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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Europe on 12/19/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the EP 23218093.5 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 1-19 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.
Initially, the following is noted.
“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing recent cases wherein the court expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment); E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Interpretation of descriptive statements in a patent’s written description is a difficult task, as an inherent tension exists as to whether a statement is a clear lexicographic definition or a description of a preferred embodiment. The problem is to interpret claims ‘in view of the specification’ without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims.”); Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1869-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Although the specification discussed only a single embodiment, the court held that it was improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where, as a matter of logic or grammar, the language of the method claims did not impose a specific order on the performance of the method steps, and the specification did not directly or implicitly require a particular order). When an element is claimed using language falling under the scope of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph (often broadly referred to as means- (or step-) plus- function language), the specification must be consulted to determine the structure, material, or acts corresponding to the function recited in the claim, and the claimed element is construed as limited to the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (see MPEP § 2181- MPEP § 2186).
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (referring to “the danger” of importing claim limitations from the specification). See also Varco, L.P. v. Pason Sys. USA Corp., 436 F.3d 1368, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (stating how the Federal Circuit “will not at any time” bring in claim limitations from the specification); Comark Commc'ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186-67 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (following that limitations from the specification are not to be read into the claims).
The claim fails to clearly and distinctly define the metes and bound of the inventive subject matter. Applicant appears to be attempting to incorporate limitations from the specification into the claims, which as noted above is improper.
Regarding claim 1, and similarly claim 6, the claims are rejected as being incomplete for omitting essential step(s) or an end result. The omitted step(s) is the step(s) wherein the claimed limitation is actually doing something tangible with the end result, i.e. the signal acquisitions are put to use or output a concrete result.
Regarding claims 1-2 and 5-6, what are meant and encompass the terms “a second type of satellite signal” (i.e. claims 1 and 6), “a further type of satellite signal” (i.e. claim 2), and “at least one other type of satellite signal” (i.e. claim 5) is unclear and not readily understood. It lacks any clarity as to what metes and bound of the “type” of satellite signal encompass.
Regarding claim 4, and similarly claim 8, the claimed language of “acquired the first type of satellite signal and has received ephemeris data for at least a predetermined number of satellites” is unclear and not readily understood. In the independent claim 1, and similarly claim 6, it claimed that “the first type of satellite signal comprises ephemeris data of the first set of satellites”; therefore; it is unclear of whether the first type of satellite signal acquired and the ephemeris data received as claimed in dependent claims 4 and 8 are of the same data or something else. The claimed language does little to clearly and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter.
Other claims are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim(s).
It is Applicant’s responsibility to draft a clear and concise set of claims defining the metes and bounds of Applicant’s invention. While the Office has noted numerous instances of these issues above, the claims consistently show that they lack a clear definition of the Applicant’s invention. Applicant should review all of the outstanding claims in response hereto. All of the claims should be reviewed for issues related to clarity and scope as the errors/issues are not constrained to those listed above.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5-7, 10, 12-13, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marmet (US 2021/0048537) in view of Yu et al (US 2022/0276389).
PNG
media_image1.png
550
682
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, and similarly claim 1, as best understood, Marmet discloses in Fig 5 above a satellite receiver device (i.e. “FIG. 5 represents the structure of a device according to one embodiment”) ([0100]), comprising:
a receiver circuit configured to receive satellite signals (i.e. “The GNSS receiver object of this embodiment or the GNSS receiver that embed a device according to this embodiment comprises an antenna 101 and an RF chain 102 to receive, down-convert, filter, process and digitize the signals received from the GNSS satellites.”) ([0101]); and
at least one processing device configured to perform the following operations to aid signal acquisition (i.e. “The device according to this embodiment comprises both resources 510 required to compute a snapshot positioning and resources 520 required to compute a conventional positioning over the digitized signal.”) ([0107]):
configure, during a first signal acquisition phase, the receiver circuit to receive a first type of satellite signal broadcast by a first set of satellites, wherein the first type of satellite signal comprises ephemeris data of the first set of satellites (i.e. reads on the snapshot positioning/resource 510) ([0108]-[0110]); and
configure, during a second signal acquisition phase based on synchronization information and/or the ephemeris data obtained in the first signal acquisition phase, the receiver circuit to receive a second type of satellite signal broadcast by the first set of satellites (i.e. claimed language does not preclude the first type of satellite signal and the second type of satellite signal are the same) (i.e. reads on snapshot resource 520) ([0111]-[0116]).
