DETAILED NON-FINAL OFFICE 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 .
Comments
This office action is in response to the preliminary amendment of January 15, 2025, which amendment has been ENTERED.
It is noted that claim 9 stands CANCELLED.
The information disclosure statements (IDS) of January 15, 2025 and of December 8, 2025 have been considered during examination.
The drawings of January 15, 2025 are hereby accepted as FORMAL.
Please note that any mention of a line number of a claim refers to the claims as they appear in the official claim listing in the image file wrapper (IFW), not to any claim as it may be reproduced below.
Claim Interpretation
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 1-8 and 10-11 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.
On lines 3-9 of independent claim 1, it is unclear what is meant in context by the recited, “wet delay calculating circuitry to calculate …” as to whether it refers to hardwired circuitry that performs the recited function or to something else. In that there is no “configured to” language, it is presumed that the “circuitry” is not a processor, a microprocessor, or a computer. It is noted that the specification fails to mention the words, “circuit,” “circuits,” or “circuitry.” Substantially the same remarks apply to each of the mentions of the following terms in claims 1-7 and 11: “wet delay variance calculating circuitry …”; “satellite clock-orbit correction information generating circuitry …”; “atmospheric pressure information acquiring circuitry …”; “cumulonimbus cloud determining circuitry …”; and, “numerical weather data acquiring circuitry …”.
On lines 4-8 of independent claim 10, it is unclear what is meant in context by the recited, “atmospheric delay calculation device …” as to whether it refers to hardwired circuitry that performs the recited function or to something else. In that there is no “configured to” language, it is presumed that the “device” is not a processor, a microprocessor, or a computer. It is noted that the specification fails to mention the words, “circuit,” “circuits,” or “circuitry.” Substantially the same remarks apply to “weather data assimilation assistance device …” on lines 9-15 of claim 10, and, to “atmospheric delay calculation device” on line 3 of dependent claim 11.
Overall, independent claim 1 is indefinite and unclear as to how it recites, “A weather data assimilation assistance device” (line 1) in that the claim fails to recite any feature of providing assistance. Substantially the same remarks apply to each of dependent claims 2-7.
Overall, independent claim 10 is indefinite and unclear as to how it recites, “A weather data assimilation assistance system” (line 1) in that the claim fails to recite any feature of providing assistance. Substantially the same remarks apply to dependent claim 11.
Overall, independent claim 8 is indefinite and unclear as to how it recites, “A weather data assimilation assistance method” (line 1) in that the claim fails to recite any feature of providing assistance.
Each of dependent claims 2-7 is unclear, at least, in that it depends from unclear, independent claim 1.
Dependent claim 11 is unclear, at least, in that it depends from unclear, independent claim 10.
Potentially-Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 8, and 10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome 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.
Concerning independent claim 1 as newly-amended, none of the prior art of record either taken alone or taken in any possible combination would anticipate or would tend to render obvious Applicant’s claimed “device” as recited in the claim, and, particularly characterized, at least, by the claimed features, “based on the wet delay and a covariance matrix of the correction value for at least one of the satellite clock of the positioning satellite or the satellite orbit of the positioning satellite, and output data indicating the variance of the wet delay” (lines 11-13), taken in the overall context of the claim.
As for independent claim 8 as newly-amended, none of the prior art of record either taken alone or taken in any possible combination would anticipate or would tend to render obvious Applicant’s claimed “method” as recited in the claim, and, particularly characterized, at least, by the claimed features, “based on the wet delay and a covariance matrix of the correction value for at least one of the satellite clock of the positioning satellite or the satellite orbit of the positioning satellite, and outputting data indicating the variance of the wet delay” (lines 10-13), taken in the overall context of the claim.
With reference to independent claim 10 as newly-amended, none of the prior art of record either taken alone or taken in any possible combination would anticipate or would tend to render obvious Applicant’s claimed “system” as recited in the claim, and, particularly characterized, at least, by the claimed features, “based on the wet delay in the satellite line-of-sight and a covariance matrix of a correction value for at least one of the satellite clock of the positioning satellite or the satellite orbit of the positioning satellite, and output data including the wet delay in the satellite line- of-sight and the variance of the wet delay in the satellite line-of-sight” (lines 12-15), taken in the overall context of the claim.
Claims 2-7 and 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Prior Art of General Interest
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The Walter et al article is of general interest for the disclosure concerning delays of microwaves due to water vapor in the atmosphere.
MacDonald et al (‘243) is of general interest for the disclosure related to “wet delay,” noting, for example, column 26 at lines 40-56.
Tillotson et al (‘901) is of general interest for drawing Figure 1 and the related disclosure.
Tillotson (‘603) is of general interest for drawing Figure 1 and for the disclosure related to refractivity profiles.
Solheim et al (‘081) is of general interest for the disclosure related to “wet delay,” noting, for example, column 3 at lines 22-31; column 6 at lines 35-46; and, column 7 at lines 45-44.
Alber et al (‘852) is of general interest for the disclosure related to “wet delay,” noting, for example, column 8 at lines 40-55.
Motooka et al (‘924) is of general interest for the disclosure related to tropospheric error.
None of the examiner-cited prior art could be applied alone or in any possible combination to reject the claims in that these references merely reflect the state of the related prior art, and, fail to disclosure a significant amount of the claimed features recited in, at least, independent claims 1, 8, and 10.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARR E GREGORY whose telephone number is (571)272-6972. The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays through Fridays from 7:30 am to 3:30 pm eastern time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights