DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s submission on November 21, 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-7 are amended.
Claims 1-10 are pending this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Kundak et al (US 2017/019210 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]
adjusting the at least one indication of the accuracy of the estimation result from the estimation algorithm using the at least one item of information [0026-0027 for using validation logic to test ambiguity in estimation]
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].
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 7, Kundak discloses, in step c), the indication of the accuracy of the estimation is artificially degraded based on the estimation algorithm using the at least one item of information [0038, 0041].
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 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a
general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
On page 6, last paragraph of applicant’s arguments, the applicant amends the claims to overcome the USC 101 reject. The examiner has removed the rejection.
On page 9, Last paragraph of applicant’s argument, the applicant states that Kundak fails to disclose resolving an ambiguity of at least one carrier frequency using an estimation algorithm. The examiner respectfully disagrees: Kundak teaches estimating float carrier-phase ambiguities from differenced carrier-phase measurements using an estimation algorithm and ten applying integer ambiguity estimation algorithms, including LAMBDA [Kundak, 0029, 0045].
On page 11, first paragraph of applicant’s argument, the applicant states that Kundak fails to disclose adjusting the at least one indication of accuracy. The examiner respectfully disagrees: Kundak teaches uses covariance and residual based quality metrics for float and integer ambiguity as well as dynamically validating, accepting and rejecting resolved integer values based on threshold comparisons [Kundak, 0027-0029].
On page 11, second paragraph of applicant’s argument, the applicant states that Kundak fails to disclose adjusting the error covariance for the attitude sensors. The examiner respectfully disagrees: Kundak incorporates attitude aiding measurements (pitch, roll, heading) into the initialization logic to compute float ambiguities, and propagate sensor error characteristics into variance-covariance matrix [0020-0022, 0027, 0037]
The examiner acknowledges that this is a broader interpretation than Applicant’s.
However, examiners are not only allowed to apply broad interpretations, but are required to do so, as it reduces the possibility that the claims, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. MPEP §2111. Patentability is determined by the “broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification” (MPEP §2111), not the narrowest reasonable interpretation. And Applicant does not have an explicit lexicographical statement in line with MPEP §2111.01
subsection IV requiring a specific interpretation of the relevant phrases which forces the examiner to interpret them only one way.
The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
For applicant’s benefit, portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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