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 Objections
Claim(s) 8-9, 14-15, and 20 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 8, lines 2, 3, 5, and 6, the phrase “each of at least one pseudolite” should be “each of the at least one pseudolite”
In Claim 9, line 2, the phrase “each of at least one pseudolite” should be “each of the at least one pseudolite”
In Claim 14, line 1, the phrase “the instructions” should be “the operations” for consistency with Claim 10
In Claim 15, lines 5 and 12, the phrase “at least one pseudolites” should be “at least one pseudolite” (singular)
In Claim 20, line 2, the phrase “the data the data” should be “the data”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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(s) 4, 8-9, 12, and 18 is/are 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.
Regarding Claim 4, the claim recites the limitation “wherein the signal from each of the at least one pseudolite comprises a signal from each of the at least one pseudolite along a flight path of the aircraft.” It is unclear whether “along a flight path of the aircraft” applies to the pseudolite’s location, a location where the signal is received, or something else. For examination purposes, the limitation is interpreted as meaning each pseudolite is positioned along a flight path of the aircraft. This rejection also applies to the corresponding limitations in Claims 12 and 18.
Regarding Claim 8, the claim recites the limitation “the signal from each of at least one pseudolite comprises a time of transmission for the signal from each of at least one pseudolite.” It is unclear whether the limitation requires the signal to encode a time of transmission, requires the signal to be transmitted at a particular time, or something else. For examination purposes, the limitation is interpreted as requiring the signal to encode a time of transmission.
Regarding Claim 9, the claim recites the limitations “a respective position of the at least one pseudolite is encoded” and “a position of the at least one pseudolite is stored.” In the case where there is more than one pseudolite, it is unclear whether one or multiple positions are encoded or stored. For examination purposes, the limitations are interpreted as requiring a respective position of each of the at least one pseudolite to be encoded and a position of each of the at least one pseudolite to be stored.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farley (US 9,903,954) in view of Microchip Technology (“Chip-Scale Atomic Clock (CSAC) Performance During Rapid Temperature Change White Paper,” Microchip Technology Inc., 2021).
Regarding Claim 1, Farley teaches:
A method for avionic positioning, comprising:
accessing, with a computing device on an aircraft, data corresponding to a signal from each of a plurality of global navigation satellites ([col. 6, line 66]: “airborne mobile pseudolites”; [col. 10, line 18]: “receiver 310, a processor 320”; [col. 10, line 22]: “receiver 310 can receive satellite positioning signals”);
accessing, with the computing device, data corresponding to a signal from each of at least one pseudolite, each of the at least one pseudolite synchronized to a time of the global navigation satellites ([col. 10, line 22]: “receiver 310 can receive … pseudolite positioning signals”; [col. 12, lines 63-65]: “During satellite coverage periods, the atomic clock can be synchronized (or re-synchronized) with the ground true time.”); and
computing, with the computing device, a position estimate of the aircraft based at least in part on the data corresponding to the signal from each of the plurality of global navigation satellites and the data corresponding to the signal from each of the at least one pseudolite ([col. 11, lines 9-12]: “The processor 320 can use received satellite positioning data and/or received pseudolite positioning data to determine an absolute position of the pseudolite 300.”), wherein a clock of the computing device is synchronized to the time of the global navigation satellites ([col. 11, lines 44-45]: “Chip Scale Atomic Clock (CSAC)”; [col. 12, lines 63-65]: “During satellite coverage periods, the atomic clock can be synchronized (or re-synchronized) with the ground true time.”).
Farley further teaches that maintaining time accuracy “within about 100 ns” (0.1 microseconds) for up to several hours or days is an objective of the pseudolites ([col. 7, lines 1-5]), but does not explicitly teach that the clock has a timing error less than one microsecond per twenty-four hours.
However, Microchip Technology is in the field of atomic clocks and teaches a CSAC that has a timing error less than one microsecond per twenty-four hours (Microchip Technology [p. 2]: Table 1 showing that the CSAC has a time error of 0.5µs to 1µs per 24 hours).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Farley and use an atomic clock that has a timing error less than one microsecond per twenty-four hours, as taught by Microchip Technology, with a reasonable expectation of success. Modifying Farley to use Microchip Technology’s CSAC would ensure that accurate timing is maintained in order to achieve accurate positioning results.
Regarding Claim 10, Farley teaches:
A system for avionic positioning, comprising:
an aircraft ([col. 6, line 66]: “airborne mobile pseudolites”);
one or more processors located onboard the aircraft ([col. 10, line 18]: “a processor 320”);
a clock in communication with the one or more processors ([col. 10, line 19]: “atomic clock 340]); and
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that store instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to perform operations ([col. 10, lines 18 and 33]: “a processor 320”; “memory of the pseudolite 300”), the operations comprising
accessing data corresponding to a signal from each of a plurality of global navigation satellites ([col. 6, line 66]: “airborne mobile pseudolites”; [col. 10, line 18]: “receiver 310, a processor 320”; [col. 10, line 22]: “receiver 310 can receive satellite positioning signals”);
accessing data corresponding to a signal from each of at least one pseudolite when each of the at least one pseudolite is synchronized to a time of the global navigation satellites ([col. 10, line 22]: “receiver 310 can receive … pseudolite positioning signals”; [col. 12, lines 63-65]: “During satellite coverage periods, the atomic clock can be synchronized (or re-synchronized) with the ground true time.”); and
computing a position estimate of the aircraft based at least in part on the data corresponding to the signal from each of the plurality of global navigation satellites and the data corresponding to the signal from each of the at least one pseudolite ([col. 11, lines 9-12]: “The processor 320 can use received satellite positioning data and/or received pseudolite positioning data to determine an absolute position of the pseudolite 300.”), wherein the clock is synchronized to the time of the global navigation satellites ([col. 11, lines 44-45]: “Chip Scale Atomic Clock (CSAC)”; [col. 12, lines 63-65]: “During satellite coverage periods, the atomic clock can be synchronized (or re-synchronized) with the ground true time.”).
Farley further teaches that maintaining time accuracy “within about 100 ns” (0.1 microseconds) for up to several hours or days is an objective of the pseudolites ([col. 7, lines 1-5]), but does not explicitly teach that the clock has a timing error less than one microsecond per twenty-four hours.
However, Microchip Technology is in the field of atomic clocks and teaches a CSAC that has a timing error less than one microsecond per twenty-four hours (Microchip Technology [p. 2]: Table 1 showing that the CSAC has a time error of 0.5µs to 1µs per 24 hours).
The rationale to modify Farley with the teachings of Microchip Technology persists from Claim 1.
Regarding Claims 2 and 11, Farley teaches: wherein the clock comprises one or both of a chip scale atomic clock and a miniature atomic clock ([col. 11, lines 44-45]: “Chip Scale Atomic Clock (CSAC)”).
Regarding Claim 3, Farley teaches: wherein each of the at least one pseudolite comprises a respective clock.
Farley does not explicitly teach that each respective clock has a timing error less than one microsecond per twenty-four hours.
However, Microchip Technology teaches a CSAC that has a timing error less than one microsecond per twenty-four hours (Microchip Technology [p. 2]).
The rationale to modify Farley with the teaches of Microchip Technology persists from Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 7, Farley teaches: the method further comprising:
accessing, with the computing device, updated data corresponding to the signal from each of the at least one pseudolite ([col. 6, lines 60-61]: “the stationary pseudolites 120a can continuously broadcast their absolute positions”; [col. 13, lines 16-17]: “Kalman Filter”); and
computing, with the computing device, an updated position estimate of the aircraft based at least in part on the updated data corresponding to the signal from each of the at least one pseudolite, wherein updated data corresponding to the signal from each of the plurality of global navigation satellites is unavailable when the updated position estimate of the aircraft is computed ([col. 10, lines 47-51]: “the processor 320 can determine that the received satellite positioning signals are jammed and decide to determine the location of the pseudolite 300 using pseudolite positioning signals received from stationary pseudolites.”; [col. 13, lines 16-17]: “Kalman Filter”),
wherein the at least one pseudolite comprises three ground-based pseudolites ([col. 13, line 29]: “three reference pseudolites”).
Regarding Claim 8, Farley teaches: wherein:
the signal from each of at least one pseudolite comprises a time of transmission for the signal from each of at least one pseudolite ([col. 13, lines 19-20]: “transmission times of the pseudolites”); and
computing the position estimate of the aircraft comprises computing a time of arrival for the signal from each of at least one pseudolite based at least in part on a time of the clock when the signal from each of at least one pseudolite arrives at the aircraft ([col. 13, lines 17-22]: “In general, the processor can determine the absolute position of the pseudolite device 300 using the positions and the transmission times of the pseudolites from which the navigation data is received and the times of receiving the navigation data from the plurality of pseudolites.”).
Regarding Claim 9, Farley teaches: wherein a respective position of the at least one pseudolite is encoded within the signal from each of at least one pseudolite, or a position of the at least one pseudolite is stored within a database onboard the aircraft ([col. 13, lines 19-21]: “the positions … of the pseudolites”).
Claim(s) 4-6 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farley (US 9,903,954) and Microchip Technology (“Chip-Scale Atomic Clock (CSAC) Performance During Rapid Temperature Change White Paper,” Microchip Technology Inc., 2021), as applied to Claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Stefanescu (WO 2024/124061).
Regarding Claims 4 and 12, Farley does not explicitly teach that each of the at least one pseudolite are along a flight path of the aircraft.
However, Stefanescu is in the field of aircraft navigation and teaches pseudolites located along a flight path of the aircraft (Stefanescu [0033]: “A network of pseudolites located at the perimeter of a takeoff and landing area could be used for the final phase of the approach very close to the touchdown point”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Farley and position the pseudolites along a flight path of the aircraft, as taught by Stefanescu, with a reasonable expectation of success. Positioning the pseudolites along a flight path of the aircraft, such as at a takeoff and landing area, yields the predictable result of improving flight safety and reliability by providing positioning solutions in areas where satellite may be unavailable (Stefanescu [0054]).
Regarding Claims 5 and 13, Farley does not explicitly teach that each of the at least one pseudolite are located at a landing area for the aircraft.
However, Stefanescu teaches that the pseudolites are located at a landing area for the aircraft (Stefanescu [0033]: “A network of pseudolites located at the perimeter of a takeoff and landing area could be used for the final phase of the approach very close to the touchdown point”).
The rationale to modify Farley with the teachings of Stefanescu persists from Claim 4.
Regarding Claims 6 and 14, Farley does not explicitly teach: computing, with the computing device, an angle of arrival for the signal from each of the at least one pseudolite based at least in part on the data corresponding to the signal from each of the at least one pseudolite.
However, Stefanescu teaches computing an angle of arrival for the signal from each pseudolite based on the pseudolite data (Stefanescu [0034]: “ESA can be used on the aircraft to measure angle of arrival from an RF beacon.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Farley and compute an angle of arrival for each pseudolite signal, as taught by Stefanescu, with a reasonable expectation of success. Computing angle of arrival yields the predictable result of obtaining additional positioning data that can be used to improve the position estimates.
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farley (US 9,903,954) in view of Microchip Technology (“Chip-Scale Atomic Clock (CSAC) Performance During Rapid Temperature Change White Paper,” Microchip Technology Inc., 2021) and Pattabiraman (US 2010/0073229).
Regarding Claim 15, Farley teaches:
A method for avionic positioning, comprising:
accessing, with a … computing device on an aircraft, data corresponding to a signal from each of a plurality of global navigation satellites ([col. 6, line 66]: “airborne mobile pseudolites”; [col. 10, line 18]: “receiver 310, a processor 320”; [col. 10, line 22]: “receiver 310 can receive satellite positioning signals”);
accessing, with a … computing device on the aircraft, data corresponding to a signal from each of at least one pseudolites, each of the at least one pseudolites synchronized to a time of the global navigation satellites ([col. 10, line 22]: “receiver 310 can receive … pseudolite positioning signals”; [col. 12, lines 63-65]: “During satellite coverage periods, the atomic clock can be synchronized (or re-synchronized) with the ground true time.”);
computing an offset estimate of a clock of the computing device … ([col. 13, lines 43-44]: “the processor adjusting the atomic clock or the time of the atomic clock according to the received third time data”); and
computing a position estimate of the aircraft based at least in part on the data corresponding to the signal from each of the plurality of global navigation satellites, the data corresponding to the signal from each of the at least one pseudolites … ([col. 11, lines 9-12]: “The processor 320 can use received satellite positioning data and/or received pseudolite positioning data to determine an absolute position of the pseudolite 300.”).
Farley further teaches that maintaining time accuracy “within about 100 ns” (0.1 microseconds) for up to several hours or days is an objective of the pseudolites ([col. 7, lines 1-5]).
Farley does not explicitly teach:
accessing the global navigation satellite data with a first computing device and accessing the pseudolite data with a second computing device;
computing an offset estimate between a clock of the first computing device and a clock of the second computing device;
wherein the clock of the second computing device has a timing error less than one microsecond per twenty-four hours; or
computing a position estimate of the aircraft based at least in part on the offset estimate.
However, Pattabiraman is in the field of positioning using global navigation satellite receivers and terrestrial receivers (pseudolites) and teaches:
accessing global navigation satellite data with a first computing device and accessing pseudolite data using a second computing device (Pattabiraman [0100]: “the transceiver system and the WAPS system may be integrated into a single die or may be separate dies”; Examiner note: Pattabiraman’s terrestrial WAPS towers broadcast positioning signals that are synchronized with GPS and are therefore pseudolites ([0075-0076]));
computing an offset estimate between a clock of the first computing device and a clock of the second computing device (Pattabiraman [0106]: “When the GNSS and WAPS systems use a separate clock, the GNSS clock should also be provided to the WAPS system to enable the WAPS system to calibrate (i.e. estimate the relative clock bias of WAPS with respect to GNSS clock)”); and
computing a position estimate based at least in part on the data corresponding to the signal from each of the plurality of global navigation satellites, the data corresponding to the signal from each of the at least one pseudolites, and the offset estimate (Pattabiraman [0106]: “The GNSS receiver can also help improve the performance of the WAPS receiver in terms of Time-To-First-Fix (TTFF), sensitivity and location quality by providing location, frequency and GNSS time estimates to the WAPS receiver.”; [0180]: “The system of an embodiment can be combined with any ‘signal of opportunity’, in order to provide positioning.”; [0182]: “The range measurements (along with associated range quality metrics) are used from GNSS and other positioning systems and combined in a single optimal position solution by a hybrid position engine.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Farley and partition the satellite and pseudolite data processing into first and second computing devices with respective clocks, compute an offset estimate between the first and second clocks, and use the satellite data, pseudolite data, and offset estimate to compute a position estimate, as taught by Pattabiraman, with a reasonable expectation of success. Applying Pattabiraman’s known separate computing devices and relative clock bias calibration technique to Farley’s positioning system would predictably improve the accuracy of position estimates (Pattabiraman [0106]).
Further, Microchip Technology is in the field of atomic clocks and teaches a CSAC that has a timing error less than one microsecond per twenty-four hours (Microchip Technology [p. 2]: Table 1 showing that the CSAC has a time error of 0.5µs to 1µs per 24 hours).
The rationale to modify Farley with the teachings of Microchip Technology persists from Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 16, Farley teaches: wherein the clock of the second computing device comprises one or both of a chip scale atomic clock and a miniature atomic clock ([col. 11, lines 44-45]: “Chip Scale Atomic Clock (CSAC)”).
Regarding Claim 17, Farley teaches: wherein each of the at least one pseudolite comprises a respective clock.
Farley does not explicitly teach that each respective clock has a timing error less than one microsecond per twenty-four hours.
However, Microchip Technology teaches a CSAC that has a timing error less than one microsecond per twenty-four hours (Microchip Technology [p. 2]).
The rationale to modify Farley with the teaches of Microchip Technology persists from Claim 1.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farley (US 9,903,954) and Microchip Technology (“Chip-Scale Atomic Clock (CSAC) Performance During Rapid Temperature Change White Paper,” Microchip Technology Inc., 2021) and Pattabiraman (US 2010/0073229), as applied to Claim 15 above, and further in view of Stefanescu (WO 2024/124061).
Regarding Claim 18, Farley does not explicitly teach that each of the at least one pseudolite are along a flight path of the aircraft.
However, Stefanescu is in the field of aircraft navigation and teaches pseudolites located along a flight path of the aircraft (Stefanescu [0033]: “A network of pseudolites located at the perimeter of a takeoff and landing area could be used for the final phase of the approach very close to the touchdown point”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Farley and position the pseudolites along a flight path of the aircraft, as taught by Stefanescu, with a reasonable expectation of success. Positioning the pseudolites along a flight path of the aircraft, such as at a takeoff and landing area, yields the predictable result of improving flight safety and reliability by providing positioning solutions in areas where satellite may be unavailable (Stefanescu [0054]).
Regarding Claim 19, Farley does not explicitly teach that each of the at least one pseudolite are located at a landing area for the aircraft.
However, Stefanescu teaches that the pseudolites are located at a landing area for the aircraft (Stefanescu [0033]: “A network of pseudolites located at the perimeter of a takeoff and landing area could be used for the final phase of the approach very close to the touchdown point”).
The rationale to modify Farley with the teachings of Stefanescu persists from Claim 18.
Regarding Claim 20, Farley does not explicitly teach: computing, with the computing device, an angle of arrival for the signal from each of the at least one pseudolite based at least in part on the data corresponding to the signal from each of the at least one pseudolite.
However, Stefanescu teaches computing an angle of arrival for the signal from each pseudolite based on the pseudolite data (Stefanescu [0034]: “ESA can be used on the aircraft to measure angle of arrival from an RF beacon.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Farley and compute an angle of arrival for each pseudolite signal, as taught by Stefanescu, with a reasonable expectation of success. Computing angle of arrival yields the predictable result of obtaining additional positioning data that can be used to improve the position estimates.
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 NOAH Y. ZHU whose telephone number is (571) 270-0170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-4PM.
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).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire, can be reached on (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.
/NOAH YI MIN ZHU/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/BRADY W FRAZIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights