Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/413,071

METHOD FOR ESTIMATING THE ATTITUDE OF A VEHICLE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jun 11, 2021
Examiner
LE, HAILEY R
Art Unit
3648
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Volvo Truck Corporation
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
121 granted / 149 resolved
+29.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
50 currently pending
Career history
199
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.1%
-34.9% vs TC avg
§103
52.8%
+12.8% vs TC avg
§102
18.9%
-21.1% vs TC avg
§112
18.3%
-21.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 149 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Examiner’s Note 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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. 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 16 January, 2026 has been entered. Response to Amendment Applicant’s amendment filed 16 January, 2026 is acknowledged and has been entered. Response to Arguments Applicant’s argument filed 16 January, 2026 has been fully considered but is moot in view of a new ground of rejection. Claim Objections Claim(s) 1, 6, and 15 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “a vehicle is moving” which is suggested to be amended to “[[a]]the vehicle is moving”. Claim 6 recites “a method” which is suggested to be amended to “[[a]]the method”. Claim 15 recites “a global navigation satellite system” which is suggested to be amended to “the GNSS”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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. 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(s) 1-7, 9, 14-15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kundak et al. (US 2017/0192103 A1 “KUNDAK”), in view of Willis et al. (US 2011/0202225 A1 “WILLIS”). Regarding claim 1, KUNDAK discloses (Examiner’s note: What KUNDAK does not disclose is ) a method for estimating an attitude of a vehicle (a vehicle orientation detection system 100 [0006]), comprising: baseline length data 134 (which may be stored in a memory) that describes a surveyed distance 102 between the antenna 103-1 and 103-2 [0018 & FIG. 1]) and responsive to the detecting: obtaining, by the computer (an on-board computing device comprising a processor and a memory [0042]), a direction of movement of at least one of the first antenna and the second antenna (the “orientation” of a vehicle refers to heading or attitude of the vehicle, or both. System 100 includes a GNSS receiver system 105 that comprises two or more GNSS receivers [0014]) using a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) having a plurality of satellites (the GNSS receivers 102-1, 102-2 begin tracking a satellite signal from at least one satellite 101 [0015]), calculating, by the computer, an integer ambiguity fix corresponding to a relative position vector of the first and second antenna using the direction of movement and the separation of the first and second antenna (the integer ambiguity resolution function includes: an initialization logic that calculates float ambiguities and covariances based on the differenced carrier phases, the attitude measurements, and the baseline length data [0041]) and determining, by the computer, the attitude of the vehicle, including validating candidate values of the attitude obtained from the GNSS (a validation logic that selects resolved integer values associated with at least the first baseline between the at least two GNSS receivers from the set of integer candidate arrays based at least in part on the attitude measurements and baseline length data from the plurality of aiding sources; and an estimator coupled to the integer ambiguity resolution, wherein the estimator, based on the resolved integer values and measurements from the GNSS receiver system, generates an attitude measurement and a heading measurement [0041 & FIG. 4]) by analysing residuals in respect of the relative position vector (using these inputs, residual computation logic 310 computes a set of residuals including: RMS measurement residuals (R1) which comprise the root-mean-square of the measured difference carrier phases 120 minus estimated carrier phases with resolved integers; baseline residuals (R2) which comprise the difference between an estimated baseline length and the survey baseline length 134; attitude residuals (R3) which comprise the difference between estimated Euler angles and the Euler angles as measured by the attitude aiding sensors 132 of aiding sources 130; and a squared norm ratio (R4) [0027]) KUNDAK further discloses that the attitude aiding sensors 132 are implemented as inertial aiding sources or inertial navigation sensors (INS) [0018]. In a same or similar field of endeavor, WILLIS teaches that the simplest way to determine if the trajectory of the vehicle is straight, is to calculate the standard deviation of the variance of the vehicle heading for several consecutive GPS samples and compare it with a threshold value. If the measured heading variance is less than a preset threshold variance, it can be said that the vehicle is traveling in a straight line [0176]. The heading estimates from the GPS unit are only valid if the vehicle has a non-zero velocity [0177]. Furthermore, WILLIS teaches that turning error compensation calculation needs to know the angular velocity (turn rate) and the angular acceleration (turn rate over time) of the vehicle, to perform the required calculations; these can be obtained from a gyroscope [0372]. Further still, WILLIS teaches Locator Location subsystem 5 provides information on such things as the coordinates (latitude and longitude), speed, elevation, time, heading, and other geo-spatial information for Locator 10 system. The Location subsystem 5 is connected to its antenna 8 [0056]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of KUNDAK to include the teachings of WILLIS, because doing so would ensure that the obtained measurements would be accurate, thereby improving robustness and reliability of the detection system, as recognized by WILLIS. Furthermore, doing so would detect when a vehicle took aggressive evasive action, thereby generating reports of such incidents. In addition, both of the prior art references, KUNDAK and WILLIS, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, vehicle navigation systems. Regarding claim 2, KUNDAK/ WILLIS discloses wherein the determining the attitude of the vehicle includes analysing integer residuals (using these inputs, residual computation logic 310 computes a set of residuals including: RMS measurement residuals (R1) which comprise the root-mean-square of the measured difference carrier phases 120 minus estimated carrier phases with resolved integers; baseline residuals (R2) which comprise the difference between an estimated baseline length and the survey baseline length 134; attitude residuals (R3) which comprise the difference between estimated Euler angles and the Euler angles as measured by the attitude aiding sensors 132 of aiding sources 130; and a squared norm ratio (R4) [KUNDAK 0027], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1). Regarding claim 3, KUNDAK/ WILLIS discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the determining the attitude of the vehicle includes applying a threshold that is dependent on expected noisiness of measurements (RMS threshold T1 that might be assigned different priority and value based on for example, if the aiding sources 130 comprise relatively inexpensive inertial sensors 132 [KUNDAK 0028-0029]). Regarding claim 4, KUNDAK/ WILLIS discloses the method of claim 3, the residuals for the resolved integers are recalculated at every new epoch with new carrier phase measurements, and residuals are saved in the memory. If a certain number of past residuals (z-k out of z) in the memory no longer satisfy the specified subset of thresholds, then the resolved integers are deleted and operation is switched to Mode M1. If they continue to satisfy the specified subset of thresholds, then the resolved integers are maintained and operation in Mode M3 is maintained [KUNDAK 0033]). Regarding claim 5, KUNDAK/ WILLIS discloses the method of claim 1, wherein detecting that the vehicle is moving and not turning comprises estimating a movement speed of the vehicle (the heading estimates from the GPS unit are only valid if the vehicle has a non-zero velocity [WILLIS 0177], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1); (Locator Location subsystem 5 provides information on such things as the coordinates (latitude and longitude), speed, elevation, time, heading, and other geo-spatial information for Locator 10 system. The Location subsystem 5 is connected to its antenna 8 [WILLIS 0056], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1). Regarding claim 6, KUNDAK/ WILLIS discloses a method according to claim 1, wherein detecting that the vehicle is moving and not turning comprises estimating a yaw rate of the vehicle (turning error compensation calculation needs to know the angular velocity (turn rate) and the angular acceleration (turn rate over time) of the vehicle, to perform the required calculations; these can be obtained from a gyroscope [WILLIS 0372], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1). Regarding claim 7, KUNDAK/ WILLIS discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising storing a calculated integer ambiguity fix (the integer ambiguity resolution function includes: an initialization logic that calculates float ambiguities and covariances based on the differenced carrier phases, the attitude measurements, and the baseline length data [KUNDAK 0041], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1). The Examiner further noted that the citation as disclosed by KUNDAK implies that ambiguity values are stored. Regarding claim 9, KUNDAK/ WILLIS discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising defining a search space for possible candidate values of the attitude and evaluating all possible candidates within the search space with respect to the relative position vector (Initialization Logic 115 functions to restrict the search space over which integer estimation logic 116 operates using the baseline length data 133 [KUNDAK 0020]). Regarding claim 14, KUNDAK discloses a vehicle (a vehicle orientation detection system 100 [0006]) comprising: a first antenna and a second antenna having a separation to each other, wherein the separation is equal to a constant d (baseline length data 134 (which may be stored in a memory) that describes a surveyed distance 102 between the antenna 103-1 and 103-2 [0018 & FIG. 1]) and a movement estimation device comprising a computer (an on-board computing device comprising a processor and a memory [0042]) configured to: and responsive to the detection: obtain a direction of movement of at least one of the first antenna and the second antenna (the “orientation” of a vehicle refers to heading or attitude of the vehicle, or both. System 100 includes a GNSS receiver system 105 that comprises two or more GNSS receivers [0014]) using a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) having a plurality of satellites (the GNSS receivers 102-1, 102-2 begin tracking a satellite signal from at least one satellite 101 [0015]), calculate an integer ambiguity fix corresponding to a relative position vector of the first and second antenna using the heading and the separation of the first and second antenna (the integer ambiguity resolution function includes: an initialization logic that calculates float ambiguities and covariances based on the differenced carrier phases, the attitude measurements, and the baseline length data [0041]) and determine the attitude of the vehicle, including validating candidate values of the attitude obtained from the GNSS (a validation logic that selects resolved integer values associated with at least the first baseline between the at least two GNSS receivers from the set of integer candidate arrays based at least in part on the attitude measurements and baseline length data from the plurality of aiding sources; and an estimator coupled to the integer ambiguity resolution, wherein the estimator, based on the resolved integer values and measurements from the GNSS receiver system, generates an attitude measurement and a heading measurement [0041 & FIG. 4]) by analysing residuals in respect of the relative position vector (using these inputs, residual computation logic 310 computes a set of residuals including: RMS measurement residuals (R1) which comprise the root-mean-square of the measured difference carrier phases 120 minus estimated carrier phases with resolved integers; baseline residuals (R2) which comprise the difference between an estimated baseline length and the survey baseline length 134; attitude residuals (R3) which comprise the difference between estimated Euler angles and the Euler angles as measured by the attitude aiding sensors 132 of aiding sources 130; and a squared norm ratio (R4) [0027]) KUNDAK further discloses that the attitude aiding sensors 132 are implemented as inertial aiding sources or inertial navigation sensors (INS) [0018]. In a same or similar field of endeavor, WILLIS teaches that the simplest way to determine if the trajectory of the vehicle is straight, is to calculate the standard deviation of the variance of the vehicle heading for several consecutive GPS samples and compare it with a threshold value. If the measured heading variance is less than a preset threshold variance, it can be said that the vehicle is traveling in a straight line [0176]. The heading estimates from the GPS unit are only valid if the vehicle has a non-zero velocity [0177]. Furthermore, WILLIS teaches that turning error compensation calculation needs to know the angular velocity (turn rate) and the angular acceleration (turn rate over time) of the vehicle, to perform the required calculations; these can be obtained from a gyroscope [0372]. Further still, WILLIS teaches Locator Location subsystem 5 provides information on such things as the coordinates (latitude and longitude), speed, elevation, time, heading, and other geo-spatial information for Locator 10 system. The Location subsystem 5 is connected to its antenna 8 [0056]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of KUNDAK to include the teachings of WILLIS, because doing so would ensure that the obtained measurements would be accurate, thereby improving robustness and reliability of the detection system, as recognized by WILLIS. Furthermore, doing so would detect when a vehicle took aggressive evasive action, thereby generating reports of such incidents. Regarding claim 15, KUNDAK/ WILLIS discloses the vehicle of claim 14, wherein the first antenna and the second antenna are configured to communicate with a global navigation satellite system to provide raw satellite observables (the GNSS receivers 102-1, 102-2 begin tracking a satellite signal from at least one satellite 101 [KUNDAK 0015], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1). Regarding claim 17, KUNDAK/ WILLIS discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the separation is square to the attitude of the vehicle (on an aircraft where antenna 103-1 and 103-2 are mounted on opposite wings [KUNDAK 0029]). Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUNDAK, in view of WILLIS, and further in view of Parikh et al (“Implementation of a Least Mean Square Approach for a Low-Cost Short Baseline Attitude Determination”, cited in Applicant IDS “PARIKH”). Regarding claim 8, KUNDAK/ WILLIS discloses the method of claim 7, In a same or similar field of endeavor, PARIKH teaches performing static test to analyze attitude for the case where the platform is stationary, using the direct method and LMS estimation [pg. 823]. The integer ambiguities are resolved during system initialization process while the platform is stationary [pg. 820] which are used in attitude estimation [pg. 821]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KUNDAK to include the teachings of PARIKH, because doing so would improve accuracy of GPS-based attitude determination, as recognized by PARIKH. In addition, both of the prior art references, KUNDAK and PARIKH, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, usage of GPS antennas for attitude determination. Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUNDAK, in view of WILLIS, and further in view of Kindo et al. (US 2016/0313738 A1 “KINDO”). Regarding claim 16, KUNDAK/ WILLIS discloses the vehicle of claim 14, In a same or similar field of endeavor, KINDO teaches that the speed sensor is a detector to detect the speed of the vehicle V. The speed sensor may be, for example, a wheel speed sensor that is provided at a wheel of the vehicle V, a drive shaft to rotate integrally with the wheel or the like and that detects the rotational speed of the wheel is used. The speed sensor sends the detected vehicle speed information (wheel speed information), to the ECU 10 [0034]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KUNDAK to include the teachings of KINDO because doing so would accurately detect current state of the vehicle, thereby enabling system functions and further processing, as recognized by KINDO. In addition, both of the prior art references, KUNDAK and KINDO, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, vehicle navigation and systems. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Whitehead (US 2007/0075896 A1) is considered pertinent art for the disclosure overall, and in particular the details of a method and system for determining at least one attitude angle of a rigid body. The method comprising: receiving a plurality of Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) satellite signals with a plurality of antennas; establishing at least one pair of antennas such that each antenna of the plurality of antennas is included in at least one antenna pair; computing single- or double-difference phases corresponding to one or more GNSS satellites for each of the pairs of antennas; and constructing a single Differential Carrier Phase Attitude (DCPA) equation based on known geometry constraints of each of the pairs of antennas. The method also includes determining a solution for the DCPA equation based on a cost function, the solution yielding at least one integer ambiguity value and the at least one attitude angle. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAILEY R LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4910. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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 J 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. /Hailey R Le/Examiner, Art Unit 3648 February 21, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 11, 2021
Application Filed
Apr 24, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jul 19, 2023
Response Filed
Aug 25, 2023
Final Rejection — §103
Oct 27, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 30, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 20, 2023
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 21, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 19, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 26, 2024
Response Filed
Jun 03, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Aug 05, 2024
Notice of Allowance
Aug 05, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 20, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 04, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 15, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 19, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 25, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 28, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 29, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 29, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 19, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 16, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 10, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12591054
RADAR SIGNAL PROCESSING DEVICE, RADAR DEVICE, AND RADAR SIGNAL PROCESSING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12560705
OBSTACLE DETECTION METHOD AND SYSTEM OF MMWAVE RADAR AND VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12554002
METHOD FOR SOLVING RADAR AMBIGUITY AND OCCLUSION BASED ON ORTHOGONAL TWO-PHASE CODED SIGNAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12546855
AESA-BASED SYNTHETIC NULLING FOR ENHANCED RADAR GROUND CLUTTER SUPPRESSION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12510674
BROKERING REAL TIME KINEMATICS (RTK) POSITIONING DATA FOR DYNAMICALLY DEFINED ZONES
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+11.5%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 149 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month