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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 15, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1 is amended.
Claim 7 is cancelled.
Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are pending this application
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.
Claims1- 6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kundak et al (US 2017/0192103 A1) in view of Vollath (US 2011/0148698 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kundak discloses a method for determining GNSS sensor data using a GNSS sensor, comprising [0018, 0022 for a GNSS receiver]:
receiving with a GNSS sensor, a GNSS satellite signal from at least one GNSS satellite [0017-0018];
resolving an ambiguity of at least one carrier frequency of the GNSS satellite signal using an estimation algorithm configured to output (i), at least one estimation result and (ii) at least one indication of an accuracy of the estimation result [0023-0024 for estimation algorithms accuracy using weighting],
receiving at least one item of information, which enables, in addition to the at least one indication of the accuracy of the estimation from the estimation algorithm a conclusion to be drawn about the accuracy of the estimation, [0024-0025 for estimation algorithms accuracy]
and determining the GNSS sensor data, including a geospatial position of the GNSS sensor [0017-0018 for getting carrier phase measurements (geospatial orientation)],
based on the estimation result and the at least one indication of the accuracy of the estimation result [0020-0022 for float ambiguities for error covariance (estimation accuracies) also 0027-0029 for determine RMS error with baseline residuals].
Kundak fails to explicitly teach adjusting the at least one indication of the accuracy of the estimation result from the estimation algorithm by adding a penalty factor so as to artificially degrade the at least one indication of the accuracy, the penalty factor being determined based on the at least one item of information.
Vollath has apparatus are provided for estimating parameters, i.e. ambiguities, derived from GNSS signals (abstract) and teaches adjusting the at least one indication of the accuracy of the estimation result from the estimation algorithm by adding a penalty factor so as to artificially degrade the at least one indication of the accuracy, the penalty factor being determined based on the at least one item of information [claims 2-4 for determining the quality measurements by adjusting covariance of the error ranges (penalty factor)].
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 GNSS sensor techniques, as disclosed by Kundak, further including the penalty calculations as taught by Vollath for the purpose to converge more rapidly to the correct solution in a reasonable amount of computation time (Vollath, 0149).
Regarding Claim 2, Kundak discloses the ambiguity of the at least one carrier frequency is resolved by using an ambiguity filter, which determines a covariance matrix as an indication of the accuracy of the estimation [0037,0041].
Regarding Claim 3, Kundak discloses the at least one item of information includes one or more [0029]:
information from a GNSS antenna [0017-0018];
information from an inertial sensor [0029];
information from a speed sensor;
and information from a GNSS correction data source [0026].
Regarding Claim 4, Kundak discloses the at least one item of information includes information from a GNSS correction data source [0026].
Regarding Claim 5, Kundak discloses the at least one item of information includes information from a GNSS correction data source describing the accuracy and/or reliability of GNSS correction data [0001].
Regarding Claim 6, Kundak discloses the at least one item of information is provided by a sensor of a vehicle equipped with the GNSS sensor [0004].
Regarding Claim 8, Kundak discloses computer program configured to perform a method when executed by a controller [0061].
Regarding Claim 9, Kundak discloses non-transitory machine-readable storage medium on which the computer program is stored [0061].
Regarding Claim 10, Kundak discloses geolocation device configured to perform the method [0042-0043 and 0061].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6 and 8-10 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 6, last paragraph of applicant’s argument, the applicant states that Kundak uses attitude aiding sensors are inertial aiding sensor. The examiner respectfully disagrees: Kundak teaches uses standard deviations of code and carrier measurements errors, baseline surveying error as well as calculating variance and covariance [Kundak, 0022].
On page 7, second paragraph of applicant’s arguments, the applicant states that Kundak fails to teaches the indication of accuracy of the estimation result by adding a penalty factor. The examiner respectfully disagrees: Kundak teaches estimating float ambiguityies and using a variance covariance matrix for error characteristics [Kundak, 0022]. New reference Vollath, further teaches this feature by adapting the quality measures of the candidate sets as a function of the error measure [Vollath, claim 2].
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
Prosecution Insights