioning (e.g., column 1 at lines 8-11; column 5 at lines 58-62) for the advantage of “improving fault detection” (column 8 at lines 46-47). In Brodie (‘066), in column 6 at lines 35-46, the use of “two additional parameters,” including C/No as thresholds is noted.
So, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the Brodie (‘066) fault detection in Renard et al (‘938) as applied above to independent claim 1, as taught by Brodie (‘066) in order to gain the advantage taught by Brodie (‘066).
The further limitations of dependent claim 6 are met by the combination of Renard et al (‘938) in view of Brodie (‘066) as applied above to dependent claim 4, noting, especially the “two additional parameters” and C/No in Brodie (‘066) at column 6, lines 35-46.
The further limitations of dependent claim 7 are met by the combination of Renard et al (‘938) in view of Brodie (‘066) as applied above to dependent claim 4.
The remarks with respect to dependent claim 11 are substantially those made above regarding dependent claim 4 and independent claim 8.
As for the further limitations of dependent claim 12, these are met by the applied combination of Renard et al (‘938) in view of Brodie (‘066) as applied above to claim 8. The claim 12 limitation of “receive a multi-frequency signal” (line 3) is met by the receiving of a GLONASS signal in Renard et al (‘938). The claim 12 limitation of “down convert the multi-frequency signal” (line 4) is met by the functions of stages 20 and/or 30 in Figure 1 of Renard et al (‘938), and, noting, for example, page 10 at line 33 through page 11 at line 16. The claim 12 limitation of “convert the multi-frequency signal to a digital multi-frequency signal” (line 5) is met in Renard et al (‘938) by the function of analog-to-digital converter 38 in Figure 1 (see Renard: page 12 at line 13). The claim 12 limitation of “obtain signal parameters from the multi-frequency signal” (line 6) is met in Renard et al (‘938) by the functions of any one or more of items 40, 50, and 80 of Figure 1.
Looking to the further limitations of dependent claim 13, the “code tracking loop” is met in Renard et al (‘938) by the disclosed “boucle de correlation de code” (e.g., page 18 at line 8). The claim 13, “carrier tracking loop” is met in Renard et al (‘938) by the “boucle d’asservissement de phase de porteuse” (e.g., page 18 at line 9).
As for the further limitations of dependent claim 14, “correlator” is met in Renard et al (‘938) by the correlator in the correlator loop; the “loop filter” is met in Renard et al (‘938) by either of items 22 and 24 in Figure 1; the “state estimator” and the “fundamental state estimator” are treated in the rejection of claim 1 above; the “local reference generator” is met in Renard et al (‘938) by the reference oscillator (page 12 at line 7: “oscillator de reference”). As for the claim 14 “discriminator,” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a “discriminator” in the applied combination to limit frequencies to only those of interest, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
Next, taking up independent claim 19, the remarks are substantially those made above with respect to claims 1, 4, and 6. In addition, the implementation of the claimed subject matter in claim 19 as “program instructions” would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention due to the use of processors and microprocessors in Renard et al (‘938) (e.g., see items 40, 50, and 80 in Figure 1) in which the “program instructions” would be stored in memory associated with the disclosed processors and microprocessors for the advantage of reduced bulk, weight, and cost.
The remarks with respect to dependent claim 20 are substantially those made above with respect to claim 12.
Potentially-Allowable Subject Matter
The text of 37 CFR 1.75(c) is as follows:
(c) One or more claims may be presented in dependent form, referring back to and further limiting another claim or claims in the same application. Any dependent claim which refers to more than one other claim ("multiple dependent claim") shall refer to such other claims in the alternative only. A multiple dependent claim shall not serve as a basis for any other multiple dependent claim. For fee calculation purposes under § 1.16, a multiple dependent claim will be considered to be that number of claims to which direct reference is made therein. For fee calculation purposes also, any claim depending from a multiple dependent claim will be considered to be that number of claims to which direct reference is made in that multiple dependent claim. In addition to the other filing fees, any original application which is filed with, or is amended to include, multiple dependent claims must have paid therein the fee set forth in § 1.16(j). Claims in dependent form shall be construed to include all the limitations of the claim incorporated by reference into the dependent claim. A multiple dependent claim shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of each of the particular claims in relation to which it is being considered. (Bold added).
Claim 5 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.
In dependent claim 5, the claimed feature, “a remote sensing processor configured to provide sounding parameters” (line 8) is not disclosed in any of the prior art of record, nor would it have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art.
If dependent claim 15 and all of the claims from which it depends are amended to overcome the rejection under 35 USC 101, claim 15 would be allowable in that none of the prior art of record discloses in combination the claimed features, “determine a filter gain matrix based on the signal carrier-to-noise ratios in each channel; obtain a code state estimation for each signal frequency using the ST mode with code state estimation errors and filter gain matrix in each channel; obtain a fundamental code state estimation using the multi-frequency JT mode; scale the fundamental code state estimation to each code state using a frequency ratio; and determine a code switch indicator for each signal channel,” nor would these claimed features have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art. Similarly, if claim 16 and all of the claims from which it depends are amended to overcome the rejection under 35 USC 101, the claim would be allowable, at least, as being dependent on allowable claim 15.
If dependent claim 17 and all of the claims from which it depends are amended to overcome the rejection under 35 USC 101, claim 17 would be allowable in that none of the prior art of record discloses in combination the claimed features, “determine a filter gain matrix based on the signal carrier-to-noise ratios in each channel; obtain a code state estimation for each signal frequency using the ST mode with carrier state estimation errors and filter gain matrix in each channel; obtain a fundamental carrier state estimation using the multi-frequency JT mode; scale the fundamental carrier state estimation to each carrier state using a frequency ratio; and determine a carrier switch indicator for each signal channel,” nor would these claimed features have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art. Similarly, if claim 18 and all of the claims from which it depends are amended to overcome the rejection under 35 USC 101, the claim would be allowable, at least, as being dependent on allowable claim 17.
Prior Art of General Interest
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bogensberger et al (‘121) is of general interest for drawing Figure 3 and the related disclosure, particularly noting the details of dual-frequency GPS receivers and switching; column 2, lines 50-56; column at lines 6-10, 25-31, and, 42-44; column 4 at lines 26-30; and, column 5 at lines 10-21. However, Bogensberger et al (‘121) does not disclose the claimed features of switching involving multi-frequency tracking inter alia, nor would this feature have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art.
Young (‘513) is of general interest for showing the general state of the prior art as to the use of two, independent tracking engines. Young (‘513) would not be usable as a reference against the pending claims in that it merely discloses the general state of the prior art.
Lennen (‘108) is of general interest for showing the general state of the prior art as to the use of multiple channels. Lennen (‘108) would not be usable as a reference against the pending claims in that it merely discloses the general state of the prior art.
The remaining examiner-cited prior art herewith that has not been applied above is of general interest for having been of record in the parent application 17/632,088.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARR E GREGORY whose telephone number is (571)272-6972. The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays through Fridays from 7:30 am to 3:30 pm eastern time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights