DETAILED 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/25/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Note
To help the reader, examiner notes in this detailed action claim language is in bold, strikethrough limitations are not explicitly taught and language added to explain a reference mapping are isolated from quotations via square brackets.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. An explanation is provided below.
Applicant alleges on p.5, “Claim 1 is directed to an embodiment of the subject method as practiced by components in a vehicle and described with reference to FIGs 5 and 7 A. Claim 1 includes determining separate position estimates (503, 505) by each of the vehicle (110) and the radio base station (155);”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Wiack teaches separate position estimates as disclosed in at least para. 0189 and 0049:
Having measured its own position UE (X, Y, H), and provided it in the positioning report 725, the UE 700 may switch to a RRC_CONNECTED state and use a received “Timing Advance” (TA) correction value, as indicated by the arrow 721, to determine whether or not this provides a substantial match to the self-determined UE position and distance, based on the TOA method. Thereby, the UE 700 may perform a technical verification of its own position.”; 0049 “The received reference data may be transmitted by each of the base stations and comprises ToA reference data including an indication of a geographic position and a transmission time (T.sub.0)”; 0195 “The UE verification logic 1250 may use the TA correction value 1284 and compare it with the TOA-based distance (D) to the base station so measured. Although the two values are obtained differently, they should substantially match if the TOA position was calculated correctly.”). 0290 “FIG. 22A illustrates a comparison of two independent sets of positional data, whereas FIG. 22B shows the scenario where the TOA distance UE 700->base station 2000 is used for GNSS position verification”
Furthermore, Examiner notes in claim 1, under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI), it is not required that the RBS does a position estimate because the RBS is used to transmit ‘a response from the radio base station to the transmitted request, the response comprising a verification position estimate’ as opposed to perform a verification position estimate calculation.
Applicant further alleges on p.5 “unlike the present claimed method, Wiacek includes the same user device as determining both of the separate position estimates”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained above, it is not required that the RBS calculates a position verification estimate. Under BRI, the RBS can instead forward a position verification estimate.
In Wiacek, the BS transmits a TA correction value (0195 “The TA correction value 1284 corresponds to a distance travelled by a microwave signal between the base station antenna and the UE 700”) used by the UE to verify its self-determined position. Even though this calculation is not performed by the BS, but rather the UE, Pon teaches a request outside of the UE (server request) to verify the accuracy of a UE location for position verification in at least para 0025, 0077:
In some embodiments, a mobile device triggers BTS positioning in response to one or more of: the determining of the reference position (e.g., as described in greater detail below), a self-determination by the mobile device that the accuracy of the mobile device's BTS positioning may be unreliable, a user request to verify accuracy of the mobile device's BTS positioning, a server request to verify accuracy of the mobile device's BTS positioning”; 0077 “Using AFLT, a server may compute a position for wireless device 500 from phase measurements made by device 500 of pilot signals transmitted from a plurality of base stations”
As such, Pon teaches that it is well-known to verify and compute a UE position outside of the UE. Since both Wiacek and Pon disclose similar positioning and reporting between devices and base stations, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize to verify and compute a UE position outside of the UE at a server or base station without a change in the underlying principle of operation. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve reliability, accuracy, and delay errors (Pon 0022, 0030, 0031). The combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods and does not change the underlying principle of operation, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 12, Examiner maintains the rejection in view of the above response in that the change in the location of the calculation/request between claim 1 and 12 is not patentable distinct in view of Wiacek and Pon to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
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 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) 1-4, 6, 10, 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiacek (US 20210274462) in view of Pon et al. (US 20170094631 hereinafter Pon).
Regarding claim 1, Wiacek teaches A method in a vehicle for verifying an estimated position of the vehicle (0004 “verify the accuracy of the initial geographic position (UE.sub.init) or another geographic position derived therefrom.”; 0134 “Embodiments may also relate to real-time or near real-time positioning or tracking of vehicles”),
the method comprising the steps of, establishing a wireless link to a radio base station (0186 “The UE 700 may be any type of mobile radio device mentioned previously, and example embodiments take the example of an airborne vehicle, such as a drone. Example embodiments use the above-described TOA concept for enhanced and efficient position determination of UEs, such as the UE 700, which may determine its own position, i.e. UE (X, Y, H), as part of a positioning report 725. Each base station 701-704 may be configured to provide TOA reference data”),
obtaining data for estimating the vehicle position (Abstract “causes the apparatus to receive reference data usable for estimating a geographic position of the apparatus based on its distance from two or more base stations”),
estimating the vehicle position based on the data (0134 “Embodiments may also relate to real-time or near real-time positioning or tracking of vehicles”),
receiving a response from the radio base station to the transmitted request (0189 “Having measured its own position UE (X, Y, H), and provided it in the positioning report 725, the UE 700 may switch to a RRC_CONNECTED state and use a received “Timing Advance” (TA) correction value, as indicated by the arrow 721, to determine whether or not this provides a substantial match to the self-determined UE position and distance, based on the TOA method.”; 0195 “the UE 700 may receive a Timing Advance (TA) correction value 1284 provided by a base station”) comprising a verification position estimate based at least partly on data obtained from an uplink transmission on the wireless link to the radio base station from the vehicle (0101 “determining an initial geographic position (UE.sub.init) of the apparatus using the received reference data for a plurality of the base stations, including any updated reference data; and establishing a bidirectional communications link with at least one of the base stations from which reference data is received, and receiving verification data therefrom usable to verify the accuracy of the initial geographic position (UE.sub.init) or another geographic position derived therefrom” [the bidirectional communication link includes an uplink transmission]) and being at least partly uncorrelated with the estimated vehicle position (0289 “The above described systems and methods may be used as a means for independent GNSS (e.g. GPS)-based UE position verification.”, 0290 “FIG. 22A illustrates a comparison of two independent sets of positional data, whereas FIG. 22B shows the scenario where the TOA distance UE 700->base station 2000 is used for GNSS position verification”; 0250 “the TA value may be used for UE (X, Y, H) position verification”), and
verifying the estimated position of the vehicle by comparing the estimated vehicle position to the verification position estimate (0189 “Having measured its own position UE (X, Y, H), and provided it in the positioning report 725, the UE 700 may switch to a RRC_CONNECTED state and use a received “Timing Advance” (TA) correction value, as indicated by the arrow 721, to determine whether or not this provides a substantial match to the self-determined UE position and distance, based on the TOA method. Thereby, the UE 700 may perform a technical verification of its own position.”; 0049 “The received reference data may be transmitted by each of the base stations and comprises ToA reference data including an indication of a geographic position and a transmission time (T.sub.0)”; 0195 “The UE verification logic 1250 may use the TA correction value 1284 and compare it with the TOA-based distance (D) to the base station so measured. Although the two values are obtained differently, they should substantially match if the TOA position was calculated correctly.”).
Wiacek does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Pon teaches transmitting a request for a position verification to the radio base station, (0025 “In some embodiments, a mobile device triggers BTS positioning in response to one or more of: the determining of the reference position (e.g., as described in greater detail below), a self-determination by the mobile device that the accuracy of the mobile device's BTS positioning may be unreliable, a user request to verify accuracy of the mobile device's BTS positioning, a server request to verify accuracy of the mobile device's BTS positioning; 0028 “At time T2, the user may request BTS positioning. If T1 and T2 are within a threshold configurable time period/window, the GNSS based position obtained at T1 may be used to verify the positioning from BTSs determined at time T2.”; 0077 “Using AFLT, a server may compute a position for wireless device 500 from phase measurements made by device 500 of pilot signals transmitted from a plurality of base stations”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the mobile positioning optimization with reporting system and method of Pon with the position determination system and method of Wiacek. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve reliability and accuracy (Pon 0022). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Pon merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular request features for verification. Since both Wiacek and Pon disclose similar positioning and reporting between devices and base stations, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Wiacek in view of Pon teach The method according to claim 1, further comprising the steps of obtaining the data from a downlink transmission on the wireless link from the radio base station to the vehicle (Wiacek fig 5), and
estimating the vehicle position based on downlink data comprising any of an angle of arrival, an angle of departure, a time of flight, a time of arrival, and a time difference of arrival (Wiacek 0209 “minimal value should correspond to the line-of-sight signal, given signal propagation, if such a direct signal were received. This may be useful for TOA-based positioning, because the time difference T.sub.1?T.sub.0 is used for TOA is distance measurements” [TOA corresponds to time of arrival]).
Regarding claim 3, Wiacek in view of Pon teach The method according to claim 1, further comprising the estimating the vehicle position is based at least partly on data obtained from a Global Navigation Satellite System (Wiacek 0032 “a reference position of the mobile device may be determined from GNSS”), receiver comprised in the vehicle (Wiacek 0076 “Wireless subsystems 515 may be connected to antenna system 580. Antenna system 580 may be connected to GPS or GNSS receiver 530 to enable reception of GPS or other GNSS signals by GPS or GNSS receiver 530. ”) or based on radar data obtained from a radar transceiver comprised in the vehicle.
Regarding claim 4, Wiacek in view of Pon teach The method according to claim 1, wherein the estimated vehicle position is associated with a time stamp indicating a time instant corresponding to the vehicle position estimate (Pon fig 1; 0029 “If the time difference is above a threshold, the embodiment may return to block 105 to continue BTS positioning. Otherwise, if the time stamps indicate the position results should be the same or similar, the embodiment continues to block 125.” [thus, a time stamp is associated with a positioning]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the mobile positioning optimization with reporting system and method of Pon with the position determination system and method of Wiacek. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve reliability and accuracy (Pon 0022). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Pon merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular time stamp features. Since both Wiacek and Pon disclose similar positioning and reporting between devices and base stations, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, Wiacek in view of Pon teach The method according to claim 5, further comprising forwarding the data obtained from the uplink transmission to a remote server (Pon 0023 “each mobile device performing MPOR techniques can send a BTS report to a server.”), and
estimating the vehicle position by the remote server (Pon 0077 “Using AFLT, a server may compute a position for wireless device 500 from phase measurements made by device 500 of pilot signals transmitted from a plurality of base stations.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the mobile positioning optimization with reporting system and method of Pon with the position determination system and method of Wiacek. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve reliability and accuracy (Pon 0022). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Pon merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular server features. Since both Wiacek and Pon disclose similar positioning and reporting between devices and base stations, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 10, Wiacek in view of Pon teach A vehicle unit comprising processing circuitry configured to perform the method according to claim 1 (Wiacek Abstract “An apparatus including at least one processor”).
Regarding claim 12, Wiack teaches A method (0195 “The UE verification logic 1250 may use the TA correction value 1284 and compare it with the TOA-based distance (D) to the base station so measured. Although the two values are obtained differently, they should substantially match if the TOA position was calculated correctly.”).),
the method comprising establishing a wireless link to a communications transceiver in the vehicle (fig 7; 0134 “For example, the UE may form part of, or be within, a drone or passenger-carrying aircraft. In an air traffic management system, a flying vehicle position may be used for route prediction”),
obtaining data from an uplink of the wireless link to the radio base station from the vehicle for estimating the vehicle position (0164 “In some embodiments, no active connection (RRC_CONNECTED) is required by the UE to the base stations to calculate the UE position based on base station signalling messages”),
estimating the vehicle position based on the data (0134 “Embodiments may also relate to real-time or near real-time positioning or tracking of vehicles”),
transmitting (0080 “The positioning report may further comprise a TA correction (TA.sub.aenbue) received by the apparatus from the base station from which the TA signal was received for verification”),
receiving a response from the vehicle to the transmitted (0196 “The UE 700 may also report its TOA-based position, together with additional data useful for a second verification by UE positioning system 730. One or more positioning reports 1285 may be received by a base station 801 in the RRC_CONNECTED state, which base station may forward this data together with additional, base station related data for further verification.”),
the response comprising a verification position estimate generated by the vehicle and being at least partly uncorrelated with the estimated vehicle position (0196 “The UE 700 may also report its TOA-based position, together with additional data useful for a second verification by UE positioning system 730. One or more positioning reports 1285 may be received by a base station 801 in the RRC_CONNECTED state, which base station may forward this data together with additional, base station related data for further verification.”), and
verifying the estimated position of the vehicle by comparing the estimated vehicle position with the verification position estimate (0196 “The UE 700 may also report its TOA-based position, together with additional data useful for a second verification by UE positioning system 730. One or more positioning reports 1285 may be received by a base station 801 in the RRC_CONNECTED state, which base station may forward this data together with additional, base station related data for further verification.”).
Wiacek does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Pon teaches a server request to verify the accuracy of a UE location corresponding to a radio base station request for position verification (0025 “In some embodiments, a mobile device triggers BTS positioning in response to one or more of: the determining of the reference position (e.g., as described in greater detail below), a self-determination by the mobile device that the accuracy of the mobile device's BTS positioning may be unreliable, a user request to verify accuracy of the mobile device's BTS positioning, a server request to verify accuracy of the mobile device's BTS positioning”; 0077 “Using AFLT, a server may compute a position for wireless device 500 from phase measurements made by device 500 of pilot signals transmitted from a plurality of base stations”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Pon with the teachings of Wiacek. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve reliability, accuracy, and delay errors (Pon 0022, 0030, 0031). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Pon merely teaches that it is well-known to verify and compute a UE position outside of the UE. Since both Wiacek and Pon disclose similar positioning and reporting between devices and base stations, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize to verify and compute a UE position outside of the UE at a server or base station without a change in the underlying principle of operation. The combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods and does not change the underlying principle of operation, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 6. Therefore, claim 13is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 6.
Regarding claim 14, Wiacek in view of Pon teach The method according to claim 12, comprising the step of triggering an event by the radio base station in case the verifying indicates a discrepancy above a pre-determined level (Pon 0030 “At block 125, the embodiment determines whether the positioning difference between the position determined from BTS signals and the reference position are greater than a configurable threshold.”; fig 1).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the mobile positioning optimization with reporting system and method of Pon with the position determination system and method of Wiacek. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve reliability and accuracy (Pon 0022). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Pon merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular thresholding features. Since both Wiacek and Pon disclose similar positioning and reporting between devices and base stations, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 10. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 10.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiacek (US 20210274462) in view of Pon et al. (US 20170094631 hereinafter Pon) as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Wu (US 20190025846).
Regarding claim 5, Wiacek in view of Pon teach The method according to claim 1,
While the base station receives positioning determinations, the combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Wu teaches estimating the vehicle position by the radio base station based on data obtained from an uplink transmission on the wireless link to the radio base station from the vehicle (0067 “the roadside base station obtains the vehicle kinematics model by the vehicle controller, calculates the optimum path of the vehicle from the current position to the designated position according to the vehicle kinematics model, the current position of the vehicle and the current pose of the vehicle”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the system and method of Wu with the teachings of Wiacek in view of Pon. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously facilitate in autonomous driving (Wu 0003). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Wu merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular base station processing. Since both the previous combination and Wu disclose vehicle positioning systems and methods, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiacek (US 20210274462) in view of Pon et al. (US 20170094631 hereinafter Pon) as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Jordan et al. (US 20110034142 hereinafter Jordan ‘142).
Regarding claim 8, Wiacek in view of Pon teach The method according to claim 1,
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Jordan ‘142 teaches comparing a weighted difference between two values with a pre-determined threshold (0031 “the weighted differences between the measured and pre-determined PDF are summed and compared with a pre-determined threshold value.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the signal processing system and method of Jordan ‘142 with the teachings of Wiacek in view of Pon. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously use statistical techniques to compare signals (Jordan ‘142 0003, 0007). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Jordan ‘142 merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular statistical techniques. Since both the previous combination and Jordan ‘142 disclose signal processing, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiacek (US 20210274462) in view of Pon et al. (US 20170094631 hereinafter Pon) as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Park et al. (US 20170086164 hereinafter Park).
Regarding claim 9, Wiacek in view of Pon teach The method according to claim 1,
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Park teaches further comprising the step of scheduling recurrent verifications of the estimated vehicle position by the radio base station (Park 0075 “the base station may verify a location of the mobile terminal 110 periodically and/or in real time.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the position determining system and method of Park with the teachings of Wiacek in view of Pon. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously verify positioning (Park 0075). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Park merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular verification steps. Since both the previous combination and Park disclose similar positioning system and methods, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiacek (US 20210274462) in view of Pon et al. (US 20170094631 hereinafter Pon) as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Jordan et al. (US 20160313450 hereinafter Jordan ‘450).
Regarding claim 7, Wiacek in view of Pon teach The method according to claim 1, wherein the verifying comprises comparing a difference between the estimated vehicle position and the verification position estimate (Wiacek 0031 “wherein the means is further configured to compare a position determined by the satellite based means with the one or more positioning determinations to determine if they substantially match.”; 0100 “receiving verification data therefrom usable to verify the accuracy of the initial geographic position (UE.sub.init)”; 0190 “The positioning system 730 may be a remote entity of the network which can gather positioning reports 725 from one or many UEs to perform a second technical verification, in addition, or as an alternative to that performed by the UEs, to confirm that, for example, the UE 700 is real and that its reported position matches that in the positioning report 725.”).
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Jordan ‘450 teaches (0016 “he modules 100a of the vehicle 52a may receive a correction value and/or position data from the base station 58. If the base station 58 is not within a usable range of the modules 100a (e.g., the base station is beyond a distance of 25 km, the correction value does not pass a quality and/or reliability check, etc.), a correction value may be calculated using another one of the modules 100a-100n in the vehicle 52a.”; Abstract “determining a correction value to compensate for local conditions by analyzing differences between the first value and the second value.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the automotive GNSS system and method of Jordan ‘450 with the teachings of Wiacek in view of Pon. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve the accuracy of a GNSS system (Jordan ‘450 0040). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Jordan ‘450 merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the thresholding. Since both the previous combination and Jordan ‘450 disclose similar systems of vehicles using GNSS’s, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 11, Wiacek in view of Pon teach
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Jordan ‘450 teaches A vehicle comprising the vehicle control unit according to claim 10 (0040 “Implementing the two modules 100a and 100a′ may allow a determination of the GNSS position solution to be autonomous within the vehicle 52a. For example, no other communications outside the vehicle 52a may be needed to improve the accuracy of the GNSS position solution”; fig 2).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the automotive GNSS system and method of Jordan ‘450 with the teachings of Wiacek in view of Pon. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve the accuracy of a GNSS system (Jordan ‘450 0040). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Jordan ‘450 merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular vehicle features. Since both the previous combination and Jordan ‘450 disclose similar systems of vehicles using GNSS’s, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to application’s disclosure:
Bergstrom et al. (US 20100273451) discloses “In one aspect of the invention presented herein, a mobile terminal requests positioning assistance data from its supporting wireless communication network, in response to receiving a positioning request from a positioning node (See abstract)”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAAEEL A SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached on (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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648