Marmet does not explicitly disclose a first set of satellites broadcast using a first carrier frequency and the first set of satellites broadcast using a second carrier frequency as claimed. Yu et al teach in the same field of endeavor a first set of satellites broadcast using a first carrier frequency and the first set of satellites broadcast using a second carrier frequency (i.e. claimed invention does not preclude a first carrier frequency and a second carrier frequency are the same) (i.e. “The antenna 106 is coupled to a signal splitter 107 that splits the received radio frequency signal into a first radio frequency signal and a second radio frequency signal, where the first radio frequency signal and the second radio frequency signal are generally identical to each other.”) ([0039]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marmet in view of Yu et al by incorporating a first set of satellites broadcast using a first carrier frequency and the first set of satellites broadcast using a second carrier frequency as taught by Yu et al to gain advantage of properly acquiring satellite signal and rejecting interference (i.e. Yu et al – [0039]); and also since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Marmet discloses computing and outputting a first position output based on information contained in the first type of satellite signal received in the first signal acquisition phase (i.e. reads on low accuracy PVT measurement 530) ([0108]; [0112]; [0114]); and after computing and outputting the first position, continuously computing and outputting further positions outputs based on information contained in at least one other type of satellite signal (i.e. reads on PVT measurement 540) ([0111]).
Regarding claim 7, Marmet discloses the at least one processing device is configured to store the synchronization information and/or the ephemeris data obtained in the first signal acquisition phase for use in the second signal acquisition phase; and/or the receiver circuit is configured to maintain a synchronization state acquired in the first signal acquisition phase for the second signal acquisition phase ([0110]-[0111]).
Regarding claim 10, Marmet discloses the at least one processing device is configured to implement a positioning engine, and the step of configuring the receiver circuit to receive the second type of satellite signal is performed when the positioning engine obtains at least time, position and satellite orbit data, and the positioning engine is configured to use the time, position and satellite orbit data obtained in the first signal acquisition phase during the second signal acquisition phase ([0108]-[0116]).
Regarding claim 12, and similarly claim 16, Marmet in view of Yu et al do not explicitly disclose the first type of satellite signal has a lower code length than the second type of satellite signal. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the first type of satellite signal has a lower code length than the second type of satellite signal for signal acquisitions, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 13, and similarly claim 17, Marmet discloses the first type of satellite signal comprises a first navigation data stream of a global navigation satellite system (GNSS); and the second type of satellite signal comprises a second navigation data stream of the GNSS ([0101]-[0116]).
Claims 14-15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marmet modified by Yu et al as applied to claims 1, 6, 13, and 17 above, and further in view of King (US 2012/0250733).
Regarding claim 14, and similarly claim 18, Marmet modified by Yu et al do not explicitly disclose the GNSS is configured to provide regional coverage using at least one satellite in a geostationary earth orbit (GEO) and/or in an inclined geo-synchronous orbit (IGSO) as claimed. King teaches in the same field of endeavor the GNSS is configured to provide regional coverage using at least one satellite in a geostationary earth orbit (GEO) and/or in an inclined geo-synchronous orbit (IGSO) ([0022]; [0024]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marmet modified by Yu et al in view of King by incorporating the GNSS is configured to provide regional coverage using at least one satellite in a geostationary earth orbit (GEO) and/or in an inclined geo-synchronous orbit (IGSO) as taught by King to gain advantage of properly acquiring satellite signal; and also since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 15, and similarly claim 19, Marmet modified by Yu et al do not explicitly disclose the first and second signal acquisition phases are performed when the satellite receiver device is powered on, after a request for a cold start and/or during signal re-acquisition as claimed. King teaches in the same field of endeavor the first and second signal acquisition phases are performed when the satellite receiver device is powered on, after a request for a cold start and/or during signal re-acquisition ([0024]; [0027]-[0028]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Marmet modified by Yu et al in view of King by incorporating the first and second signal acquisition phases are performed when the satellite receiver device is powered on, after a request for a cold start and/or during signal re-acquisition as taught by King to gain advantage of providing faster satellite signal acquisition; and also since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 8-9, and 11 are rejected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if overcome the current 35 USC 112(b) rejections.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2022/0326392 discloses a signal receiving equipment includes a reception unit configured to receive signals from a GNSS satellite, a first selection unit configured to select a plurality of signals from among the signals received by the reception unit using a preset first parameter, a first positioning unit configured to perform at least positioning of a location by code-based positioning using the plurality of signals selected by the first selection unit, a second selection unit configured to select a plurality of signals from among the signals received by the reception unit using a preset second parameter, and a second positioning unit configured to perform positioning of a location and time synchronization by carrier-phase-based positioning using the plurality of signals selected by the second selection unit, with coordinates indicated by the location positioned by the first positioning unit as initial coordinates.
US 8,106,822 discloses a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) device, such as the Global Positioning System (GPS) device, uses satellite orbital position information from almanac and/or ephemeris data to change a search parameter, such as reducing the number of analyzed frequency bins or setting signal strength threshold, so that satellite signal acquisition times are reduced. An exemplary embodiment estimates an orbital position for at least one GNSS satellite based upon at least one of almanac data and ephemeris data, detects a signal emitted from the at least one GNSS satellite, and based upon the estimated orbital position information for the at least one GNSS satellite that is determined from the almanac data and the ephemeris data, adjusts at least one parameter used in the analysis of the detected signal.
CN 117930301 discloses a satellite signal processing method, device, receiver and storage medium, the method is applied to the receiver, the method comprises: obtaining a first satellite signal; the first satellite signal comprises a first satellite signal parameter; based on the preset parameter conversion relation between the first satellite signal and the second satellite signal to be converted, converting multiple first satellite signal parameters into second satellite signal parameters; packaging the second satellite signal parameter according to the signal structure of the second satellite signal to generate a second satellite signal; the signal type of the first satellite signal is different from the signal type of the second satellite signal; and transmitting the second satellite signal. By using said method, the satellite signal parameter finally received by the terminal device is more real, and the delay of the second satellite signal received by the terminal device is reduced.
EP 2,674,784 discloses a method of recording satellite signals for later processing to derive position information. The method comprises: (i) receiving and digitising first satellite signals using a first set of parameters, to produce a first block of satellite signal samples, and storing the first block in a memory; (ii) receiving and digitising second satellite signals using the first set of parameters, to produce a second block of satellite signal samples, and storing the second block in the memory; (iii) receiving and digitising third satellite signals using a second set of parameters, to produce a third block of satellite signal samples, and storing the third block in the memory; and (iv) receiving and digitising fourth satellite signals using the second set of parameters, to produce a fourth block of satellite signal samples, and storing the fourth block in the memory, wherein a first predetermined time interval between the reception of the first and second satellite signals is longer than a second predetermined time interval between the reception of the third and fourth satellite signals, and the first and second sets of parameters are chosen such that a resource consumed in each of steps (i) and (ii) is greater than a corresponding resource consumed in each of steps (iii) and (iv).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUONG P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 10:00-10:00 EST.
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, JACK KEITH can be reached at (571) 272-6878. 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.
/CHUONG P NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights