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 .
Priority
Examiner acknowledges no foreign priority is claimed.
Information Disclosure Statement
Examiner acknowledges no information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted.
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1
Claim 10. A method, comprising:
receiving, by a phased array antenna for a platform, one or more carrier signals;
tracking carrier phase of the received one or more carrier signals;
resolving, by one or more processing elements for the platform, one or more integer cycle ambiguities for one or more baselines associated with the phased array antenna; and
solving, by the one or more processing elements, one or more orientation parameters based on the one or more integer cycle ambiguities, wherein the one or more orientation parameters describe orientation of the phased array antenna.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitation of tracking carrier phase of the received one or more carrier signals; resolving, one or more integer cycle ambiguities for one or more baselines associated with the phased array antenna; solving, one or more orientation parameters based on the one or more integer cycle ambiguities, wherein the one or more orientation parameters describe orientation of the phased array antenna.
These limitations, as drafted, are a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “by one or more processing elements,” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the recitation of “by one or more processing elements,” the claim encompasses a person looking at information and making a simple judgement of visually determining that a rotatable coupler is rotating and mentally estimating, or using a pen and paper, to determine a centerline distance from a rotatable coupler to a wheel assembly. The mere nominal recitation of “by one or more processing elements” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application 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 judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of receiving, by a phased array antenna for a platform, one or more carrier signals; resolving, by one or more processing elements for the platform; solving, by the one or more processing elements.
The receiving a signal is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of collecting information), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “one or more processing elements” of the platform merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using generic or general-purpose vehicle components and generic computer components. The data processing system is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automates the determining steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving steps were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that the processing elements are all conventional processors mounted on the platform, and the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle controller is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). All that is happening is mathematical process without actually applying the outcome to change network operations in any way.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 8
Claim 8. An apparatus, comprising:
a phased array antenna receiving one or more carrier signals;
a receiver performing carrier phase tracking of the one or more carrier signals received by the phased array antenna; and
one or more processing elements programmed to: resolve one or more integer cycle ambiguities for one or more baselines associated with the phased array antenna; and
solve one or more orientation parameters based on the one or more integer cycle ambiguities, wherein the one or more orientation parameters describe orientation of the phased array antenna.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a apparatus including at least one structure. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitation of receiving one or more carrier signals; performing carrier phase tracking of the one or more carrier signals received by the phased array antenna; resolve one or more integer cycle ambiguities for one or more baselines associated with the phased array antenna; solve one or more orientation parameters based on the one or more integer cycle ambiguities, wherein the one or more orientation parameters describe orientation of the phased array antenna.
These limitations, as drafted, are a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at information and making a simple judgement of visually determining that receiver is receiving signal and mentally estimating, or using a pen and paper, to determine parameters for antenna orientaiton.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application 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 judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of a phased array antenna receiving; a receiver performing; one or more processing elements programmed.
The receiving a signal and performing are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of collecting information), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “one or more processing elements” of the platform merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using generic or general-purpose vehicle components and generic computer components.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving steps were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that the processing elements are all conventional processors mounted on the platform, and the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle controller is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). All that is happening is mathematical process without actually applying the outcome to change network operations in any way.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-7 and 9-14 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-7 and 9-14 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the independent claims.
Therefore, claims 1-14 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
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.
Claims 1-2, 7-9 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scnaufer et al. (US 10,948,609 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Scnaufer et al. (‘609) anticipates “a method (column 7, Iines 26-40: Figure 1: a system 100 for heading determination of a vehicle with global navigation satellite system (GNSS) signal measurements…the system 100 may include a vehicle 102 and one or more satellites 104A-N of the GNSS…the vehicle 102 may include dual antennas 108A and 108B, ai least one GNSS receiver 114, and at least one line-replaceable unit (LRU) 116, among other components), comprising:
receiving, by a phased array antenna for a platform (column 10, Iine 52- column 11 line 5: the dual antennas 108A and 108B may receive the one or more signals 106 from the one or more corresponding satellites 104 within the view 112 of the dual antennas 108A and 108B. The dual antennas 1 OBA and 108B may be mounted on the vehicle 102, and may be separated by the baseline length 110 .. .. Each of the dual antennas 108A and 108B may be a half-wave dipole, a dipole antenna (e.g., corner reflector or log-periodic), a monopole antenna (e.g., whip, mast, umbrella, or inverted F), a travelling wave antenna (e.g., helical or spiral), reflector antenna (e.g., corner or parabolic), an aperture antenna (e.g., parabolic, slot, horn, or dielectric), a microstrip antenna, an array antenna (e.g., phased array antenna, electronically scanned array (ESA) with a phase shifter, collinear array, planar array, and conformal array), or a loop antenna, among others, or any combination thereof), one or more carrier signals (column 11, Iines 6-12: from each of the dual antennas 108A and 108B, the GNSS receiver 114 may obtain pseudorange measurements and carrier phase measurements for the one or more satellites 104 within the view 112 of the dual antennas 1 OBA and 1088…the pseudorange measurement may be an approximated distance from the antenna 1 OBA or 1088 to the satellite 104 corresponding to the received signal 106…the carrier phase measurement may be a number of cycles in the signal 106 between the antenna 1 OBA or 1088 and the satellite 104 corresponding to the received signal 106);
tracking carrier phase of the received one or more carrier signals (column 11 line 63- column 12 line 6: the double-difference calculator 202 of the LRU 116 may calculate or determine a difference between the carrier phase measurements for the satellites 104 within view 112 of the dual antennas 108A and 108B…the double-difference calculator 202 may determine a difference between the first carrier phase measurement for the first antenna 108A and the second carrier phase measurement for the second antenna 108B…the difference between the first carrier phase measurement and the second carrier phase measurement may be referred to as a double difference carrier phase (DDCP) measurement);
resolving, by one or more processing elements for the platform (column 12 Iines 7-12: using the baseline length 110 between the dual antennas 1 OBA and 1088 and a linearized measurement model, the ambiguity solution calculator 204 of the LRU 116 may calculate, determine, or estimate carrier phase ambiguities for the satellites 104 for the measurement epoch), one or more integer cycle ambiguities for one or more baselines associated with the phased array antenna (column 8 lines 15-29: a baseline vector component and integer ambiguities may be resolved by the LRU 116 using the double-difference measurements between the dual antennas 108A and 108B…the resolution may be in accordance with the following mathematical formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
42
186
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where b is a three-dimensional baseline vector, N is the vector of integer ambiguities,
PNG
media_image2.png
18
14
media_image2.png
Greyscale
is the GPS L1 wavelength and
PNG
media_image3.png
18
28
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image4.png
18
30
media_image4.png
Greyscale
are noise components for the double-difference measurements; column 12 lines 7-20: using the baseline length 110 between the dual antennas 1 OBA and 108B and a linearized measurement model, the ambiguity solution calculator 204 of the LRU 116 may calculate, determine, or estimate carrier phase ambiguities for the satellites 104 for the measurement epoch…the ambiguity solution calculator 204 may also calculate, determine, or estimate a two-dimensional orientation vector…the carrier phase ambiguities may be a·noat value, and may correspond to a fixed offset in the number of cycles in the signal 106 between the antenna 1 OBA or HiBB to the satellite 104 corresponding to the received signal 106…the two-dimensional orientation vector may include the heading 118 and the pitch 120 of the vehicle 102; column 12 lines 35-47: from the estimated carrier phase ambiguities, the ambiguity solution calculator 204 may calculate, identify, or otherwise determine a set of carrier phase integer ambiguities…each estimated carrier phase ambiguity may be a float value, whereas each carrier phase Integer ambiguity may be an Integer value…the carrier phase integer ambiguity may correspond to a fixed offset in the number of cycles in the signal 106 between the antenna 1 OBA or 108B and the satellite 104 corresponding to the received signal 106 for the corresponding measurement epoch…the ambiguity solution calculator 204 may apply a resampling technique on the estimated carrier phase ambiguities to determine the set of carrier phase integer ambiguities); and
solving, by the one or more processing elements, one or more orientation parameters based on the one or more integer cycle ambiguities, wherein the one or more orientation parameters describe orientation of the phased array antenna (column 12 lines 7-20: using the baseline length 110 between the dual antennas 1 OBA and 108B and a linearized measurement model, the ambiguity solution calculator 204 of the LRU 116 may calculate, determine, or estimate carrier phase ambiguities for the satellites 104 for the measurement epoch. In addition, the ambiguity solution calculator 204 may also calculate, determine, or estimate a two-dimensional orientation vector…the carrier phase ambiguities may be a float value, and may correspond to a fixed offset in the number of cycles in the signal 106 between the antenna 1 OBA or 108B to the satellite 104 corresponding to the received signal 106…the two-dimensional orientation vector may Include the heading 118 and the pitch 120 of the vehicle 102).”
Regarding claim 2, which is dependent on independent claim 1. Scnaufer et al. (‘609) anticipates the method of claim 1. Scnaufer et al. (‘609) further anticipates “causing a change in the orientation of the phased array antenna based on the one or more solved orientation parameters (column 14 lines 16-37: the heading determination engine 208 may set or apply the heading 118 of the vehicle 102 to a navigation or positioning of the vehicle 102, responsive to determining that the heading protection level is greater than the defined threshold).”
Regarding claim 7, which is dependent on independent claim 1. Scnaufer et al. (‘609) anticipates the method of claim 1. Scnaufer et al. (‘609) further anticipates “the platform comprises a drone (column 7 lines 26-34: Figure 1: a system 100 for heading determination of a vehicle with global navigation satellite system (GNSS) signal measurements… the system 100 may include a vehicle 102 and one or more satellites 104A-N of the GNSS…the vehicle 102 maybe…a drone).”
Regarding independent claim 8, which is a corresponding apparatus claim of independent method claim 1, Scnaufer et al. (‘609) anticipates all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, which is dependent on independent claim 8, and which is a corresponding apparatus claim of method claim 2, Scnaufer et al. (‘609) anticipates all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 2.
Regarding claim 12, which is dependent on independent claim 8, Scnaufer et al. (‘609) anticipates the apparatus of claim 8. Scnaufer et al. (‘609) further anticipates “the apparatus comprises a drone.”
Regarding independent claim 15, Scnaufer et al. (‘609) anticipates “a system (column 7, Iines 26-40: Figure 1: a system 100 for heading determination of a vehicle with global navigation satellite system (GNSS) signal measurements…the system 100 may include a vehicle 102 and one or more satellites 104A-N of the GNSS .... The vehicle 102 may include dual antennas 108A and 108B, at least one GNSS receiver 114, and at least one line-replaceable unit (LRU) 116, among other components), comprising:
a set of satellites configured to transmit one or more carrier signals (column 7 Iines 26-40: Figure 1: a system 100 for heading determination of a vehicle with global navigation satellite system (GNSS) signal measurements…the system 100 may include a vehicle 102 and one or more satellites 104A-N of the GNSS ... the vehicle 102 may Include dual antennas 108A and 108B, at least one GNSS receiver 114, and at least one line-replaceable unit (LRU) 116, among other components…GNSS receiver 114 may obtain pseudorange measurements and carrier phase measurements; column 11 lines 6-12: from each of the dual antennas 1 OBA and 108B, the GNSS receiver 114 may obtain pseudorange measurements and carrier phase measurements for the one or more satellites 104 within the view 112 of the dual antennas 1 OBA and 108B…the pseudorange measurement may be an approximated distance from the antenna 1 OBA or 108B to the satellite 104 corresponding to the received signal 106…the carrier phase measurement may be a number of cycles in the signal 106 between the antenna 108A or 108B and the satellite 104 corresponding to the received signal106); and
a mobile platform comprising (column 10 line 52- col 11 line 5: the dual antennas 1 OBA and 108B may receive the one or more signals 106 from the one or more corresponding satellites 104 within the view 112 of the dual antennas 108A and 108B…the dual antennas 108A and 108B may be mounted on the vehicle 102, and may be separated by the baseline length 110):
a phased array antenna attached to the mobile platform (column 10 lines 52- col 11 line 5: the dual antennas 108A and 108B may receive the one or more signals 106 from the one or more corresponding satellites 104 within the view 112 of the dual antennas 108A and 108B…the dual antennas 108A and 108B may be mounted on the vehicle 102, and may be separated by the baseline length 110 ....each of the dual antennas 108A and 108B may be a half-wave dipole, a dipole antenna (e.g., comer reflector or log-periodic), a monopole antenna (e.g., whip, mast, umbrella, or inverted F), a travelling wave antenna (e.g., helical or spiral), reflector antenna (e .g., corner or parabolic), an aperture antenna (e.g., parabolic, slot, horn,or dielectric), a mlcrostrip antenna, an array antenna (e.g., phased array antenna, electronically scanned array (ESA) with a phase shifter, collinear array, planar array, and conformal array), or a loop antenna, among others, or any combination thereof) and
configured to receive one or more of the one or more carrier signals from the set of transmitters (column 11 lines 6-12: from each of the dual antennas 108A and 108B, the GNSS receiver 114 may obtain pseudorange measurements and carrier phase measurements for the one or more-satellites 104 with in the view 112 of the dual antennas 108A and 108B…the pseudorange measurement may be an approximated distance from the antenna 108A or 108B to the satellite 104 corresponding to the received signal 106…the carrier phase measurement may be a number of cycles in the signal 106 between the antenna 108A or 108B and the satellite 104 corresponding to the received signal 106);
a computing entity programmed to (column 12, Iines 7-12: using the baseline length 110 between the dual antennas 1 OBA and 108B and a linearized measurement model, the ambiguity solution calculator 204 of the LRU 116 may calculate, determine, or estimate carrier phase ambiguities for the satellites 104 for the measurement epoch);
perform carrier phase tracking of the one or more carrier signals received by the phased array antenna (column 11 line 63- column 12 line 6: the double-difference calculator 202 of the LRU 116 may calculate or determine a difference between the carrier phase measurements for the satellites 104 within view 112 of the dual antennas 108A and 108B…the double-difference calculator 202 may determine a difference between the first carrier phase measurement for the first antenna 1 OBA and the second carrier phase measurement for the second antenna 108B. The difference between the first carrier phase measurement and the second carrier phase measurement may be referred to as a double-difference carrier phase (DDCP) measurement);
resolve one or more integer cycle ambiguities for one or more baselines associated with the phased array antenna (column 12 Iines 7-12: using the baseline length 110 between the dual antennas 1 OBA and 1088 and a linearized measurement model, the ambiguity solution calculator 204 of the LRU 116 may calculate, determine, or estimate carrier phase ambiguities for the satellites 104 for the measurement epoch), one or more integer cycle ambiguities for one or more baselines associated with the phased array antenna (column 8 lines 15-29: a baseline vector component and integer ambiguities may be resolved by the LRU 116 using the double-difference measurements between the dual antennas 108A and 108B…the resolution may be in accordance with the following mathematical formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
42
186
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where b is a three-dimensional baseline vector, N is the vector of integer ambiguities,
PNG
media_image2.png
18
14
media_image2.png
Greyscale
is the GPS L1 wavelength and
PNG
media_image3.png
18
28
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image4.png
18
30
media_image4.png
Greyscale
are noise components for the double-difference measurements; column 12 lines 7-20: using the baseline length 110 between the dual antennas 1 OBA and 108B and a linearized measurement model, the ambiguity solution calculator 204 of the LRU 116 may calculate, determine, or estimate carrier phase ambiguities for the satellites 104 for the measurement epoch…the ambiguity solution calculator 204 may also calculate, determine, or estimate a two-dimensional orientation vector…the carrier phase ambiguities may be a·noat value, and may correspond to a fixed offset in the number of cycles in the signal 106 between the antenna 1 OBA or HiBB to the satellite 104 corresponding to the received signal 106…the two-dimensional orientation vector may include the heading 118 and the pitch 120 of the vehicle 102; column 12 lines 35-47: from the estimated carrier phase ambiguities, the ambiguity solution calculator 204 may calculate, identify, or otherwise determine a set of carrier phase integer ambiguities…each estimated carrier phase ambiguity may be a float value, whereas each carrier phase Integer ambiguity may be an Integer value…the carrier phase integer ambiguity may correspond to a fixed offset in the number of cycles in the signal 106 between the antenna 1 OBA or 108B and the satellite 104 corresponding to the received signal 106 for the corresponding measurement epoch…the ambiguity solution calculator 204 may apply a resampling technique on the estimated carrier phase ambiguities to determine the set of carrier phase integer ambiguities);
solve one or more orientation parameters based on the one or more integer cycle ambiguities, wherein the one or more orientation parameters describe orientation of the phased array antenna (column 12 lines 7-20: using the baseline length 110 between the dual antennas 1 OBA and 108B and a linearized measurement model, the ambiguity solution calculator 204 of the LRU 116 may calculate, determine, or estimate carrier phase ambiguities for the satellites 104 for the measurement epoch…the ambiguity solution calculator 204 may also calculate, determine, or estimate a two-dimensional orientation vector…the carrier phase ambiguities may be a float value and may correspond to a fixed offset in the number of cycles in the signal 106 between the antenna 108A or 108B to the satellite 104 corresponding to the received signal 106. The two-dimensional orientation vector may include the heading 118 and the pitch 120 of the vehicle 102); and
cause a change in the orientation of the phased array antenna based on the solved one or more orientation parameters to direct transmission of data from the mobile platform to the set of satellites (column 14 lines 16-37: the heading determination engine 208 of the LRU 116 may determine or compute the heading 118 of the vehicle 102 using the corrected carrier phase measurements…the heading determination engine 208 may determine the pitch 120 of the vehicle using the corrected carrier phase measurements…the heading determination engine 208 may apply the inverse of the linearized measurement model to determine the corrected heading 118 and/or the pitch 120…the heading determination engine 208 may calculate or determine a heading protection level using the updated wrong fix bias…the heading protection level may indicate a level of confidence In the determination of the heading 118 or the pitch 120, or both, for the vehicle 102…the heading determination engine 208 may calculate or determine the heading protection level using the PAF value for the updated set of wrong fixes. In some embodiments, the heading determination engine 208 may set or apply the heading 118 of the vehicle 102 to a navigation or positioning of the vehicle 102, responsive to determining that the heading protection level is greater than the defined threshold).”
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 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 3-5, 10-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scnaufer et al. (US 10,948,609 B1), and further in view of Mickelson (US 5917448).
Regarding claim 3, which is dependent on claim 2, Scnaufer et al. (‘609) discloses the method of claim 2. Scnaufer et al. (‘609) does not explicitly disclose “the one or more received carrier signals are at different frequencies, and solving the one or more orientation parameters is based at least in part on wide-laning one or more carrier frequencies from a common transmitter.”
Mickelson (‘448) relates to a method for attitude determination for a platform based on phase differences between multiple received antenna signals. Mickelson (‘448) teaches “the one or more received carrier signals are at different frequencies (column 7 lines 6-15: in some navigation systems available at present, each source transmits two signals with different carrier frequencies…tile known dual frequency tracking and "wide laning" techniques, sometimes used in conjunction with those navigation systems, also can be used with some embodiments of the present invention…these techniques typically can use the frequency difference between two Incoming signals from the same source, to achieve significant simplification of the attitude solution), and
solving the one or more orientation parameters (column 6 line 56- column 7 line 15: various techniques are known to resolve the Integer cycle ambiguity…
PNG
media_image5.png
20
18
media_image5.png
Greyscale
is known in the platform frame of reference, and
PNG
media_image6.png
18
38
media_image6.png
Greyscale
can be ascertained in a fixed .frame of reference…the objective is to determine the attitude of the platform; i.e., the relationship between those two frames of reference, In some embodiments, known integer cycle ambiguity routines can select candidate platform attitude angles (roll, pitch, and heading), and calculate the dot product mentioned above…different candidate attitude angles are tried until the calculation results are within measurement error tolerances of the observed differences
PNG
media_image7.png
24
20
media_image7.png
Greyscale
, and the attitude solution is validated…after performing an initial resolution of the integer cycle ambiguity, the associated attitude solution can be further refined by filtering the data with any of several known techniques including a least mean square error curve fit, a fixed impulse response filter and a Kalman filter. In some navigation systems available at present, each source transmits two signals with different carrier frequencies…the known dual frequency tracking and "wide laning" techniques, sometimes used in conjunction with those navigation systems, also can be used…these techniques typically can use the frequency difference between two incoming signals from the same source to achieve significant simplification of the attitude solution) is based at least in part on wide-laning one or more carrier frequencies from a common transmitter (column 7 lines 6-15: in some navigation systems available at present, each source transmits two signals with different carrier frequencies…the known dual frequency tracking and "wide laning" techniques, sometimes used in conjunction with those navigation system also can be used with some embodiments of the present invention…these techniques typically can use the frequency difference between two incoming signals from the same source to achieve significant simplification of the attitude solution).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify method of Scnaufer et al. (‘609) with the teaching of Mickelson (‘448) to allow the system to simplify the calculation process by analyzing and comparing the signals received at various frequencies (Mickelson (‘448) – column 7, Iines 6-15). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Scnaufer et al. (‘609) and Mickelson (‘448)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, processing received signals for antenna configurations.
Regarding claim 4, which is dependent on claim 3, Scnaufer et al. (‘609)/Mickelson (‘448) discloses the method of claim 3. Scnaufer et al. (‘609) further discloses “the platform comprises a mobile platform (column 7, Iines 32-33: the embodiments discussed and/or shown in the figures are examples of circuits and methods for determining the attitude of a platform with sequencing antenna inputs. These examples are not exclusive ways to practice the present invention, and it should be understood that there is no intent to limit the invention by such disclosure. Rather, it is intended to cover all modifications and alternative constructions and embodiments), the method further comprising:
determining, by the apparatus, one or more time of arrival modulation sequences for the phased array antenna and for a user terminal; and performing, by the apparatus, three-dimensional location determination of the phased array antenna based on the one or more time of arrival modulation sequences for the phased array antenna and for the user terminal. (Figure1; column 7 lines 32-33: determining a location based on time of flight/ pseudo-range signals received by a rover and by a reference station is absolutely standard (differential GNSS), also when the reference station is a user terminal).”
Regarding claim 5, which is dependent on claim 4, Scnaufer et al. (‘609)/Mickelson (‘448) discloses the method of claim 4. Scnaufer et al. (‘609) further discloses “one or more of the one or more carrier signals are received from one or more satellites (column 7, Iines 26-40: Figure 1: a system 100 for heading determination of a vehicle with global navigation satellite system (GNSS) signal measurements …the system 100 may include a vehicle 102 and one or more satellites 104A-N of the GNSS ... the vehicle 102 may Include dual antennas 108A and 108B, at least one GNSS receiver 114, and at least one line-replaceable unit (LRU) 116, among other components…GNSS receiver 114 may obtain pseudorange measurements and carrier phase measurements; column 11 lines 6-12: from each of the dual antennas 1 OBA and 108B, the GNSS receiver 114 may obtain pseudorange measurements and carrier phase measurements for the one or more satellites 104 within the view 112 of the dual antennas 1 OBA and 108B…the pseudorange measurement may be an approximated distance from the antenna 1 OBA or 108B to the satellite 104 corresponding to the received signal 106…the carrier phase measurement may be a number of cycles in the signal 106 between the antenna 108A or 108B and the satellite 104 corresponding to the received signal106).”
Regarding claim 10, which is dependent on claim 9, and which is a corresponding apparatus claim of method claim 3, Scnaufer et al. (‘609)/Mickelson (‘448) discloses all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 3.
Regarding claim 11, which is dependent on claim 10, and which is a corresponding apparatus claim of method claim 4, Scnaufer et al. (‘609)/Mickelson (‘448) discloses all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 4.
Regarding claim 12, which is dependent on claim 10, and which is a corresponding apparatus claim of method claim 5, Scnaufer et al. (‘609)/Mickelson (‘448) discloses all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 5.
Claim 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scnaufer et al. (US 10,948,609 B1)/Mickelson (US 5917448), and further in view of Agee (US 2020/0400837 A1).
Regarding claim 6, which is dependent on claim 5, Scnaufer et al. (‘609) discloses the method of claim 2. Scnaufer et al. (‘609) does not explicitly disclose “one or more of the one or more carrier signals are received from a user terminal associated with a reference base station.”
Agee (‘837) relates to wireless communication. Agee (‘837) teaches “one or more of the one or more carrier signals are received from a user terminal associated with a reference base station (Figure 7)”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify method of Scnaufer et al. (‘609)/Mickelson (‘448) with the teaching of Agee (‘837) for more reliable positioning (Agee (‘837) – column 7, Iines 6-15). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Scnaufer et al. (‘609), Mickelson (‘448) and Agee (‘837)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, processing received signals for antenna configurations.
Regarding claim 13, which is dependent on claim 11, and which is a corresponding apparatus claim of method claim 6, Scnaufer et al. (‘609)/Mickelson (‘448) discloses all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 6.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tadayon et al. (US 12,487,370 B1) describes the methods and apparatuses to obtain the orientations of plurality of mobile platforms using measurements obtained by measuring phases of some reference signals (RSs) that are exchanged between some anchor (reference) points and some mobile platforms as well as between the mobile platforms themselves…the anchor points are the GNSS satellites, and the measurements collected at each mobile platform are the coherent phases that are obtained by synchronously processing the GNSS signal samples across space…each mobile platform estimates its orientation independently of other platforms by only processing the coherent phase measurements obtained from RSs transmitted by the anchor points…the orientations of multiple nearby platforms are estimated jointly either by central or distributed processing of the angular and locational measurements that are collected by the plurality of the platforms which are dispersed across a geographical area…some statistics of the received reference signals are exploited to decide about the processing graph that is needed to formalize the joint estimation problem with the objective being to tackle issues such as non-line-of-sight (NLOS), bad geometry, low SNR, etc…the apparatus to enable the aforementioned orientation estimation problem comprises arrays of antennas to be able to obtain coherent phase measurements from the RSs exchanged between plurality of anchor points and mobile platforms…the apparatus may also comprise communication transceivers and other resources to exchange information such as the measurements and estimated orientations between the mobile platforms and the processing unit (column 7 line 61-column 8 line 28).
Babitch (US 5,347,296) describes antenna pointing systems and more specifically to using elements of the global positioning system (GPS) to provide azimuth and elevation information so that a directional antenna can be quickly and accurately pointed at its intended target location (column 1 lines 11-16).
Wang et al. (US 2024/0094414 A1) describes mobile device positioning using integer ambiguity resolution to determine integer numbers of full cycles of carrier signals between transmitter (e.g., a satellite) and receiver (e.g., a user equipment)…satellite positioning system signals may be used to determine quantities of wavelengths of carrier signals between satellites and a mobile device…ambiguity searches may be performed to resolve integer ambiguities in the quantities of wavelengths…in response to failing to validate results of an ambiguity search, more and more stringent metric threshold(s) may be applied to one or more signal metrics to determine which satellite signals to use to determine the wavelength quantities, and thus to use to determine position of the mobile device…candidate float ambiguities of multiple signals from the same satellites and of multiple frequency bands may be used to determine combined-frequency candidate float ambiguities that are used to determine “fixed” combined-frequency integer ambiguities (i.e., integer wavelength quantities) that are used to determine position estimates for the mobile device…the fixed combined-frequency integer ambiguities, e.g., a position estimate based on such integer ambiguities, may be used to determine individual-frequency band ambiguities and to restrict use of information corresponding individual-band satellite signals based on quality of the individual-frequency band ambiguities (e.g., closeness to respective integers). These are examples, and other examples may be implemented(paragraph 18).
Fenton (US 2011/0090113 A1) describes a short or ultra-short baseline system generates a corresponding phase map or table that associates carrier phase difference errors with the angles of incidence or arrival of the incoming GNSS satellites signals at the rover receiver antennas…the short baseline look-up mechanism provides compensating carrier phase difference corrections that are used in azimuth determination, to correct for phase distortions associated with multipath signals at the respective antennas and line biases associated with receiver operations…the ultra-short baseline phase map provides compensating carrier phase difference corrections that further correct for local Radio Frequency (RF) effects between the two closely spaced antennas on the ultra-short baseline (paragraph 9).
Bennett et al. (US 6,441,779 B1) describes satellite navigation systems, and more particularly to determining a satellite antenna attitude with an antenna array having multiple antennas (column 1 lines 11-13).
McDonald (UW 6,172,639 B1) describes obtaining highly precise position, velocity, time and attitude measurements by the use and processing of multiple signals separated in frequency and their sum and difference measurements…one application is in the resolution of the integer cycle ambiguities associated with precise carrier phase measurements of the signals used in satellite navigation systems such as the U.S. Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) System or the Russian Global Orbiting Navigation Satellite System (GLONASS), or other systems. The use of dual or "split spectrum" signals in one or more bands assigned to GPS, GLONASS or other systems provides substantial performance improvements over current implementations…this approach, which can be implemented in various configurations, provides significant system performance improvements including improvements in accuracy, integrity, availability and continuity (column 1 lines 18-35).
Lemance et al. (US 2008/0129591 A1) describes systems and methods for generating position determinations in a mobile apparatus…the present invention applies to time and frequency determination within the mobile apparatus as it is applied to aiding the acquisition and tracking of signals for subsequent position determination (paragraph 1).
Enge et al. (US 5,812961) describes provide a Global Positioning System (GPS) user receiver, a GPS reference receiver, and a method for using a low Earth orbiting (LEO) satellite signal from a LEO satellite for augmenting the Global Positioning System for finding a location vector between the GPS user receiver and the GPS reference receiver (column 2 lines 41-47).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NUZHAT PERVIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9795. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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.
/NUZHAT PERVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights