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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 28, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1 and 9 are amended.
Claims 1-12 are pending this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-8 is/are drawn to method (i.e., a process), claims 9-12 is/are drawn to device (i.e., a manufacture). As such, claims 1-12 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Under Step 2A Prong 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite any judicial exceptions including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes).
Representative Claim 1: a method, carried out by a navigation satellite system receiver (NSS receiver) or a processing entity capable of receiving data from the NSS receiver, for estimating parameters useful to determine a position, the NSS receiver observing a NSS signal from each of a plurality of NSS satellites over multiple epochs, the method comprising:
receiving input data comprising at least one of: NSS signals observed by the NSS receiver or information derived from said NSS signals; operating an estimator that uses state variables and computes the values of its state variables at least based on the received input data;
obtaining precise-observations residuals and less-precise-observations residuals from the estimator, each residual being associated with at least one NSS signal observed by the NSS receiver, wherein:
the precise-observations residuals comprise at least one of: carrier phase observation residuals, delta carrier phase observation residuals, or Doppler observation residuals;
and the less-precise-observations residuals comprise at least one of: code observation residuals or delta code observation residuals;
and estimating an expected accuracy of at least one of a position or a velocity, wherein estimating the expected accuracy is based on at least some of the obtained less-precise- observations residuals that have been modified using at least some of the precise-observations residuals,
wherein the modification comprises a smoothing process that uses a smoothing coefficient that is incremented at each epoch to recursively weight the residuals.
(Examiner notes: The underlined claim terms above are interpreted as additional elements beyond the abstract idea and are further analyzed under Step 2A - Prong Two)
Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the steps of: estimating parameters, observing a NSS signal, obtaining residuals from an estimator, and estimating expected accuracy (i.e., mathematical relationships), then it also falls within the “Mental Processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Further, the steps of estimating parameters, observing a NSS signal, obtaining residuals from an estimator, and estimating expected accuracy (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), then it also falls within the “Mathematical concepts” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent Claims 2-8 and 10-12 further narrow the abstract idea by applying a non-linear mapping function, scaling the residual based on a stochastic model, smoothing the scaled residuals in time (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), then it also falls within the “Mental Processes” and is an abstract idea and then it also falls within the “Mathematical concepts” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas and then also falls within the “Mathematical concepts” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Independent claim(s) 1 and 9 recite/describe nearly identical steps (and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Under Step 2A Prong 2 the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A - Prong Two: In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “addition element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “satellite,” “processing entity,” and “receiver,” etc. (Claims 1 and 9) is/are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.
Similarly, the limitations of applying “satellite,” “processing entity,” and “receiver,” etc. (Independent Claim(s) 1 and 9, and dependent claims 2-8 and 10-12 are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components in a satellite vehicle. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Further, the additional limitations beyond the abstract idea identified above, serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, it/they serve(s) to limit the application of the abstract idea to computerized environments (e.g., processing, receiving, estimating, operating, Doppler, and smoothing, etc. steps performed by a predictive model, machine learning algorithms, a communication interface, a memory, a processor, a computational device etc.). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The recited additional element(s) of a method, carried out by a navigation satellite system receiver (NSS receiver) or a processing entity capable of receiving data from the NSS receiver, for estimating parameters useful to determine a position, the NSS receiver observing a NSS signal from each of a plurality of NSS satellites over multiple epochs, the method comprising:
receiving input data comprising at least one of: NSS signals observed by the NSS receiver or information derived from said NSS signals; operating an estimator that uses state variables and computes the values of its state variables at least based on the received input data;
obtaining precise-observations residuals and less-precise-observations residuals from the estimator, each residual being associated with at least one NSS signal observed by the NSS receiver, wherein:
the precise-observations residuals comprise at least one of: carrier phase observation residuals, delta carrier phase observation residuals, or Doppler observation residuals;
and the less-precise-observations residuals comprise at least one of: code observation residuals or delta code observation residuals;
and estimating an expected accuracy of at least one of a position or a velocity, wherein estimating the expected accuracy is based on at least some of the obtained less-precise- observations residuals that have been modified using at least some of the precise-observations residuals,
wherein the modification comprises a smoothing process that uses a smoothing coefficient that is incremented at each epoch to recursively weight the residuals (Claim(s) 1 and 9), additionally and/or alternatively simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Dependent claim 2-8 and 10-12, fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B: In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is/are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an "inventive concept." An "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole-amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the identified additional elements in independent claim(s) 1 and 9, and dependent claims 2-8 and 10-12are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The recited additional element(s) of smoothing process (Claim(s) 1 and 9), additionally and/or alternatively simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea) i.e. obtaining precise-observation residuals (i.e. obtaining data) is similar to “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”, is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here) (See MPEP 2106.05(d) (II)).
This conclusion is based on a factual determination. Applicant’s own disclosure at [page 3, lines 7-23] acknowledges that “GPS transmits continuously using two radio frequencies in the L-band, referred to as L1 and L2, at respective frequencies of 1575.42 MHz and 1227.60 MHz. With the ongoing modernization of the GPS, signals on a third L5 frequency are becoming available. Among the two signals transmitted on L1, one is for civil users and the other is for users authorized by the United States Department of Defense,” (i.e. conventional nature of receiving satellite data over a network). This additional element therefore do not ensure the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or/and append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, and/or simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
The dependent claims 2-8 and 10-12 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective independent claims is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, claims 1-12 are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai (WO 2008/150389 A1) in view of Guan (CN 112540393 A) and further in view of Tominaga et al (US 2012/0314733 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Dai teaches a method, carried out by a navigation satellite system receiver, (NSS receiver) or [0026, 0031, and receiver element 130],
a processing entity capable of receiving data from the NSS receiver, for estimating parameters useful to determine a position, the NSS receiver observing a NSS signal from each of a plurality of NSS satellites over multiple epochs, the method comprising [0031-0033 and satellites element 110-1, 110-2, 110-3, and CPU processor element 200, 240]:
receiving input data comprising at least one of: NSS signals observed by the NSS receiver or information derived from said NSS signals [0032-0034];
operating an estimator that uses state variables and computes the values of its state variables at least based on the received input data [0032, 0038-0039];
obtaining precise observations residuals and less precise observations residuals from the estimator, each residual being associated with at least one NSS signal observed by the NSS receiver [0023, 0029-0032 for using carrier phase measurements],
wherein: the precise-observations residuals comprise at least one of: carrier phase observation residuals, delta carrier phase observation residuals, or Doppler observation residuals [0029-0032 for using carrier phase measurements];
and the less-precise-observations residuals comprise at least one of: code observation residuals or delta code observation residuals [0023, 0030-0032 for using carrier phase and code observations];
and estimating an expected accuracy of at least one of a position or a velocity [0028, 0038 for using baseline or expected measurements],
wherein estimating the expected accuracy is based on at least some of the obtained less-precise-observations residuals [0023, 0030-0032 for using carrier phase and code observations].
Dai fails to explicitly teach less precise residuals that have been modified using at least some of the precise-observations residuals, wherein the modification comprises a smoothing process that uses a smoothing coefficient that is incremented at at least one epoch.
Guan has method and system for checking the quality of marine precision single-point positioning protection level (abstract) and teaches less precise residuals that have been modified using at least some of the precise-observations residuals [0081-0085 for position deviation level (precise vs. less precise) for positioning],
wherein the modification comprises a smoothing process that uses a smoothing coefficient that is incremented at at least one epoch [0078-0080].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the satellite position techniques, as disclosed by Dai, further including the residual calculations as taught by Guan for the purpose to eliminate the impact of isolated noise points on positioning accuracy (Guan, 0078).
Dai fails to explicitly teach a smoothing process that uses a smoothing coefficient that is incremented at each epoch to recursively weight the residuals.
Tominaga has a pseudorange is estimately calculated in high accuracy without being influenced by multipath (abstract) and teaches a smoothing process that uses a smoothing coefficient that is incremented at each epoch to recursively weight the residuals [0043-0045 and equation 1for using current and prior estimated pseudoranges with 0070-0074 for Steps S105 to S109]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the satellite position techniques, as disclosed by Dai, further including the recursive calculations as taught by Tominaga for the purpose to determine the estimation calculation of the pseudorange (Tominaga, 0074).
Regarding Claim 2, Dai teaches estimating the expected accuracy comprises: applying a non-linear mapping function to a linear combination of at least some of the obtained precise-observations residuals and at least some of the obtained less-precise-observations residuals, the mapping function being a function of the number of received residuals [0037].
Regarding Claim 3, Dai teaches the estimator comprises at least one of a Kalman filter and a least squares estimator [0029-0030].
Regarding Claim 4, Dai teaches after obtaining the precise-observations residuals and the less-precise-observations residuals and before estimating the expected accuracy [0023, 0030-0032 for using carrier phase and code observations]:
for each of at least some of the obtained residuals, scaling the residual based on a stochastic model, the stochastic model applying to the at least one NSS signal with which the residual is associated [0022];
wherein estimating the expected accuracy then comprises estimating the expected accuracy based on at least one of: the scaled residuals and information derived from the scaled residuals [0022-0023].
Regarding Claim 5, Dai teaches at least one of: after scaling the obtained residuals and before estimating the expected accuracy, smoothing the scaled residuals in time; or after obtaining the residuals and before scaling the residuals, smoothing the residuals in time [0028-0030].
Regarding Claim 6, Dai teaches the expected accuracy comprises at least one of: an expected horizontal error on or near the Earth surface; an expected vertical error on or near the Earth surface; or an expected three-dimensional error on or near the Earth surface [0019 and figure 3A element 344].
Regarding Claim 7, Dai teaches computing a scale factor based on at least one of: the residuals and information derived from the residuals [0037].
Regarding Claim 8, Dai teaches the estimator outputs, at each epoch, a covariance matrix, and the method further comprising: determining whether to change the covariance matrix of the estimator using a decision procedure taking the estimated expected accuracy and the computed scale factor as input [0036-0037].
Regarding Claim 9, Dai teaches a system comprising a navigation satellite system receiver (NSS receiver) [0026, 0031, and receiver element 130],
or a processing entity capable of receiving data from the NSS receiver [0031-0033 and satellites element 110-1, 110-2, 110-3, and CPU processor element 200, 240],
the system being for estimating parameters useful to determine a position [0032-0034],
the NSS receiver being configured for observing a NSS signal from each of a plurality of NSS satellites over multiple epochs, and the system being configured for [0031-0033 and satellites element 110-1, 110-2, 110-3, and CPU processor element 200, 240]:
receiving input data comprising at least one of: NSS signals observed by the NSS receiver, or information derived from said NSS signals [0032-0034];
operating an estimator that uses state variables and computes the values of its state variables at least based on the received input data [0032, 0038-0039];
obtaining first precise-observation residuals and less-precise-observations residuals, from the estimator, each residual being associated with at least one NSS signal observed by the NSS receiver [0023, 0029-0032 for using carrier phase measurements],
wherein: the precise-observations residuals comprise at least one of: carrier phase observation residuals, delta carrier phase observation residuals, or Doppler observation residuals [0029-0032 for using carrier phase measurements];
and the less-precise-observations residuals comprise at least one of: code observation residuals or delta code observation residuals [0023, 0030-0032 for using carrier phase and code observations];
and estimating an expected accuracy of at least one of a position or a velocity [0028, 0038 for using baseline or expected measurements],
wherein estimating the expected accuracy is based on at least some of the obtained less-precise-observations residuals [0023, 0030-0032 for using carrier phase and code observations].
Dai fails to explicitly teach less precise residuals that have been modified using at least some of the precise-observations residuals, wherein the modification comprises a smoothing process that uses a smoothing coefficient that is incremented at at least one epoch.
Guan has method and system for checking the quality of marine precision single-point positioning protection level (abstract) and teaches less precise residuals that have been modified using at least some of the precise-observations residuals [0081-0085 for position deviation level (precise vs. less precise) for positioning],
wherein the modification comprises a smoothing process that uses a smoothing coefficient that is incremented at at least one epoch [0078-0080].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the satellite position techniques, as disclosed by Dai, further including the residual calculations as taught by Guan for the purpose to eliminate the impact of isolated noise points on positioning accuracy (Guan, 0078).
Dai fails to explicitly teach a smoothing process that uses a smoothing coefficient that is incremented at each epoch to recursively weight the residuals.
Tominaga has a pseudorange is estimately calculated in high accuracy without being influenced by multipath (abstract) and teaches a smoothing process that uses a smoothing coefficient that is incremented at each epoch to recursively weight the residuals [0043-0045 and equation 1for using current and prior estimated pseudoranges with 0070-0074 for Steps S105 to S109]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the applicant’s invention for modifying the satellite position techniques, as disclosed by Dai, further including the recursive calculations as taught by Tominaga for the purpose to determine the estimation calculation of the pseudorange (Tominaga, 0074).
Regarding Claim 10, Dai teaches the vehicle preferably being at least one of: a motor vehicle, an agricultural tractor, a combine harvester, a crop sprayer, a construction equipment, a truck, a bus, a train, a motorcycle, an autonomous vehicle, a self-driving vehicle, a driverless vehicle, a robotic vehicle, a highly automated vehicle, an aircraft, and an unmanned aerial vehicle [0026].
Regarding Claim 11, Dai teaches a computer program or set of computer programs comprising computer-readable instructions configured, when executed on a computer or set of computers, to cause the computer or set of computers to carry out the method [0043].
Regarding Claim 12, Dai teaches a computer program product or storage mediums comprising a computer program or set of computer programs [0043].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
On page 7, fourth paragraph of applicant’s argument, applicant state that Guan does not teach incremented smoothing process of coefficients. The examiner respectfully disagrees: new reference Tominaga teaches estimating pseudorange using weighted hatch filter [Tominaga,0043-0044].
On page 7, fifth paragraph of applicant’s argument, applicant state that prior art lacks the precise-to-less-precise residuals. Tominaga recursively modifies less-precise pseudorange observations using more precise Doppler derived measurements with epoch updated weighting coefficients, which renders the claimed modification of precise and less-precise residuals an obvious variation of known GNSS smoothing techniques, [Tominaga, 0043-0045 and 0069-0074].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMARINA MAKHDOOM whose telephone number is (703)756-1044. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Thursdays from 8:30 to 5:30 pm eastern time.
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 on 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.
/SAMARINA MAKHDOOM/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648