DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/24/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/24/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Grayson does not teach or make obvious the amended claims, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Please see the rejections below for details.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co.v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert, denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) See MPEP 2123.
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 1-3, 5, 9-12, and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grayson (US 20230003907 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Grayson teaches a satellite system (Fig. 1), comprising:
a processor (300, Figs. 3A-B) configured to:
receive selection data comprising a user group (paras. [0241]-[0242] “Satellites 110, as part of satellite constellation system 100, can also adjust signal parameters, for example as described previously, for the purpose of improving the performance of the reception and/or use of navigation signal 240 by users in space and/or users on Earth. Trigger conditions for adjusting signal parameters... can include the following... Determining the location of satellite 110 above the Earth is, for example, over a major city or otherwise compares favorably to a location range for a trigger condition”, where the determined location over a major city is “selection data comprising a user group”, the user group being the inhabitants of the city);
determine a waveform, (para. [0241] “Trigger conditions for adjusting ... beamwidth, power levels...”) a set of data characteristics, (para. [0241] “Trigger conditions for adjusting... other signal characteristics of interest” in view of para. [0129] “The control of various satellite operations ... can also include selecting transmitter... parameters, for example, encryption parameters, data protocol parameters… the number of channels in use, data rates, modulation techniques, multiple access techniques”) and a ranging accuracy (selecting modulation technique and chipping rate as per para. [0129] “selecting... modulation techniques” and para. [0512] “aligning and/or modulating various streams with corresponding … chip rates” determines ranging accuracy in view of para. [0521] “Applying a bandwidth-efficient modulation technique to generate navigation signals 240 can improve the technology of navigation systems based on receiving devices generating more precise position and/or timing solutions via more precise ranging data generated in correlating internal signals with incoming navigation signals” and para. [0524] “higher chipping rate can ... enable closer synchronization with the navigation signal and lower margin of error, which can render position and/or timing errors that are smaller than and/or otherwise more favorable than an error rate threshold”; also para. [0129] “selecting transmitter... frequencies” in view of Applicant’s specification paras. [0107] “higher frequencies enable higher ranging accuracy” and [0126] “a higher frequency signal results in more precise... determination of position”; also selection of bit group length in Grayson paras. [0560]nd [0563]-[0564] “such that autocorrelation of a given cyclically shifted spreading code 1237 meets and/or exceeds an auto-correlation threshold while cross-correlation with other ones of the 2.sup.m cyclically shifted spreading codes 1237 meets and/or falls below a cross-correlation threshold” also appears to meet the language, as accuracy of a determined pseudorange is a function of the autocorrelation properties) for transmitting position and time information (abstract “navigation data” and para. [0341] “navigation message”) using the user group (para. [0242] “Determining the location of satellite 110 above the Earth is, for example, over a major city or otherwise compares favorably to a location range for a trigger condition”), wherein the waveform, the set of data characteristics, and the ranging accuracy are selectable using a programmable setting (para. [0129] “selecting”; para. [0341] “include some of all features”; [0241] “Satellites 110, as part of satellite constellation system 100, can also adjust signal parameters, for example as described previously, for the purpose of improving the performance of the reception and/or use of navigation signal 240 by users in space and/or users on Earth”; [0193] “satellites 110 can be similarly operable to automatically adjust the transmission of navigation signal”); and
a transmitter (“Navigation Signal Transmitter 330”, Fig. 3B) configured to:
transmit the position and time information using the determined waveform, the set of data characteristics, and the ranging accuracy (para. [0117] “navigation signal transmitter 330 operable to … transmit signals 240 including, for example, navigational signals including, a ranging signal, GNSS correction data, a navigation message and/or other navigational signal”).
Regarding claim 2, Grayson teaches wherein the programmable setting selects a spreading code (para. [0564] “the spreading codes 1237 for different satellites … are selected”; para. [0599] “selecting a selected one of a plurality of cyclical shifts of a spreading code”).
Regarding claim 3 The satellite system of claim 1, wherein the programmable setting selects a chip rate (para. [0512] “aligning and/or modulating various streams with corresponding … chip rates”).
Regarding claim 5, Grayson teaches wherein the programmable setting selects a transmission power (para. [0129] “The control of various satellite operations by the resource allocation module 325 can also include selecting … , transmit power”).
Regarding claim 9, Grayson teaches wherein the programmable setting selects a spatial availability (Figs. 13A-B showing beamwidth and beam steering adjustments, where the beams define availability of the signals in geographic space).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, “wherein the programmable setting selects a signal accuracy” and “wherein the programmable setting selects a signal precision” are met by the portions of Grayson discussed above with respect to selecting a “ranging accuracy” in claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Grayson teaches wherein the programmable setting selects a cryptographic key (para. [0631] “encryption”, “The key 1718 can change over time, for example, in pre-defined intervals”).
Regarding claim 16, Grayson teaches wherein the processor is further configured to establish an initial contact with a receiver system using an other waveform and an other set of data characteristics (this will necessarily occur due to the automatic adjustment of transmission signals taught in para. [0193]; also see Fig. 13B, where at least some users will have initial contact established using a first beam direction at T1, with further contact from different beam directions at T2 and T3, where beam direction is a waveform, and at least some data will differ between the T1-T3 directions, such as the “time of transmission” taught in para. [0376]).
Regarding claim 17, Grayson teaches the other waveform or the other set of data characteristics is based at least in part on a user group ([0241] “Satellites 110, as part of satellite constellation system 100, can also adjust signal parameters, for example as described previously, for the purpose of improving the performance of the reception and/or use of navigation signal 240 by users in space and/or users on Earth. Trigger conditions for adjusting signal parameters (such as beamwidth, power levels, and/or other signal characteristics of interest) can include the following” in view of para. [0242] “Determining the location of satellite 110 above the Earth is, for example, over a major city or otherwise compares favorably to a location range for a trigger condition. As a result, satellite 110 can narrowing the beamwidth and/or increasing the signal power to aid in increasing the received signal strength of navigation signal 240”, where users in a “major city” comprise a user group as claimed).
Regarding claim 18, Grayson teaches wherein transmitting position and time information comprises transmitting pseudo-ranging information (para. [0255] “pseudo range”; paras. [0350], [0633] “pseudorange”).
Regarding claim 20, in addition to what has already been discussed with respect to claims 1 and 19 above, Grayson teaches a computer program product embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium (para. [0113] “system 300 can include at least one memory module 310”; para. [0795] “non-transitory computer readable memory”).
Regarding claim 21, Grayson teaches wherein the processor (300, Figs. 3A-B) is further configured to access a memory (para. [0630] “memory of the navigation processing system 300”) storing a configuration (para. [0630] “The key 1718 ... can be accessed in memory of the navigation processing system 300”) associated with the user group (para. [0630] “users only need to apply one key” and “users need to apply different keys” imply association of the key with the user group).
Alternatively, Grayson paras. [0241]-[0242] teach that “trigger conditions for adjusting signal parameters (such as beamwidth, power levels, and/or other signal characteristics of interest)” include “narrowing the beamwidth and/or increasing the signal power” after “determining the location of satellite 110 above Earth is, for example, over a major city”. In Examiner’s view, the trigger conditions and corresponding signal parameters adjustments comprise a configuration associated a user group as claimed, the user group being the inhabitants of the city, and storing the trigger conditions in a memory of the satellite system is inherent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grayson (US 20230003907 A1) in view of Winkel (US 20080246655 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Grayson does not, at least explicitly, teach wherein the programmable setting selects a code length.
However, Winkel, in analogous art (abstract “satellite navigation system”), teaches that code length is determined by the ratio of the chip rate of the spreading code and the bit rate of the navigation data (para. [0016]), and Grayson teaches teaches selecting bit rates and chip rates (para. [0591]). Therefore by selecting chip and bit rates, Grayson appears to inherently selects code lengths.
In case Applicant disagrees, Winkel para. [0012] further teaches “increasing the repetition length for the spreading code helps to reduce problems with ambiguous distance determinations” and “provides better separation of signals from different sources”, but “On the other hand, having a longer repetition length for the spreading code may delay initial acquisition of the signal, as well as requiring more processing capability within the receiver”. If not inherent, and in view of Winkel, it would have been obvious to further modify Grayson by selecting a code length using a programmable setting in order to achieve a desired balance of ambiguous distance determinations signal separation, signal acquisition time, and required receiver processing capability.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grayson (US 20230003907 A1) in view of Beale (US 20250112690 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Cangiani and Grayson do not teach the programmable setting selects a waveform jitter.
Beale, in analogous art (abstract “satellite”; satellite 1001, Figs. 10-11 and paras. [0101]-[0119], esp. “positioning reference signals” in paras. [0101], [0108], [0115]), teaches a programmable setting selecting a waveform jitter (paras. [0176]-[0177] “in the scenario exemplified in Fig. 11, the network may jitter the transmission times of the DL positioning reference signals” and “When the DL positioning reference signals are jittered”, where “may” and “when” imply a programmable setting) in order to protect against false location reportion (para. [0177] “Jittering the DL positioning reference signals thus helps further protect against false UE location reporting”).
It would have been obvious to modify Grayson in view of Beale in order to protect against false location reporting.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grayson (US 20230003907 A1) in view of Tani (US 20190115971 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Grayson does not teach wherein the programmable setting selects a polarization state.
Tani, in analogous art (para. [0009] “satellite”; Fig. 17), teaches selecting a polarization state depending on an angle between transmitter and receiver (Fig. 17 and para. [0122] “In the example illustrated in FIG. 17… the beam control unit 42 of the control station 4 selects the polarization used by the transmitting station 1 in accordance with whether the angle between the direction viewed from the transmitting station 1 to the receiving station 2 and the direction viewed from the transmitting station 1 to the receiving station 8 is equal to or less than the threshold”) and on a polarization of a nearby radio communication system (para. [0122] “selects the polarization used by the transmitting station 1 on the basis of the polarization used by the second radio communication system 402”; (para. [0122]; Fig. 1 shows first and second radio communication systems), resulting in reduced interference with other radio communication systems (para. [0011] “An object of the present invention is to obtain a transmitting station capable of suppressing an interference applied to the other radio communication system”). It would have been obvious to modify Grayson in view of Tani in order to reduce interference.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grayson (US 20230003907 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Grayson teaches ECC encoding comprising Low Density Parity Check (para. [0252] “Where appropriate, the data is encoded using a Low Density Parity Check scheme that allows for forward error correction, enabling the satellites to deliver data to ground users at a high, robust data rate”), Forward Error Correction (para. [0574), Reed Solomon (para. [0575]), punctured binary convolutional code (para. [0575]), and further teaches “The navigation data rate can further be enabled based on the signal frequency, chipping rates, encoding scheme, and/or modulation applied in constructing the navigation signal” (para. [0589]). If not inherent, it would have been obvious to modify Grayson by implementing a programmable setting for ECC encoding in order to provide for selecting an ECC code appropriate for a desired navigation data rate in the same manner as programmable settings for frequency, chipping rate, and modulation are taught in para. [0129] “selecting transmitter, receiver and transceiver parameters, for example… frequencies …data rates, modulation techniques … transmit and receive parameters”.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grayson (US 20230003907 A1) in view of Ohlson (US 6222828 B1).
Regarding claim 14, Grayson does not teach wherein the programmable setting selects an interleaving.
Ohlson, in analogous art (abstract “satellite-based telecommunications”) performs programmable interleaving (“Commandable Interleave” 440, Fig. 19; 42:29-40 “the interleave module 440 may be commandable to select a number of frames within the data transmission which are interleaved”, “In addition, the width of the interleaver may be varied”) on encoded data (438, Fig. 19). Interleaving improves data transmission reliability by “mitigat[ing] the impact of an imperfect carrier phase reference” (3:54-57). It would have been obvious to modify Grayson by implementing interleaving as taught by Ohlson in order to improve data transmission reliability.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grayson (US 20230003907 A1).
Further regarding claim 21, in case Applicant disagrees with Examiner’s argument that storing the trigger conditions is inherent, it would have been obvious to modify Grayson by storing the trigger conditions in the memory because such storage is conventional and allows the processor to efficiently access the conditions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSI J GALT whose telephone number is (571)270-1469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM - 5PM 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, WILLIAM KELLEHER can be reached at (571)272-7753. 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.
/CASSI J GALT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights