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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/23/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
Claims 1, 7-8, 12, and 18 are amended.
Claim 6, 9, and 14 are cancelled.
Claims 21-23 are new.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-13, and 15-23 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 10-16, filed 09/23/2025, with respect to Claims 1 and 12 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the specific combination of references being used in the current rejection.
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132, filed 09/23/2025, is insufficient to overcome the rejection of Claims 1 and 12 based upon 35 U.S.C 103 because the arguments do not apply to the specific combination of references being used in the current rejection.
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.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao (US 2021/0333409) in view of Williamson (US 2012/0065883).
Regarding Claim 1, Cao teaches:
A system for estimating a movement or position of a boat or a vessel ([0019]: "boats"; [0047]: "corrected vehicle position, including position, velocity, and/or time correction."), the system comprising:
an inertial measurement device configured to produce measurement values ([0025]: "inertial measurement unit");
a receiver configured to receive an electromagnetic signal from at least one satellite ([0023]: "GNSS receiver 102"); and
circuitry ([0023]: "processor 108") configured to execute
a validation module configured to check whether a parameter derived from the received electromagnetic signal meets a predetermined criterion ([0033]: "spoofing detector 306"; [0034]: "spoofing detector 400"; [0035]: "GNSS measurement consistent checking module 404 is configured to determine the consistency between the pseudorange, pseudorange rate, and/or carrier phase data."; "The residuals can then be compared to a first threshold value indicative of consistency of the GNSS range data."),
an integration module configured to determine an intermediate value based on at least one of the measurement values ([0031]: "Inertial navigation system (hereinafter “INS”) 302 receives the dynamic measurement data (e.g. vehicle velocity, acceleration, and angle speed) from IMU 104."; "Navigation reckoning as used herein means the determination of a vehicle position from inertial sensors, such as IMU 104."; [0033]: "LOS range estimator 304 is configured to compute at least one LOS range based on the navigation reckoning solution and the satellite ephemeris data provided."), and
a computing module configured to compute a value representative of said movement or position of said boat or said vessel based on said intermediate value, and, in a case in which the parameter meets the predetermined criterion, on a phase of a carrier of the received electromagnetic signal ([0047]: "GNSS/INS integrated positioning module 310 is configured to determine the position of the vehicle based on the verified, non-spoofed GNSS data and the inertial data, such as by incorporating the two data types using processing techniques known in the art."; [0034-0038]: non-spoofed GNSS data is determined by spoofing detector 400 based on carrier phase data), the computing module is configured to compute an error ([0035]: "residual"; "measured error") and to compute the value representative of said movement or position based on a raw value derived from or equal to the intermediate value ([0025]: "IMU 104 is configured to acquire a series of dynamic inertial measurements related to the vehicle, such as the vehicle's velocity, acceleration"; [0033]: “LOS range”), and corrected using the computed error ([0047]: "GNSS/INS integrated positioning module 310 is configured to determine the position of the vehicle based on the verified, non-spoofed GNSS data and the inertial data, such as by incorporating the two data types using processing techniques known in the art. It can then produce an output which represents the corrected vehicle position, including position, velocity, and/or time correction."), … in the case in which the parameter meets the predetermined criterion ([0035]: "threshold").
Cao does not explicitly teach: the error being based on the phase of the carrier of the received electromagnetic signal.
Williamson teaches: the computing module is configured to compute an error (Williamson [0007]: “calculating a phase wind up correction”) and to compute the value representative of said movement or position based on a raw value derived from or equal to the intermediate value (Williamson [0007]: “data from an inertial navigation system having an inertial measurement unit (IMU)”), and corrected using the computed error (Williamson [0007]: “correcting at least one of the finite number of carrier phase observables using the phase wind up correction; and calculating a corrected IMU attitude or velocity or position using the corrected at least one of the finite number of carrier phase observables”), the error being based on the phase of the carrier of the received electromagnetic signal (Williamson [0006]: “correct an inertial navigation system for inertial navigation system errors caused by carrier phase wind up.”; [0007]: “phase wind up correction”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Cao and correct the value representative of said movement or position using an error based on the phase of the carrier of the received electromagnetic signal, as taught by Williamson. Computing an error based on a carrier phase and correcting a movement or position solution using an error measurement is considered ordinary and well-known in the art. Using a carrier phase-based error to correct a movement or position solution is beneficial for correcting inertial navigation system errors caused by carrier phase wind up (Williamson [0006]).
Regarding Claim 12, Cao teaches:
A method for estimating a movement or position of a boat or a vessel ([0019]; [0047]), the method comprising:
obtaining measurement values from an inertial measurement device ([0025]);
receiving an electromagnetic signal from at least one satellite using a receiver ([0023]);
checking whether a parameter derived from the received electromagnetic signal meets a predetermined criterion ([0033-0035]);
determining an intermediate value based on at least one of the obtained measurement values ([0031]; [0033]);
computing an error, in a case in which the parameter meets the predetermined criterion, … ([0035]); and
computing a value representative of said movement or position of the boat or the vessel by correcting a raw value derived from or equal to the intermediate value, using the computed error ([0047]).
Cao does not explicitly teach: an error … based on the phase of the carrier of the received electromagnetic signal.
Williamson teaches: computing an error, in a case in which the parameter meets the predetermined criterion, based on the phase of the carrier of the received electromagnetic signal (Williamson [0007]); and
computing a value representative of said movement or position of the boat or the vessel by correcting a raw value derived from or equal to the intermediate value, using the computed error ([Williamson [0007]).
The rationale to modify Cao with the teachings of Williamson would persist from Claim 1.
Examiner note: Claim 12 recites a contingent limitation (“computing an error, in a case in which the parameter meets the predetermined criterion…”). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See MPEP 2111.04 II.
Regarding Claim 17, Cao teaches:
A system for estimating a movement or position of a moving object ([0019]; [0047]), the system comprising:
an inertial measurement device configured to produce measurement values ([0025]);
a receiver configured to receive an electromagnetic signal from at least one satellite ([0023]); and
one or more processors ([0023]) configured to
check whether a parameter derived from the received electromagnetic signal meets a predetermined criterion ([0033-0035]),
determine an intermediate value based on at least one of the measurement values ([0031]; [0033]),
compute an error, in a case in which the parameter meets the predetermined criterion ([0035]), … and
compute a value representative of said movement or position using a combination, …, of the computed error and a raw value derived from or equal to the intermediate value ([0047]).
Cao does not explicitly teach: an error … based on the phase of the carrier of the received electromagnetic signal, and
… by addition or subtraction …
Williamson teaches: compute an error, in a case in which the parameter meets the predetermined criterion, based on the phase of the carrier of the received electromagnetic signal (Williamson [0007]); and
compute a value representative of said movement or position using a combination, by addition or subtraction, of the computed error and a raw value derived from or equal to the intermediate value ([Williamson [0007]; [0044]).
The rationale to modify Cao with the teachings of Williamson would persist from Claims 1 and 8.
Regarding Claims 2 and 13, Cao teaches: wherein the validation module is configured to check whether the parameter meets the predetermined criterion using at least a checking value determined based on said measurement values ([0032-0033]; [0038]: "GNSS/INS range consistent checking module 408 is configured to determine whether the received GNSS data is spoofed via threshold comparison, specifically by comparing the set thresholds from threshold initialization module 406 with residuals determined from the difference between the LOS and GNSS range data (GNSS/INS residual).").
Regarding Claim 3, Cao teaches: wherein the checking value is the intermediate value ([0038]: "comparing the set thresholds from threshold initialization module 406 with residuals determined from the difference between the LOS and GNSS range data (GNSS/INS residual).").
Regarding Claim 4, Cao teaches: wherein the validation module is configured to compute the parameter based on the phase of the carrier of the received electromagnetic signal and a displacement estimation derived at least from said checking value ([0039]: "GNSS/INS range consistent checking module 408 is configured to generate residuals based on the following formula: residual=|RangeINS−RangeGNSS| where RangeINS is the LOS range determined by the inertial data and RangeGNSS is the GNSS pseudorange determined by the GNSS data for each respective satellite used to determine the position of the vehicle.").
Regarding Claim 5, Cao teaches: wherein the checking value is the intermediate value ([0038]).
Regarding Claim 7, Cao teaches: wherein the error is a speed error and the raw value is a raw speed value ([0031]: "vehicle velocity, acceleration, and angle speed"; [0033]: "LOS range rate"; "pseudorange rate"; [0035]: "measured error from the expected pseudorange and/or rate").
Regarding Claim 8, Cao does not explicitly teach – but Williamson teaches: wherein the computing module is configured to compute the value representative of said movement as the combination, by addition or subtraction, of the raw value and the computed error (Williamson [0044]: "Inertial measurements are subject to errors. For three purposes of the present description, these errors are lumped into an additive error").
It would have been obvious to modify Cao and compute the value representative of said movement as the combination, by addition or subtraction, of the raw value and the computed error, as taught by Williamson. Using addition or subtraction to combine a raw value and an error value is well-known in the art and comprises applying a known technique to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claims 10 and 15, Cao does not explicitly teach: wherein the value representative of said movement or position is a speed along a vertical axis.
However, in that Cao teaches measuring velocity ([0020]) and using inertial measurements to determine LOS range vectors ([0021]), it would have been obvious to modify the system of Cao and let the value representative of said movement or position be a speed value along a vertical axis. Measuring vertical velocity is well-known in the art, and would be beneficial for obtaining additional data such as vertical movement or elevation/altitude.
Regarding Claim 11 and 16, Cao teaches: wherein the circuitry is configured to execute another integration module configured to integrate the value representative of said movement or position into a value representative of a position of the boat or the vessel ([Abstract]: "the updated position solution can be used to calculate the position of the vehicle"; [0006]: "navigation reckoning based on the series of dynamic measurements"; [0028]; [0047]; [0082]).
Regarding Claims 21 and 22, Cao teaches: wherein said parameter is a residual error computed based on … and on a displacement determined based on said measurement values ([0039]).
Cao does not explicitly teach – but Williamson teaches: wherein said parameter is a residual error computed based on a variation of the phase of the carrier and on a displacement determined based on said measurement values (Williamson [0101]: “We now combine the error models from all three sources: range, yaw wind up, and geometry wind up.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Cao and compute a residual error based on a variation of the phase of the carrier and on a displacement determined based on said measurement values, as taught by Williamson. Computing an error based on both carrier phase and displacement is beneficial for correcting inertial navigation system errors caused by carrier phase wind up (Williamson [0006]).
Regarding Claim 23, Cao teaches: wherein determining said parameter includes determining a clock bias drift based on variations of phases of carriers received from a plurality of satellites (Williamson [0052]: “a scalar clock bias error for the GPS receiver clock bias”; [0127]: “multiple GPS receivers … can be used to generate enough measurements to make this model feasible”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Cao and determine a clock bias drift based on variations of phases of carriers received from a plurality of satellites, as taught by Williamson. Correcting clock biases is considered ordinary and well-known in the art and is beneficial for improving the accuracy of movement or position estimates.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao (US 2021/0333409) in view of Williamson (US 2012/0065883), as applied to Claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of Toda (US 2020/0109948).
Regarding Claims 18 and 20, Cao teaches: wherein the one or more processors is configured to receive said at least one measurement value and to produce an integrated measurement value ([0031-0035]), …
Cao does not explicitly teach – but Toda teaches: the system further comprises a high-pass filter configured to receive the integrated measurement value and produce said intermediate value (Toda [0051]; [0052]: “The integrator 231 may output the IMU speed Vi to the HPF 233.”; [0053]: “The HPF 233 may output the filtered IMU speed Vif to the adder 235.”).
It would have been obvious to modify Cao and use a high-pass filter configured to receive the integrated measurement value and produce said intermediate value, as taught by Toda. Using a high-pass filter to receive the integrated measurement value and produce said intermediate value combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results and is beneficial for removing error from measured values.
Regarding Claim 19, Cao does not explicitly teach: wherein a cut-off frequency of the high-pass filter is below 8x10-3 Hz. However, in that Toda teaches a high-pass filter with a cut-off frequency (Toda [0051]; [0053]), it would have been obvious to use a high-pass filter with a cut-off frequency below 8x10-3 Hz, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable values involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH Y. ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-0170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-4PM.
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 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.
/NOAH YI MIN ZHU/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648