DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 USC 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.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)/6th ¶
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f)/6th ¶ (hereinafter 112(f)):
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), 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 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), except as otherwise indicated in an Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicially recognized exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 1-18 is/are directed to a method or apparatus for determining the position of a GNSS receiving using a combined error correction value. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all claim elements, both individually and in combination, are directed to the mathematical manipulation of data by a first device and do not result in an improvement in the functioning of the computer or to another technology. Obtaining phase center (PCO) error correction data is extrasolution activity/data gathering. The computational steps being performed in claim(s) 1, 7, and 13 and subsequent claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14-18 is/are merely well known mathematical operations being performed on a generic computer. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
ANALYSIS
Patent Ineligible Subject Matter (Claims 1-18)
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank lnt’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217—18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75—77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219—20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594—95 (1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 184 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267—68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Supreme Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 192 (“We view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract... is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, . . . and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].”’ Id. ((alteration in the original) quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requiring] generic computer implementation fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
Under Step 2A of that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Step 1 — Statutory Category
Claim(s) 1-6 recite(s) a series of steps, and, therefore, is a process.
Claims(s) 7-18 recite(s) a device/apparatus, which is a machine.
Step 2A, Prong One — Recitation of Judicial Exception
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, we evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. For abstract ideas, Prong One represents a change as compared to prior guidance because we here determine whether the claim recites mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes.
It is determined that claim(s) 1-18 is/are directed to an abstract idea, and, particularly, encompassing a series of mathematical operations performed by a generic computer/processor or mental process. The two determining steps/functions and the performing step/function are all disclosed as being performed using mathematical calculations.
Mathematical formulas, mathematical relationships, mathematical calculations, and computational operations fall within the “mathematical concepts” grouping. Accordingly, the subject matter of claim(s) 1-18 falls within this grouping. Accordingly, claim(s) 1-18 recite(s) an abstract idea.
A mere recitation of a generic computer components performing mathematical operations does not take the calculating out of the mental process grouping. Thus, claim(s) 7-18 also recites a mental process.
Therefore claim(s) 1-18 recite(s) an abstract idea, we proceed to Prong Two to determine whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two — Practical Application
If a claim recites a judicial exception, in Prong Two we next determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not directed to the judicial exception. This evaluation requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not directed to the judicial exception.
Here, apart from the determining and performing steps, the only additional element that is/are recited in claim(s) 1-18 is/are the generic computer components of memories, processors, transceivers, and servers.
The obtaining limitation merely recites information or data that can be analyzed. As such, the additional limitation is/are insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Accordingly, this/these element(s) do/does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Since the additional element(s) in claim(s) 1-18 fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, we proceed to Step 2B to determine whether the claim recites an “inventive concept.”
Step 2B — Inventive Concept
As noted, for Step 2B of the analysis, we determine whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field. See Memorandum.
As set forth above it has been concluded that claim(s) 1-18 do/does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, and thus, the additional elements do not transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.
Applicant’s disclosure does not provide evidence that the additional element(s) recited in claim(s) 1-18 (i.e., the claim element in addition to the claim elements that recite an abstract idea) is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This issue is explained by the Federal Circuit, as follows:
It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention “significantly more” than that ineligible concept. In Alice, the Supreme Court held that claims directed to a computer-implemented scheme for mitigating settlement risks claimed a patent-ineligible abstract idea. 134 S.Ct. at 2352, 2355—56. Some of the claims at issue covered computer systems configured to mitigate risks through various financial transactions. Id. After determining that those claims were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, the Court considered whether the recitation of a generic computer added “significantly more” to the claims. Id. at 2357. Critically, the Court did not consider whether it was well-understood, routine, and conventional to execute the claimed intermediated settlement method on a generic computer. Instead, the Court only assessed whether the claim limitations other than the invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it was directed were well-understood, routine and conventional. Id. at 2359-60. BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (2018) (emphases added).
Apart from the limitations that recite an abstract idea, the obtaining limitation merely recites insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Also, the device/apparatus recited in claim(s) 7-18 merely uses a computer system including generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The application of the abstract idea using generic computer components does not transform the claim into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea. Id.
Accordingly, claim(s) 1-18 fails to recite an inventive concept that transforms the claim into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 11-13, 15, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (CN 110286396 A) in view of Kouba (A Guide to Using International GNSS Service (IGS) Products).
In regard to claim 1, Huang discloses:
determining, with a first device, an error correction value for PCO error correction (Δρj in the equation in ¶64; ¶68) and a differential code bias (DCB) error correction for a frequency band
b
j
,
r
-
b
j
s
in the equation in ¶64; ¶68) [where ¶68 states that
Δ
ρ
j
includes the PCO error correction, and
b
j
,
r
-
b
j
s
is the differential code bias between the receiver hardware code bias and the satellite hardware code bias] for a frequency band used by a GNSS satellite to transmit a GNSS signal received by a GNSS device (¶68) [where j represents the signal frequency band]; and
performing a positioning operation with the first device, using the PCO error correction and a differential code bias (DCB) error correction, for determining a location of the GNSS device (¶69) [where the first device is a GNSS receiver that receives correction values (Fig. 3; ¶27; ¶73)].
While Huang does not explicitly disclose a combined error correction value for PCO error correction and differential code bias (DCB) error correction, what Huang discloses is mathematically equivalent. ¶64 provides the pseudorange equation:
P
j
,
r
s
=
ρ
r
s
+
c
Δ
t
r
-
Δ
t
s
+
I
j
,
r
s
+
T
r
s
+
b
j
,
r
-
b
j
s
+
Δ
ρ
j
+
ϵ
P
,
j
However, this equation could be written in a mathematically equivalent form:
i
n
t
e
r
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
v
a
l
u
e
=
b
j
,
r
-
b
j
s
+
Δ
ρ
j
P
j
,
r
s
=
ρ
r
s
+
c
Δ
t
r
-
Δ
t
s
+
I
j
,
r
s
+
T
r
s
+
i
n
t
e
r
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
v
a
l
u
e
+
ϵ
P
,
j
where the intermediate value is a combined error correction value for PCO error correction and differential code bias (DCB) error correction.
Based on Ex Parte Griesinger, decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, Patent No. 7,450,727, paper No. 03-18-2008, 8 pages (BPAI Appeal 2007-2345), a reference is considered to teach not only what it states explicitly, but also what is mathematically equivalent to what it states: “[T]he Examiner’s use of mathematical equivalence per se to show anticipation appears to apply across all arts.”, p. 3, 3rd ¶.
In the event that Huang is not taken to be considered to teach this feature, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it trivial to replace a mathematical operation with another mathematical operation that is mathematically equivalent to it.f ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to replace a mathematical operation with another mathematical opera
Huang fails to explicitly disclose [determining how the PCO error correction approximation is determined, including] obtaining, at the first device, phase center offset (PCO) error correction data; determining, with the first device, a PCO error correction approximation based at least in part on a difference between a Z-axis component, in a satellite body-fixed frame of the GNSS satellite, of the PCO error correction data and a Z-axis component, in the satellite body-fixed frame of the GNSS satellite, of a PCO reference point for a position of the GNSS satellite; the combined error correction value is based at least in part on the PCO error correction approximation and DCB error correction data.
Kouba teaches obtaining, at a first device, phase center offset (PCO) error correction data; determining, with the first device, a PCO error correction approximation based at least in part on a difference between a Z-axis component, in a satellite body-fixed frame of the GNSS satellite, of the PCO error correction data and a Z-axis component, in the satellite body-fixed frame of the GNSS satellite, of a PCO reference point for a position of the GNSS satellite (section 5.1.1) [where the phase center offset (PCO) error correction data is the "Center of phase" in Kouba, the PCO reference point is the "Center of mass" in Kouba, the PCO error correction approximation is the "phase center offset" in Kouba, the satellite body-fixed frame of the GNSS satellite is the "satellite body fixed reference frame" in Kouba, and there is a Z-axis component of the positions of the Center of mass and Center of phase which would result in a Z-component offset when the PCO error correction approximation is determined; and wherein the PCO error correction approximation is sent to a GNSS receiver].
While Kouba does not teach providing the phase center offset (PCO) error correction data and the PCO reference point to the GNSS receiver, since the PCO error correction approximation is the difference of the phase center offset (PCO) error correction data and the PCO reference point to the GNSS receiver, sending the phase center offset (PCO) error correction data and the PCO reference point to the GNSS receiver is mathematically equivalent to sending the PCO error correction approximation. (In other words, if PCO = COP - COM, sending COP and COM is equivalent to sending PCO since PCO can be derived from COP - COM.)
Based on Ex Parte Griesinger, decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, Patent No. 7,450,727, paper No. 03-18-2008, 8 pages (BPAI Appeal 2007-2345), a reference is considered to teach not only what it states explicitly, but also what is mathematically equivalent to what it states: “[T]he Examiner’s use of mathematical equivalence per se to show anticipation appears to apply across all arts.”, p. 3, 3rd ¶.
In the event that Kouba is not taken to be considered to teach this feature, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it trivial to replace a mathematical operation with another mathematical operation that is mathematically equivalent to it.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to implement the determination of the PCO error correction approximation.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the PCO error correction approximation is determined.
In the combination, the combined error correction value is based at least in part on the DCB error correction data the PCO error correction (Huang), where the PCO error correction is based on the PCO error correction approximation (Kouba).
In regard to claim 7, Huang discloses:
one or more transceivers; one or more memories; and one or more processors communicatively coupled with the one or more transceivers and the one or more memories (Fig. 3; ¶27; ¶73) [where a GNSS receiver that receives corrections inherently includes one or more receivers; one or more memories; and one or more processors communicatively coupled with the one or more transceivers and the one or more memories], the one or more processors configured to:
determine, with a first device, an error correction value for PCO error correction (Δρj in the equation in ¶64; ¶68) and a differential code bias (DCB) error correction for a frequency band
b
j
,
r
-
b
j
s
in the equation in ¶64; ¶68) [where ¶68 states that
Δ
ρ
j
includes the PCO error correction, and
b
j
,
r
-
b
j
s
is the differential code bias between the receiver hardware code bias and the satellite hardware code bias] for a frequency band used by a GNSS satellite to transmit a GNSS signal received by a GNSS device (¶68) [where j represents the signal frequency band]; and
perform a positioning operation with the first device, using the PCO error correction and a differential code bias (DCB) error correction, for determining a location of the GNSS device (¶69) [where the first device is a GNSS receiver that receives correction values (Fig. 3; ¶27; ¶73)].
While Huang does not explicitly disclose a combined error correction value for PCO error correction and differential code bias (DCB) error correction, what Huang discloses is mathematically equivalent. ¶64 provides the pseudorange equation:
P
j
,
r
s
=
ρ
r
s
+
c
Δ
t
r
-
Δ
t
s
+
I
j
,
r
s
+
T
r
s
+
b
j
,
r
-
b
j
s
+
Δ
ρ
j
+
ϵ
P
,
j
However, this equation could be written in a mathematically equivalent form:
i
n
t
e
r
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
v
a
l
u
e
=
b
j
,
r
-
b
j
s
+
Δ
ρ
j
P
j
,
r
s
=
ρ
r
s
+
c
Δ
t
r
-
Δ
t
s
+
I
j
,
r
s
+
T
r
s
+
i
n
t
e
r
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
v
a
l
u
e
+
ϵ
P
,
j
where the intermediate value is a combined error correction value for PCO error correction and differential code bias (DCB) error correction.
Based on Ex Parte Griesinger, decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, Patent No. 7,450,727, paper No. 03-18-2008, 8 pages (BPAI Appeal 2007-2345), a reference is considered to teach not only what it states explicitly, but also what is mathematically equivalent to what it states: “[T]he Examiner’s use of mathematical equivalence per se to show anticipation appears to apply across all arts.”, p. 3, 3rd ¶.
In the event that Huang is not taken to be considered to teach this feature, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it trivial to replace a mathematical operation with another mathematical operation that is mathematically equivalent to it.f ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to replace a mathematical operation with another mathematical opera
Huang fails to explicitly disclose [determining how the PCO error correction approximation is determined, including] obtaining, at the first device, phase center offset (PCO) error correction data; determining, with the first device, a PCO error correction approximation based at least in part on a difference between a Z-axis component, in a satellite body-fixed frame of the GNSS satellite, of the PCO error correction data and a Z-axis component, in the satellite body-fixed frame of the GNSS satellite, of a PCO reference point for a position of the GNSS satellite; the combined error correction value is based at least in part on the PCO error correction approximation and DCB error correction data.
The Office takes Official Notice that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it well known before the effective filing date of the invention to for a GNSS receiver to request correction data, and thus to have a transceiver as it both transmits and receives.
Kouba teaches obtaining, at a first device, phase center offset (PCO) error correction data; determining, with the first device, a PCO error correction approximation based at least in part on a difference between a Z-axis component, in a satellite body-fixed frame of the GNSS satellite, of the PCO error correction data and a Z-axis component, in the satellite body-fixed frame of the GNSS satellite, of a PCO reference point for a position of the GNSS satellite (section 5.1.1) [where the phase center offset (PCO) error correction data is the "Center of phase" in Kouba, the PCO reference point is the "Center of mass" in Kouba, the PCO error correction approximation is the "phase center offset" in Kouba, the satellite body-fixed frame of the GNSS satellite is the "satellite body fixed reference frame" in Kouba, and there is a Z-axis component of the positions of the Center of mass and Center of phase which would result in a Z-component offset when the PCO error correction approximation is determined; and wherein the PCO error correction approximation is sent to a GNSS receiver].
While Kouba does not teach providing the phase center offset (PCO) error correction data and the PCO reference point to the GNSS receiver, since the PCO error correction approximation is the difference of the phase center offset (PCO) error correction data and the PCO reference point to the GNSS receiver, sending the phase center offset (PCO) error correction data and the PCO reference point to the GNSS receiver is mathematically equivalent to sending the PCO error correction approximation. (In other words, if PCO = COP - COM, sending COP and COM is equivalent to sending PCO since PCO can be derived from COP - COM.)
Based on Ex Parte Griesinger, decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, Patent No. 7,450,727, paper No. 03-18-2008, 8 pages (BPAI Appeal 2007-2345), a reference is considered to teach not only what it states explicitly, but also what is mathematically equivalent to what it states: “[T]he Examiner’s use of mathematical equivalence per se to show anticipation appears to apply across all arts.”, p. 3, 3rd ¶.
In the event that Kouba is not taken to be considered to teach this feature, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it trivial to replace a mathematical operation with another mathematical operation that is mathematically equivalent to it.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to implement the determination of the PCO error correction approximation.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the PCO error correction approximation is determined.
In the combination, the combined error correction value is based at least in part on the DCB error correction data the PCO error correction (Huang), where the PCO error correction is based on the PCO error correction approximation (Kouba).
In regard to claim 13, Huang discloses:
means for determining, with a first device, an error correction value for PCO error correction (Δρj in the equation in ¶64; ¶68) and a differential code bias (DCB) error correction for a frequency band
b
j
,
r
-
b
j
s
in the equation in ¶64; ¶68) [where ¶68 states that
Δ
ρ
j
includes the PCO error correction, and
b
j
,
r
-
b
j
s
is the differential code bias between the receiver hardware code bias and the satellite hardware code bias] for a frequency band used by a GNSS satellite to transmit a GNSS signal received by a GNSS device (¶68) [where j represents the signal frequency band]; and
means for performing a positioning operation with the first device, using the PCO error correction and a differential code bias (DCB) error correction, for determining a location of the GNSS device (¶69) [where the first device is a GNSS receiver that receives correction values (Fig. 3; ¶27; ¶73)].
While Huang does not explicitly disclose a combined error correction value for PCO error correction and differential code bias (DCB) error correction, what Huang discloses is mathematically equivalent. ¶64 provides the pseudorange equation:
P
j
,
r
s
=
ρ
r
s
+
c
Δ
t
r
-
Δ
t
s
+
I
j
,
r
s
+
T
r
s
+
b
j
,
r
-
b
j
s
+
Δ
ρ
j
+
ϵ
P
,
j
However, this equation could be written in a mathematically equivalent form:
i
n
t
e
r
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
v
a
l
u
e
=
b
j
,
r
-
b
j
s
+
Δ
ρ
j
P
j
,
r
s
=
ρ
r
s
+
c
Δ
t
r
-
Δ
t
s
+
I
j
,
r
s
+
T
r
s
+
i
n
t
e
r
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
v
a
l
u
e
+
ϵ
P
,
j
where the intermediate value is a combined error correction value for PCO error correction and differential code bias (DCB) error correction.
Based on Ex Parte Griesinger, decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, Patent No. 7,450,727, paper No. 03-18-2008, 8 pages (BPAI Appeal 2007-2345), a reference is considered to teach not only what it states explicitly, but also what is mathematically equivalent to what it states: “[T]he Examiner’s use of mathematical equivalence per se to show anticipation appears to apply across all arts.”, p. 3, 3rd ¶.
In the event that Huang is not taken to be considered to teach this feature, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it trivial to replace a mathematical operation with another mathematical operation that is mathematically equivalent to it.f ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to replace a mathematical operation with another mathematical opera
Huang fails to explicitly disclose [determining how the PCO error correction approximation is determined, including] a means for obtaining, at the first device, phase center offset (PCO) error correction data; a means for determining, with the first device, a PCO error correction approximation based at least in part on a difference between a Z-axis component, in a satellite body-fixed frame of the GNSS satellite, of the PCO error correction data and a Z-axis component, in the satellite body-fixed frame of the GNSS satellite, of a PCO reference point for a position of the GNSS satellite; the combined error correction value is based at least in part on the PCO error correction approximation and DCB error correction data.
Kouba teaches a means for obtaining, at a first device, phase center offset (PCO) error correction data; a means for determining, with the first device, a PCO error correction approximation based at least in part on a difference between a Z-axis component, in a satellite body-fixed frame of the GNSS satellite, of the PCO error correction data and a Z-axis component, in the satellite body-fixed frame of the GNSS satellite, of a PCO reference point for a position of the GNSS satellite (section 5.1.1) [where the phase center offset (PCO) error correction data is the "Center of phase" in Kouba, the PCO reference point is the "Center of mass" in Kouba, the PCO error correction approximation is the "phase center offset" in Kouba, the satellite body-fixed frame of the GNSS satellite is the "satellite body fixed reference frame" in Kouba, and there is a Z-axis component of the positions of the Center of mass and Center of phase which would result in a Z-component offset when the PCO error correction approximation is determined; and wherein the PCO error correction approximation is sent to a GNSS receiver].
While Kouba does not teach providing the phase center offset (PCO) error correction data and the PCO reference point to the GNSS receiver, since the PCO error correction approximation is the difference of the phase center offset (PCO) error correction data and the PCO reference point to the GNSS receiver, sending the phase center offset (PCO) error correction data and the PCO reference point to the GNSS receiver is mathematically equivalent to sending the PCO error correction approximation. (In other words, if PCO = COP - COM, sending COP and COM is equivalent to sending PCO since PCO can be derived from COP - COM.)
Based on Ex Parte Griesinger, decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, Patent No. 7,450,727, paper No. 03-18-2008, 8 pages (BPAI Appeal 2007-2345), a reference is considered to teach not only what it states explicitly, but also what is mathematically equivalent to what it states: “[T]he Examiner’s use of mathematical equivalence per se to show anticipation appears to apply across all arts.”, p. 3, 3rd ¶.
In the event that Kouba is not taken to be considered to teach this feature, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it trivial to replace a mathematical operation with another mathematical operation that is mathematically equivalent to it.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to implement the determination of the PCO error correction approximation.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the PCO error correction approximation is determined.
In the combination, the combined error correction value is based at least in part on the DCB error correction data the PCO error correction (Huang), where the PCO error correction is based on the PCO error correction approximation (Kouba).
In regard to claims 3, 9, and 15, Huang further discloses the first device comprises the GNSS device, and wherein performing the positioning operation with the first device comprises determining, with the GNSS device, a position of the GNSS device based at least in part on the combined error correction value (Fig. 3; ¶27; ¶73) [where the mathematical equivalence with regard to combined error correction value is detailed in the rejections of patent claims 1, 7, and 13, above].
In regard to claims 5, 11, and 17, Huang further discloses the position of the GNSS device is further based at least in part on one or more measurements made by the GNSS device of the GNSS signal received by the GNSS device (¶30; ¶64; ¶69) [where receiver pseudorange measurements are used to determine the position of the GNSS device].
In regard to claims 6, 12, and 18, Huang further discloses the PCO error correction approximation excludes (i) an X-axis component, in the satellite body-fixed frame of the GNSS satellite, of the PCO error correction data and (ii) a Y-axis component of the PCO error correction data, in the satellite body-fixed frame of the GNSS satellite (section 5.1.1,) [in the embodiment of satellites with phase center offsets in only the Z-axis (referenced in lines 6-7)].
Claim(s) 2, 8, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang and Kouba, as applied to claims 1, 7, and 13, above, and further in view of France (US 5,928,306 A).
Huang and Kouba fails to disclose the first device comprises a server, and wherein performing the positioning operation with the first device comprises sending information comprising the combined error correction value from the server to the GNSS device.
France teaches a correction server performing applying the corrections and determining the positioning based on uncorrected measurements from a GNSS receiver and wherein performing the positioning operation with the first device comprises sending information comprising the combined error correction value from the server to the GNSS device (col. 9, line 64 to col. 10, line 13).
Thus, a server performing correcting a positioning of a GNSS receiver or a GNSS receiver performing correction and position on the GNSS receiver based on corrections were art-recognized equivalents at the time of the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute performing the correcting and positioning at the server for performing the correcting and positioning at the GNSS receiver of the combination. Additionally, this is a simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to perform the same function and obtain predictable results. Because both elements are known systems for determining the position of a m GNSS receiver, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one for the other to achieve the predictable result of determining the position of the GNSS receiver.
Claim(s) 4, 10, and 16, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang and Kouba, as applied to claims 3, 9, and 15, above, and further in view of Reimer (US 2022/0196852 A1).
Huang further discloses obtaining the comprises obtaining the correction data received by the GNSS device from a server (¶27) [where a device providing data to another device can be described as a server]. Kouba further teaches obtaining the comprises obtaining the correction data received by the GNSS device from a server (section 5.1.11, including the corrections file on p. 11, line 1; p. 15, Table 1) [where a device providing data files to another device can be described as a server].
Huang fails to disclose the data is state-space representation (SSR) data.
Reimer teaches providing correction data as PPP correction data or state-space representation (SSR) correction data are known alternatives (¶25).
Thus, these two elements were art-recognized equivalents at the time of the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute SSR correction data for the PPP correction data of the combination. Additionally, this is a simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to perform the same function and obtain predictable results. Because both elements are known types of correction data, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one for the other to achieve the predictable result of providing correction data to the GNSS receiver.
In the combination, the correction data includes PCO error correction data.
The following reference(s) is/are also found relevant:
He (US 2022/0317310 A1), which teaches SSR correction data including DCB and PCO corrections (¶7).
Applicant is encouraged to consider these documents in formulating their response (if one is required) to this Office Action, in order to expedite prosecution of this application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fred H. Mull whose telephone number is 571-272-6975. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from approximately 9-5:30 Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 https://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Resha Desai, can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
Fred H. Mull
Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/F. H. M./
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights