DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 01/29/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 11 and 14 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 11, the word “using” should be “uses”
In Claim 14, the phrase “controlling by a processor of timing of steps of said stepped voltage waveform” should be “controlling, by a processor, timing of the steps of said stepped voltage waveform”
Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding Claim 9, Applicant is advised that should Claim 8 be found allowable, Claim 9 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims
particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the
inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out
and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his
invention.
Claim(s) 7-10, 12, 15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 7, the claim recites the limitation “each state.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claims 8 and 9, the claims recite the limitation “a sinusoidal base modulation.” It is unclear whether this limitation references the “base modulation” recited in Claim 1, or to another base modulation.
Regarding Claim 10, the claim recites the limitation “said radiating … comprising: a power output stage.” A power output stage is a physical component. Therefore, it is unclear how the method step of “radiating” can comprise a power output stage. For examination purposes, the limitation is interpreted as meaning that the transmitter comprises a power output stage.
Regarding Claim 12, the claim recites the limitation “said direct digital synthesis comprises a stepped voltage waveform.” It is unclear whether the stepped voltage waveform is generated by the direct digital synthesis, is supplied to the direct digital synthesis, or something else.
Regarding Claim 15, the claim recites the limitation “said radiating … comprising: a band-pass filter stage between said power output stage and an antenna.” A band-pass filter stage is a physical component. Therefore, it is unclear how the method step of “radiating” can comprise a band-pass filter stage. For examination purposes, the limitation is interpreted as meaning that the transmitter comprises a band-pass filter stage between said power output stage and an antenna.
Regarding Claim 19, the claim recites the limitation “an amount of an adjustment of the modulation parameters is determined by measuring an antenna current phase and magnitude and determining said amount of the adjustment.” This limitation states that the amount of the adjustment is determined by “determining said amount of the adjustment.” Therefore, it is unclear how the amount of the adjustment is determined. For examination purposes, the limitation is interpreted as meaning the amount of the adjustment of the modulation parameters is determined by measuring an antenna current phase and magnitude, and determining said amount of the adjustment based on the measured antenna current phase and magnitude.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim(s) 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,085,989. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are an obvious variation of the subject matter claimed in the patent.
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 of the patent recites a low-frequency radio navigation system comprising: a transmitter comprising: a base coded modulator configured to generate a base modulation comprising a periodic frequency modulation (FM) waveform; and a data coded modulator configured to generate a data modulation comprising a continuous frequency-shift keying signal; and wherein the transmitter radiates a continuous, constant-power chirped-FM spread spectrum signal, comprising: the base modulation; and the data modulation, wherein the data modulation is orthogonal to the base modulation.
Instant Claim 1 differs from patent Claim 1 in that instant Claim 1 is directed to a method while patent Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the apparatus of patent Claim 1 to perform the method of instant Claim 1, because using the apparatus of the patent would naturally result in performing each step of the claimed method.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim(s) 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,656,313. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are an obvious variation of the subject matter claimed in the patent.
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 4 of the patent, as it depends from Claims 1 and 2, recites a low-frequency radio navigation system comprising: a transmitter comprising: a base coded modulator configured to generate a base modulation; and a data coded modulator configured to generate a data modulation; and wherein the transmitter radiates a low-frequency continuous, constant-power chirped-FM spread spectrum signal, comprising: the base modulation; and the data modulation, wherein the data modulation is orthogonal to the base modulation; wherein said base modulation comprises a periodic frequency modulation (FM) waveform; and wherein said data modulation comprises a continuous frequency-shift keying signal.
Instant Claim 1 differs from patent Claim 4 in that instant Claim 1 is directed to a method while patent Claim 4 is directed to an apparatus. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the apparatus of patent Claim 4 to perform the method of instant Claim 1, because using the apparatus of the patent would naturally result in performing each step of the claimed method.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 10-20 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim(s) 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,181,557. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are an obvious variation of the subject matter claimed in the patent.
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 of the patent recites a low-frequency radio navigation system comprising: a transmitter comprising: a base coded modulator configured to generate a base modulation; and a data coded modulator configured to generate a data modulation; wherein the transmitter radiates a continuous, constant-power chirped-FM spread spectrum waveform, comprising: the base modulation; and the data modulation, wherein the data modulation is orthogonal to the base modulation.
Instant Claim 1 differs from patent Claim 1 in that instant Claim 1 is directed to a method while patent Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus, and patent Claim 1 does not recite that the base modulation comprises a periodic frequency modulation (FM) waveform or that the data modulation comprises a continuous frequency-shift keying signal.
However, the patent discloses that the base modulation may comprise a periodic FM waveform and that the data modulation may comprise a continuous frequency-shift keying signal ([cols. 1-2]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1 of the patent to include the periodic FM waveform and the continuous frequency-shift keying signal, because the patent discloses them as implementations of the base modulation and the data modulation, respectively. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the apparatus of patent Claim 1 to perform the method of instant Claim 1, because using the apparatus of the patent would naturally result in performing each step of the claimed method.
Regarding Claim 2, Claim 2 of the patent recites wherein active transmit power is constant.
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 of the patent recites wherein the transmitter is turned off periodically to synchronize a receiver to the transmitter.
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 4 of the patent recites wherein the transmitter is turned off periodically wherein a transmitting site of the transmitter receives signals from other transmitters during a period when the transmitter is turned off, whereby the transmitting site receives the signals without interference from the transmitter.
Regarding Claim 5, Claim 5 of the patent recites wherein the transmitter is turned off periodically wherein a receiver receives signals from other transmitters during a period when the transmitter is turned off, whereby the receiver receives the signals without interference from the transmitter.
Regarding Claim 10, Claim 1 of the patent recites a power output stage.
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 6 of the patent recites wherein the transmitter comprises said power output stage using direct digital synthesis.
Regarding Claim 12, Claim 7 of the patent recites wherein said direct digital synthesis comprises a stepped voltage waveform.
Regarding Claim 13, Claim 8 of the patent recites wherein said stepped voltage waveform comprises 4 to 64 steps per carrier cycle.
Regarding Claim 14, Claim 9 of the patent recites a processor controlling timing of steps of said stepped voltage waveform.
Regarding Claim 15, Claim 10 of the patent recites wherein said transmitter comprises a band-pass filter stage between said power output stage and an antenna.
Regarding Claim 16, Claim 11 of the patent recites wherein said band-pass filter stage is optimized to cancel out part of a reactive component of antenna impedance across at least parts of a frequency band, wherein a ratio of reactive-to-active power is less than 3 at band edges of the frequency band after said band-pass filter stage.
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 12 of the patent recites wherein a power supply voltage of said power output stage is continually adjusted to compensate for varying antenna impedance with frequency.
Regarding Claim 18, Claim 13 of the patent recites wherein modulation parameters are continually adjusted to compensate for phase variations of said power output stage, said band-pass filter stage, and an antenna system.
Regarding Claim 19, Claim 14 of the patent recites wherein an amount of an adjustment of the modulation parameters is determined by measuring an antenna current phase and magnitude and determining said amount of the adjustment.
Regarding Claim 20, Claim 15 of the patent recites wherein a determination of adjustments is performed by one or any combination of a field programmable gate array, a digital signal processor, a microprocessor, or other computing device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the double patenting rejection(s) and/or the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 1 is directed to a method for generating and transmitting a low-frequency radio navigation signal. The claim specifically requires generating a base modulation comprising a periodic frequency modulation (FM) waveform using a base coded modulator, generating a data modulation comprising a continuous frequency-shift keying signal using a data coded modulator, and radiating a continuous, constant-power chirped-FM spread spectrum waveform from a transmitter, the waveform comprising the base modulation and the data modulation, wherein the data modulation is orthogonal to the base modulation.
Smith (US 2008/0088507) teaches transmitting a low-frequency spread spectrum navigation signal that uses direct-sequence modulation ([0047]; [0055-0063]). However, Smith does not explicitly teach generating a base modulation comprising a periodic FM waveform, generating a data modulation comprising a continuous frequency-shift keying signal, or a waveform comprising the base modulation and the data modulation.
Morris (US 2010/0039313) teaches transmitting a combined signal that comprises a FM chirp radar signal and a phase coded signal ([0016-0017]), and further teaches that the phase coded signal may be orthogonal to the FM chirp radar signal ([0009]; [0029]). However, Morris does not explicitly teach a low-frequency navigation signal or generating a data modulation comprising a continuous frequency-shift keying signal.
Therefore, the prior art does not teach the combined limitations of the claimed invention. Specifically, the prior art does not teach generating a base modulation comprising a periodic frequency modulation (FM) waveform using a base coded modulator, generating a data modulation comprising a continuous frequency-shift keying signal using a data coded modulator, and radiating a continuous, constant-power chirped-FM spread spectrum waveform from a transmitter, the waveform comprising the base modulation and the data modulation, wherein the data modulation is orthogonal to the base modulation.
Conclusion
The cited references made of record in the contemporaneously filed PTO-892 form and not relied upon in the instant office action are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, and may have one or more of the elements in Applicant’s disclosure and at least Claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH Y. ZHU whose telephone number is (571) 270-0170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-4PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire, can be reached on (571) 270-5144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NOAH YI MIN ZHU/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/BRADY W FRAZIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights