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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 202121044024, filed on 09/28/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/09/2024 and 09/25/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Such claim limitation(s) which invoke 112(f) is/are:
Claim 25: “means for obtaining first correction information from a first correction information source and second correction information from a second correction information source”; “means for updating a Precise Positioning Engine (PPE) implemented at the mobile device to generate a first PPE state”; “means for modifying the first PPE state”; and “means for updating the modified first PPE state”
Claim 26: “means for updating the modified first PPE state”
Claim 30: “means for modifying the first PPE state…” and “means for initializing the position values and the velocity values of the first PPE state.”
Claim 31: “means for updating the second PPE state”
Claim 32: “means for updating the second PPE state further comprises means for setting an uncertainty of the position values based on position variance values of the first PPE state”
Claim 33: “means for updating the second PPE state further comprises means for setting an uncertainty of the position values of the second PPE state”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 25-26 and 30-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 25, the claim limitations “means for updating a Precise Positioning Engine (PPE) implemented at the mobile device to generate a first PPE state”; “means for modifying the first PPE state”; and “means for updating the modified first PPE state” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Paragraphs [0041], [0043] and [0047] describes the means as compromising the components illustrated in Fig. 12 which also describes the mobile device of claims 13-24. The components are generic computing equipment, and the specification fails to disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific cofunction. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See MPEP 2181B
Regarding claim 26, the claim limitations “means for updating the modified first PPE state” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification only recites the claim language in paragraph [007] and fails to disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific cofunction. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See MPEP 2181B
Regarding claim 30, the claim limitations “means for modifying the first PPE state…” and “means for initializing the position values and the velocity values of the first PPE state.” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification only recites the claim language in paragraph [007] and fails to disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific cofunction. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See MPEP 2181B
Regarding claim 31, the claim limitations “means for updating the second PPE state” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification only recites the claim language in paragraph [007] and fails to disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific cofunction. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See MPEP 2181B
Regarding claim 32, the claim limitations “means for updating the second PPE state further comprises means for setting an uncertainty of the position values based on position variance values of the first PPE state” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification only recites the claim language in paragraph [007] and fails to disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific cofunction. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See MPEP 2181B
Regarding claim 33, the claim limitations “means for updating the second PPE state further comprises means for setting an uncertainty of the position values of the second PPE state” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification only recites the claim language in paragraph [007] and fails to disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific cofunction. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See MPEP 2181B
Claims 27-29 and 34 are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 25-26 and 30-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As shown above, claim elements of 25-26 and 30-33 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) but the disclosure not does not provide adequate structure for performing the function.
A means- (or step-) plus-function limitation that is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on failure of the specification to disclose corresponding structure, material or act that performs the entire claimed function also lacks adequate written description. A mere restatement of the function in the specification without more description of the means that accomplish the function fails to provide adequate written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (MPEP 2181(IV)).
Claims 27-29 and 34 are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim.
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 teachd 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-15 and 17-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segal (WO 2022015744) in view of Carcanague (US 20200348422).
Regarding claim 1, Segal teachs a method of handling a correction information source change for Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) positioning of a mobile device ([0011] As shown in FIG. 2, the method 20 can include receiving satellite observations S100 and generating a set of corrections S200, where a receiver position can be determined using the corrections (e.g., in step S500). The method can optionally include determining a receiver locality S300, transmitting corrections based on the receiver locality S400.), the method comprising:
obtaining first correction information from a first correction information source and second correction information from a second correction information source ([0016] Examples of the technology enable continuity by overlapping the tiles (correction tiles) that the corrections correspond to, such that a receiver receives correction information for the current location in addition to the adjoining geographic regions (e.g., instead of receiving correction information for the current location only).);
updating a Precise Positioning Engine (PPE) implemented at the mobile device ([0078] The receiver position is preferably determined by the receiver (e.g., a computing system thereof, a positioning engine, etc.)) to generate a first PPE state, wherein:
the first PPE state comprises a first set of position values and ambiguity values related to the position of the mobile device, and the first PPE state is based at least in part on the first correction information and a set of measurements obtained from data received by a GNSS receiver of the mobile device ([0078] Determining the receiver position can include: determining a carrier phase ambiguity (e.g., a float carrier phase ambiguity, an integer carrier phase ambiguity, etc.), calculating the receiver position based on the carrier phase ambiguity, determining a baseline vector between a receiver and a reference station, determining an absolute receiver position (e.g., by applying the baseline vector to the reference station location), and/ or any steps.);
modifying the first PPE state by initializing at least the ambiguity values of the first PPE state ([0079] Determining the receiver position can include correcting the set of satellite observations (observed by the receiver) based on the GNSS corrections, which can function to decrease and/or remove the impact of errors on the satellite observations. Correcting the set of satellite observations can include subtracting the GNSS corrections and the satellite observations, adding the GNSS corrections to the satellite observations, transforming the satellite observations based on the GNSS corrections, inputting the GNSS corrections into the estimator); and updating the modified first PPE state to generate a second PPE state, wherein:
the second PPE state comprises a second set of position values, velocity values, and ambiguity values related to the position of the mobile device, and the second PPE state is based at least in part on the second correction information and the set of measurements obtained from data received by the GNSS receiver of the mobile device ([0076] In variants, such as when the receiver tile corresponds to a plurality of tiles, each GNSS correction of the plurality of tiles, the GNSS corrections corresponding to the previous tile that the receiver was in, the GNSS corrections corresponding to a new tile that the receiver is in, the most recent (e.g., most recently updated) GNSS corrections, interpolated GNSS corrections (e.g., interpolated between all or a subset of the plurality of tiles), and/or any suitable GNSS corrections can be transmitted.).
Segal does not explicitly teach that the first and second PPE state comprises velocity values. However, Carcanague teaches a method handling a correction information change for Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) positioning of a mobile device ([0022] As shown in FIGS. 1A, 1B, and 1C, the system preferably includes a positioning engine and a corrections processing engine. The system can optionally include one or more GNSS receivers, reference stations, and/or any suitable components.) where the PPE state comprises velocity values in addition to position and ambiguity values ([0092] The optional velocity module 1170 functions to estimate a velocity of the GNSS receiver 1200 (and/or external system) and additionally to calculate an integrity (e.g., TIR, protection levels or a mathematically similar error estimate, etc.) for the estimated velocity.).
Segal and Carcanague are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of precision GNSS reference information technology. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the PPE state set of values of Segal by including velocity values as taught by Carcanague to improve the estimation of the PPE state taught by Segal to yield a predictable result of a more reliable PPE state estimation through including an independent method to calculate the velocity rather than using the time series of position estimates ([00164] This specific example can further include, independent of estimating the position of the GNSS receiver, estimating a velocity of the GNSS receiver using time-differenced carrier phase measurements. In this specific example, at least one of the protection level of the estimated position and a protection level of the velocity can be determined using an advanced receiver advanced integrity monitoring (ARAIM) algorithm using only carrier phase ambiguities.).
Regarding claim 2, Segal as modified by Carcanague teaches the method of claim 1 accordingly the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Segal further teaches updating the modified first PPE state to generate the second PPE state comprises updating the modified first PPE state without a time update of the PPE ([0090] In a specific example, the position module 1160 calculates the estimated position (and associated protection levels) based only on carrier phase observation data).
Regarding claim 3, Segal as modified by Carcanague teaches the method of claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Segal further teaches wherein a time to which first correction information corresponds is within 10 seconds of a time to which the second correction information corresponds ([0029] The corrections can be updated at predetermined times (e.g., l s, 5 s, 10 s, 30 s, 60 s, 2 min, 5 min, 10 min, 20 min , 30 min, 60 min, 2 hr, 4 hr, 8 hr, 12 hr, 24 hr, values there between, etc.)).
Regarding claims 5-7, Segal as modified by Carcanague teaches the method of claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Segal further teaches the first correction information source comprises a physical Real-Time Kinematic (RTK) base station, a virtual RTK base station, or a Precise Point Positioning (PPP) source ([0121] In one implementation of an invention embodiment, the corrections processing engine 1500—rather than attempting to generate corrections solely from a small set of high-quality global reference stations (as in PPP) or by solely comparing data in GNSS receiver/reference station pairs (as in RTK)—collects data from reference stations 1600 (and/or other reference sources), and instead of (or in addition to) applying this data directly to generate corrections, uses the data to generate one or more corrections models (which can be used to generate corrections data in a form utilizable by the positioning engine 1100).); wherein the second correction information source comprises a different type of correction information source than the first correction information source; and the second correction information source comprises a same type of correction information source as the first correction information source ([0029] The corrections can correspond to RTK corrections, PPP corrections, PPP-RTK corrections, and/ or any suitable corrections.).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Segal as modified by Carcanague teaches method of claim 1, accordingly the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Segal further teaches modifying the first PPE state further comprises initializing the position values ([0070] The receiver locality can be determined from (or based on) …a previous receiver position (e.g., determined from a previous iteration of the method, receiver position calculated from the satellite observations without convergence, receiver position calculated from the satellite observations without validation, receiver position calculated from the satellite observations such as using pseudorange to calculate an approximate receiver location.) and the velocity values of the first PPE state ([0069] Determining the receiver locality can additionally or alternatively include determining the receiver kinematics (such as receiver velocity, receiver attitude, etc.)); and updating the second PPE state using the position values from the first PPE state ([0070] The receiver locality can be determined from (or based on) ... the last known receiver position, ... a previous receiver position (e.g., determined from a previous iteration of the method,...)).
Regarding claim 10, Segal as modified by Carcanague teaches the method of claim 9, accordingly the rejection of claim 9 above is incorporated. Segal does not explicitly teach wherein updating the second PPE state further comprises setting an uncertainty of the position values based on position variance values of the first PPE state.
However, Carcanague teaches updating the second PPE state ([0022] The positioning engine can include one or more: ... dead reckoning module) further comprises setting an uncertainty of the position values ([0105] The dead reckoning monitor preferably receives estimated fused data from … or alternatively receive estimated fused data from a single fusion module (e.g., at one or more time points), estimated GNSS position (e.g., last available GNSS position, historic GNSS position, unvalidated GNSS position, etc.), estimated GNSS velocity (e.g., last available GNSS velocity, historic GNSS velocity, unvalidated GNSS velocity, etc.), GNSS integrity (e.g., last available GNSS position and/or velocity integrity, historic GNSS integrity, etc.) based on position variance values of the first PPE state ([0105] The dead reckoning monitor can transmit (e.g., output) one or more flags (e.g., use or don't use, safe or not safe, etc.) relating to the state of the dead reckoning position, but can transmit an achievable integrity (e.g., of the estimated dead reckoning position, of the estimated dead reckoning velocity, etc.), an error (e.g., standard deviation, variance, etc.), a confidence interval, and/or any suitable output.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the PPE state set of values of Segal by including the position uncertainty as taught by Carcanague to improve the reliability of the PPE state taught by Segal to yield a predictable result of a means to quantity the accuracy and integrity of position estimates as noted by Carcanague ([0106] In a specific example, the dead reckoning monitor can compare a first set of estimated fused data to a second set of estimated fused data. When the overlap (e.g., position overlap, velocity overlap, etc.) between the two sets of fused data is greater than or equal to a threshold, the dead reckoning monitor can output a use flag. When the overlap between the two sets is less than (or equal to) a threshold, the dead reckoning filter can output a don't use flag. However, the dead reckoning monitor can generate outputs in any manner.).
Regarding claim 11, Segal as modified by Carcanague teaches the method of claim 9, accordingly the rejection of claim 9 above is incorporated. Segal does not explicitly teach wherein updating the second PPE state further comprises setting an uncertainty of the position values of the second PPE state using one or more predetermined values.
However, Carcanague teaches updating the second PPE state further comprises setting an uncertainty of the position values of the second PPE state using one or more predetermined values ([0047] The estimated position preferably has a high accuracy, but can have any suitable accuracy. For example, the estimated position can have an accuracy (e.g., with 50% confidence, 68% confidence, 95% confidence, 99.7% confidence, etc.) of at most 10 meters (e.g., 1 mm, 5 mm, 1 cm, 3 cm, 5 cm, 10 cm, 20 cm, 30 cm, 50 cm, 60 cm, 75 cm, 1 m, 1.5 m, 2 m, 3 m, 5 m, 7.5 m, etc.). The estimated position preferably has a high integrity (e.g., a low target integrity risk, a small protection level, etc.), but can have any suitable integrity…. In a second example, the estimated position can have a protection level less than about 10 meters, such as at most 5 m, 3 m, 2 m, 1 m, 75 cm, 50 cm, 40 cm, 30 cm, 25 cm, 20 cm, 10 cm, 5 cm, 3 cm, 1 cm, 5 mm, and/or 1 mm.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the PPE state set of Segal by including the position uncertainty using a predetermined value as taught by Carcanague to yield a predictable result of a means to scale the required uncertainty of position estimates to differing requires and have a more flexible system.
Regarding claim 12, Segal as modified by Carcanague teaches the method of claim 11, accordingly the rejection of claim 11 above is incorporated. Segal does not explicitly teach setting the uncertainty of the position values of the second PPE state using the one or more predetermined values is based, at least in part, on a determination that position variance values of the first PPE state exceed a threshold value.
However, Carcanague teaches setting the uncertainty of the position values ([0057] The positioning engine preferably outputs an estimated position and an integrity of the estimated position (e.g., a protection limit, an integrity risk, etc.).) of the second PPE state using the one or more predetermined values is based, at least in part, on a determination that position variance values of the first PPE state exceed a threshold value ([0244] S250 preferably detects outlier observations using one of the three following techniques (scaled residual technique, variance threshold technique, and hybrid technique). After detecting outlier observations, S250 preferably includes generating the second position estimate in the same manner as in S240, but excluding any outlier observations. Additionally or alternatively, S250 may include generating the second position estimate by adding new observations with negative variances as updates to the first position estimate (the new observations serving to remove the effects of detected outlier observations), or in any other manner.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the PPE state set of Segal by modifying the position uncertainty of the second PPE state using the measured position uncertainty of the first PPE state as taught by Carcanague to yield a predictable result of a means to quantify the accuracy of the new position estimate based on the previous position estimate.
Regarding claim 13, Segal teachess a mobile device for handling a correction information source change for Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) positioning of a mobile device, the mobile device comprising: a GNSS receiver ([0022] The receiver is preferably a stand-alone device (e.g., a GNSS receiver, antenna). However, the receiver can be integrated into an external system (e.g., be a component of an automobile, aero vehicle, nautical vehicle, mobile device, etc.), can be a user device (e.g., smart phone, laptop, cell phone, smart watch, etc.), and/or can be configured in any suitable manner.);
a memory ([0084] The methods of the preferred embodiment and variations thereof can be embodied and/or implemented at least in part as a machine configured to receive a computer-readable medium storing computer-readable instructions. The instructions are preferably executed by computer-executable components integrated with a system for GNSS PVT generation. The computer-readable medium can be stored on any suitable computer-readable media); and
one or more processors communicatively coupled with the GNSS receiver and the memory ([0028] The computing system can be local (e.g., on-board the external system, integrated in a receiver, integrated with a reference station, etc.), remote (e.g., cloud computing, server, networked, etc.), and/or distributed (e.g., between a remote and local computing system).), wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
obtaining first correction information from a first correction information source and second correction information from a second correction information source ([0016] Examples of the technology enable continuity by overlapping the tiles (correction tiles) that the corrections correspond to, such that a receiver receives correction information for the current location in addition to the adjoining geographic regions (e.g., instead of receiving correction information for the current location only).);
updating a Precise Positioning Engine (PPE) implemented at the mobile device ([0078] The receiver position is preferably determined by the receiver (e.g., a computing system thereof, a positioning engine, etc.)) to generate a first PPE state, wherein:
the first PPE state comprises a first set of position values and ambiguity values related to the position of the mobile device, and the first PPE state is based at least in part on the first correction information and a set of measurements obtained from data received by a GNSS receiver of the mobile device ([0078] Determining the receiver position can include: determining a carrier phase ambiguity (e.g., a float carrier phase ambiguity, an integer carrier phase ambiguity, etc.), calculating the receiver position based on the carrier phase ambiguity, determining a baseline vector between a receiver and a reference station, determining an absolute receiver position (e.g., by applying the baseline vector to the reference station location), and/ or any steps.);
modifying the first PPE state by initializing at least the ambiguity values of the first PPE state ([0079] Determining the receiver position can include correcting the set of satellite observations (observed by the receiver) based on the GNSS corrections, which can function to decrease and/or remove the impact of errors on the satellite observations. Correcting the set of satellite observations can include subtracting the GNSS corrections and the satellite observations, adding the GNSS corrections to the satellite observations, transforming the satellite observations based on the GNSS corrections, inputting the GNSS corrections into the estimator); and updating the modified first PPE state to generate a second PPE state, wherein:
the second PPE state comprises a second set of position values and ambiguity values related to the position of the mobile device, and the second PPE state is based at least in part on the second correction information and the set of measurements obtained from data received by the GNSS receiver of the mobile device ([0076] In variants, such as when the receiver tile corresponds to a plurality of tiles, each GNSS correction of the plurality of tiles, the GNSS corrections corresponding to the previous tile that the receiver was in, the GNSS corrections corresponding to a new tile that the receiver is in, the most recent (e.g., most recently updated) GNSS corrections, interpolated GNSS corrections (e.g., interpolated between all or a subset of the plurality of tiles), and/or any suitable GNSS corrections can be transmitted.).
Segal does not explicitly teach that the first and second PPE state comprises velocity values. However, Carcanague teaches a system for handling a correction information change for Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) positioning of a mobile device ([0022] As shown in FIGS. 1A, 1B, and 1C, the system preferably includes a positioning engine and a corrections processing engine. The system can optionally include one or more GNSS receivers, reference stations, and/or any suitable components.) where the PPE state comprises velocity values in addition to position and ambiguity values ([0092] The optional velocity module 1170 functions to estimate a velocity of the GNSS receiver 1200 (and/or external system) and additionally to calculate an integrity (e.g., TIR, protection levels or a mathematically similar error estimate, etc.) for the estimated velocity.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the PPE state set of values of Segal by including velocity values as taught by Carcanague to improve the estimation of the PPE state taught by Segal to yield a predictable result of a more reliable PPE state estimation through including an independent method to calculate the velocity rather than using the time series of position estimates as noted by Carcanague ([00164] This specific example can further include, independent of estimating the position of the GNSS receiver, estimating a velocity of the GNSS receiver using time-differenced carrier phase measurements. In this specific example, at least one of the protection level of the estimated position and a protection level of the velocity can be determined using an advanced receiver advanced integrity monitoring (ARAIM) algorithm using only carrier phase ambiguities.)
Regarding claim 14, Segal as modified by Carcanague teaches the mobile device of claim 13, accordingly the rejection of claim 13 above is incorporated. Segal further teaches to update the modified first PPE state to generate the second PPE state, the one or more processors are configured to update the modified first PPE state without a time update of the PPE ([0090] In a specific example, the position module 1160 calculates the estimated position (and associated protection levels) based only on carrier phase observation data).
Regarding claim 15, Segal as modified by Carcanague teaches the mobile device of claim 13, accordingly the rejection of claim 13 above is incorporated. Segal further teaches the one or more processors are configured to obtain the first correction information and the second correction information such that a time to which the first correction information corresponds is within 10 seconds of a time to which the second correction information corresponds ([0029] The corrections can be updated at predetermined times (e.g., l s, 5 s, 10 s, 30 s, 60 s, 2 min, 5 min, 10 min, 20 min , 30 min, 60 min, 2 hr, 4 hr, 8 hr, 12 hr, 24 hr, values there between, etc.))
Regarding claim 17-19, Segal as modified by Carcanague teaches the mobile device of claim 13, accordingly the rejection of claim 13 above is incorporated. Segal further teaches the first correction information source comprises a physical Real-Time Kinematic (RTK) base station, a virtual RTK base station, or a Precise Point Positioning (PPP) source ([0121] In one implementation of an invention embodiment, the corrections processing engine 1500—rather than attempting to generate corrections solely from a small set of high-quality global reference stations (as in PPP) or by solely comparing data in GNSS receiver/reference station pairs (as in RTK)—collects data from reference stations 1600 (and/or other reference sources), and instead of (or in addition to) applying this data directly to generate corrections, uses the data to generate one or more corrections models (which can be used to generate corrections data in a form utilizable by the positioning engine 1100).); wherein the second correction information source comprises a different type of correction information source than the first correction information source; and the second correction information source comprises a same type of correction information source as the first correction information source ([0029] The corrections can correspond to RTK corrections, PPP corrections, PPP-RTK corrections, and/ or any suitable corrections.).
Regarding claim 20 and 21, Segal as modified by Carcanague teaches the mobile device of claim 13, accordingly the rejection of claim 13 above is incorporated. Segal further teaches to modify the first PPE state, the one or more processors are configured to initialize the position values ([0070] The receiver locality can be determined from (or based on) …a previous receiver position (e.g., determined from a previous iteration of the method, receiver position calculated from the satellite observations without convergence, receiver position calculated from the satellite observations without validation, receiver position calculated from the satellite observations such as using pseudorange to calculate an approximate receiver location.), the velocity values of the first PPE state ([0069] Determining the receiver locality can additionally or alternatively include determining the receiver kinematics (such as receiver velocity, receiver attitude, etc.)); also the one or more processors are further configured to update the second PPE state using the position values from the first PPE state (and updating the second PPE state using the position values from the first PPE state ([0070] The receiver locality can be determined from (or based on) ... the last known receiver position, ... a previous receiver position (e.g., determined from a previous iteration of the method,...)).).
Regarding claim 22, Segal as modified by Carcanague teaches the mobile device of claim 21, accordingly the rejection of claim 21 above is incorporated. Segal does not explicitly teach to update the second PPE state, the one or more processors are configured to set an uncertainty of the position values based on position variance values of the first PPE state.
However, Carcanague teaches to update the second PPE state ([0022] The positioning engine can include one or more: ... dead reckoning module), the one or more processors are configured to set an uncertainty of the position values ([0105] The dead reckoning monitor preferably receives estimated fused data from … or alternatively receive estimated fused data from a single fusion module (e.g., at one or more time points), estimated GNSS position (e.g., last available GNSS position, historic GNSS position, unvalidated GNSS position, etc.), estimated GNSS velocity (e.g., last available GNSS velocity, historic GNSS velocity, unvalidated GNSS velocity, etc.), GNSS integrity (e.g., last available GNSS position and/or velocity integrity, historic GNSS integrity, etc.) based on position variance values of the first PPE state ([0105] The dead reckoning monitor can transmit (e.g., output) one or more flags (e.g., use or don't use, safe or not safe, etc.) relating to the state of the dead reckoning position, but can transmit an achievable integrity (e.g., of the estimated dead reckoning position, of the estimated dead reckoning velocity, etc.), an error (e.g., standard deviation, variance, etc.), a confidence interval, and/or any suitable output.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the PPE state set of values of Segal by including the position uncertainty as taught by Carcanague to improve the reliability of the PPE state taught by Segal to yield a predictable result of a means to quantity the accuracy and integrity of position estimates as noted by Carcanague ([0106] In a specific example, the dead reckoning monitor can compare a first set of estimated fused data to a second set of estimated fused data. When the overlap (e.g., position overlap, velocity overlap, etc.) between the two sets of fused data is greater than or equal to a threshold, the dead reckoning monitor can output a use flag. When the overlap between the two sets is less than (or equal to) a threshold, the dead reckoning filter can output a don't use flag. However, the dead reckoning monitor can generate outputs in any manner.).
Regarding claim 23, Segal as modified by Carcanague teaches the mobile device of claim 21, accordingly the rejection of claim 21 above is incorporated. Segal does not explicitly teach to update the second PPE state, the one or more processors are configured to set an uncertainty of the position values of the second PPE state using one or more predetermined values.
However, Carcanague teaches to update the second PPE state, the one or more processors are configured to set an uncertainty of the position values of the second PPE state using one or more predetermined values ([0047] The estimated position preferably has a high accuracy, but can have any suitable accuracy. For example, the estimated position can have an accuracy (e.g., with 50% confidence, 68% confidence, 95% confidence, 99.7% confidence, etc.) of at most 10 meters (e.g., 1 mm, 5 mm, 1 cm, 3 cm, 5 cm, 10 cm, 20 cm, 30 cm, 50 cm, 60 cm, 75 cm, 1 m, 1.5 m, 2 m, 3 m, 5 m, 7.5 m, etc.). The estimated position preferably has a high integrity (e.g., a low target integrity risk, a small protection level, etc.), but can have any suitable integrity…. In a second example, the estimated position can have a protection level less than about 10 meters, such as at most 5 m, 3 m, 2 m, 1 m, 75 cm, 50 cm, 40 cm, 30 cm, 25 cm, 20 cm, 10 cm, 5 cm, 3 cm, 1 cm, 5 mm, and/or 1 mm.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the PPE state set of Segal by including the position uncertainty using a predetermined value as taught by Carcanague to yield a predictable result of a means to scale the required uncertainty of position estimates to differing requires and have a more flexible system.
Regarding claim 24, Segal as modified by Carcanague teaches the mobile device of claim 23, accordingly the rejection of claim 23 above is incorporated. Segal does not explicitly teach the one or more processors are configured to set the uncertainty of the position values the second PPE state using the one or more predetermined values based, at least in part, on a determination that position variance values of the first PPE state exceed a threshold value.
However, Carcanague teaches the one or more processors are configured to set the uncertainty of the position values ([0057] The positioning engine preferably outputs an estimated position and an integrity of the estimated position (e.g., a protection limit, an integrity risk, etc.).) the second PPE state using the one or more predetermined values based, at least in part, on a determination that position variance values of the first PPE state exceed a threshold value ([0244] S250 preferably detects outlier observations using one of the three following techniques (scaled residual technique, variance threshold technique, and hybrid technique). After detecting outlier observations, S250 preferably includes generating the second position estimate in the same manner as in S240, but excluding any outlier observations. Additionally or alternatively, S250 may include generating the second position estimate by adding new observations with negative variances as updates to the first position estimate (the new observations serving to remove the effects of detected outlier observations), or in any other manner.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the PPE state set of Segal by modifying the position uncertainty of the second PPE state using the measured position uncertainty of the first PPE state as taught by Carcanague to yield a predictable result of a means to quantify the accuracy of the new position estimate based on the previous position estimate.
Regarding claim 25, Segal teaches an apparatus for handling a correction information source change for Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) positioning of a mobile device, the apparatus comprising:
means for obtaining first correction information from a first correction information source and second correction information from a second correction information source ([0074] The GNSS corrections are preferably transmitted from the computing system to the receiver, but can be transmitted between any two endpoints. All or a subset of GNSS corrections corresponding to each receiver tile can be transmitted.);
means for updating a Precise Positioning Engine (PPE) implemented at the mobile device to generate a first PPE state ([0078] The receiver position is preferably determined by the receiver (e.g., a computing system thereof, a positioning engine, etc.)), wherein: the first PPE state comprises a first set of position values, and ambiguity values related to the position of the mobile device, and the first PPE state is based at least in part on the first correction information and a set of measurements obtained from data received by a GNSS receiver of the mobile device ([0078] Determining the receiver position can include: determining a carrier phase ambiguity (e.g., a float carrier phase ambiguity, an integer carrier phase ambiguity, etc.), calculating the receiver position based on the carrier phase ambiguity, determining a baseline vector between a receiver and a reference station, determining an absolute receiver position (e.g., by applying the baseline vector to the reference station location), and/ or any steps.);
means for modifying the first PPE state by initializing at least the ambiguity values of the first PPE state ([0079] Determining the receiver position can include correcting the set of satellite observations (observed by the receiver) based on the GNSS corrections, which can function to decrease and/or remove the impact of errors on the satellite observations. Correcting the set of satellite observations can include subtracting the GNSS corrections and the satellite observations, adding the GNSS corrections to the satellite observations, transforming the satellite observations based on the GNSS corrections, inputting the GNSS corrections into the estimator); and
means for updating the modified first PPE state to generate a second PPE state, wherein: the second PPE state comprises a second set of position values and ambiguity values related to the position of the mobile device, and the second PPE state is based at least in part on the second correction information and the set of measurements obtained from data received by the GNSS receiver of the mobile device ([0076] In variants, such as when the receiver tile corresponds to a plurality of tiles, each GNSS correction of the plurality of tiles, the GNSS corrections corresponding to the previous tile that the receiver was in, the GNSS corrections corresponding to a new tile that the receiver is in, the most recent (e.g., most recently updated) GNSS corrections, interpolated GNSS corrections (e.g., interpolated between all or a subset of the plurality of tiles), and/or any suitable GNSS corrections can be transmitted.).
Segal does not explicitly teach that the first and second PPE state comprises velocity values. However, Carcanague teaches a system for handling a correction information change for Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) positioning of a mobile device ([0022] As shown in FIGS. 1A, 1B, and 1C, the system preferably includes a positioning engine and a corrections processing engine. The system can optionally include one or more GNSS receivers, reference stations, and/or any suitable components.) where the PPE state comprises velocity values in addition to position and ambiguity values ([0092] The optional velocity module 1170 functions to estimate a velocity of the GNSS receiver 1200 (and/or external system) and additionally to calculate an integrity (e.g., TIR, protection levels or a mathematically similar error estimate, etc.) for the estimated velocity.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the PPE state set of values of Segal by including velocity values as taught by Carcanague to improve the estimation of the PPE state taught by Segal to yield a predictable result of a more reliable PPE state estimation through including an independent method to calculate the velocity rather than using the time series of position estimates as noted by Carcanague ([00164] This specific example can further include, independent of estimating the position of the GNSS receiver, estimating a velocity of the GNSS receiver using time-differenced carrier phase measurements. In this specific example, at least one of the protection level of the estimated position and a protection level of the velocity can be determined using an advanced receiver advanced integrity monitoring (ARAIM) algorithm using only carrier phase ambiguities.)
Regarding claim 26, Segal as modified by Carcanague teaches the apparatus of claim 25, accordingly the rejection of claim 25 above is incorporated. Segal further teaches
the means for updating the modified first PPE state to generate the second PPE state comprises means for updating the modified first PPE state without a time update of the PPE ([0090] In a specific example, the position module 1160 calculates the estimated position (and associated protection levels) based only on carrier phase observation data).
Regarding claims 27-29, Segal as modified by Carcanague teaches the apparatus of claim 25, accordingly the rejection of claim 25 above is incorporated. Segal further teaches the first correction information source comprises a physical Real-Time Kinematic (RTK) base station, a virtual RTK base station, or a Precise Point Positioning (PPP) source ([0121] In one implementation of an invention embodiment, the corrections processing engine 1500—rather than attempting to generate corrections solely from a small set of high-quality global reference stations (as in PPP) or by solely comparing data in GNSS receiver/reference station pairs (as in RTK)—collects data from reference stations 1600 (and/or other reference sources), and instead of (or in addition to) applying this data directly to generate corrections, uses the data to generate one or more corrections models (which can be used to generate corrections data in a form utilizable by the positioning engine 1100).); wherein the second correction information source comprises a different type of correction information source than the first correction information source; and the second correction information source comprises a same type of correction information source as the first correction information source ([0029] The corrections can correspond to RTK corrections, PPP corrections, PPP-RTK corrections, and/ or any suitable corrections.).
Regarding claims 30 and 31, Segal as modified by Carcanague teaches the apparatus of claim 25, accordingly the rejection of claim 25 above is incorporated. Segal further teaches the means for modifying the first PPE state further comprises means for initializing the position values ([0070] The receiver locality can be determined from (or based on) …a previous receiver position (e.g., determined from a previous iteration of the method, receiver position calculated from the satellite observations without convergence, receiver position calculated from the satellite observations without validation, receiver position calculated from the satellite observations such as using pseudorange to calculate an approximate receiver location.), the velocity values of the first PPE state ([0069] Determining the receiver locality can additionally or alternatively include determining the receiver kinematics (such as receiver velocity, receiver attitude, etc.)); also the means for updating the second PPE state using the position values from the first PPE state ([0070] The receiver locality can be determined from (or based on) ... the last known receiver position, ... a previous receiver position (e.g., determined from a previous iteration of the method,...)).
Regarding claim 32, Segal as modified by Carcanague teaches the apparatus of claim 31, accordingly the rejection of claim 31 above is incorporated. Segal further teaches the means for updating the second PPE state further comprises means for setting an uncertainty of the position values based on position variance values of the first PPE state.
However, Carcanague teaches the means for updating the second PPE state ([0022] The positioning engine can include one or more: ... dead reckoning module) further comprises means for setting an uncertainty of the position values ([0105] The dead reckoning monitor preferably receives estimated fused data from … or alternatively receive estimated fused data from a single fusion module (e.g., at one or more time points), estimated GNSS position (e.g., last available GNSS position, historic GNSS position, unvalidated GNSS position, etc.), estimated GNSS velocity (e.g., last available GNSS velocity, historic GNSS velocity, unvalidated GNSS velocity, etc.), GNSS integrity (e.g., last available GNSS position and/or velocity integrity, historic GNSS integrity, etc.) based on position variance values of the first PPE state ([0105] The dead reckoning monitor can transmit (e.g., output) one or more flags (e.g., use or don't use, safe or not safe, etc.) relating to the state of the dead reckoning position, but can transmit an achievable integrity (e.g., of the estimated dead reckoning position, of the estimated dead reckoning velocity, etc.), an error (e.g., standard deviation, variance, etc.), a confidence interval, and/or any suitable output.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the PPE state set of values of Segal by including the position uncertainty as taught by Carcanague to improve the reliability of the PPE state taught by Segal to yield a predictable result of a means to quantity the accuracy and integrity of position estimates as noted by Carcanague ([0106] In a specific example, the dead reckoning monitor can compare a first set of estimated fused data to a second set of estimated fused data. When the overlap (e.g., position overlap, velocity overlap, etc.) between the two sets of fused data is greater than or equal to a threshold, the dead reckoning monitor can output a use flag. When the overlap between the two sets is less than (or equal to) a threshold, the dead reckoning filter can output a don't use flag. However, the dead reckoning monitor can generate outputs in any manner.).
Regarding claim 33, Segal as modified by Carcanague teaches the apparatus of claim 31, accordingly the rejection of claim 31 above is incorporated. 34. Segal does not explicitly teach the means for updating the second PPE state further comprises means for setting an uncertainty of the position values of the second PPE state using one or more predetermined values.
However, Carcanague teaches the means for updating the second PPE state further comprises means for setting an uncertainty of the position values of the second PPE state using one or more predetermined values ([0047] The estimated position preferably has a high accuracy, but can have any suitable accuracy. For example, the estimated position can have an accuracy (e.g., with 50% confidence, 68% confidence, 95% confidence, 99.7% confidence, etc.) of at most 10 meters (e.g., 1 mm, 5 mm, 1 cm, 3 cm, 5 cm, 10 cm, 20 cm, 30 cm, 50 cm, 60 cm, 75 cm, 1 m, 1.5 m, 2 m, 3 m, 5 m, 7.5 m, etc.). The estimated position preferably has a high integrity (e.g., a low target integrity risk, a small protection level, etc.), but can have any suitable integrity…. In a second example, the estimated position can have a protection level less than about 10 meters, such as at most 5 m, 3 m, 2 m, 1 m, 75 cm, 50 cm, 40 cm, 30 cm, 25 cm, 20 cm, 10 cm, 5 cm, 3 cm, 1 cm, 5 mm, and/or 1 mm.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the PPE state set of Segal by including the position uncertainty using a predetermined value as taught by Carcanague to yield a predictable result of a means to scale the required uncertainty of position estimates to differing requires and have a more flexible system.
Regarding claim 34, Segal as modified by Carcanague teaches the apparatus of claim 33, accordingly the rejection of claim 33 above is incorporated. 34. Segal does not explicitly teach that setting the uncertainty of the position values the second PPE state using the one or more predetermined values is based, at least in part, on a determination that position variance values of the first PPE state exceed a threshold value.
However, Carcanague teaches setting the uncertainty of the position values ([0057] The positioning engine preferably outputs an estimated position and an integrity of the estimated position (e.g., a protection limit, an integrity risk, etc.).) the second PPE state using the one or more predetermined values based, at least in part, on a determination that position variance values of the first PPE state exceed a threshold value ([0244] S250 preferably detects outlier observations using one of the three following techniques (scaled residual technique, variance threshold technique, and hybrid technique). After detecting outlier observations, S250 preferably includes generating the second position estimate in the same manner as in S240, but excluding any outlier observations. Additionally or alternatively, S250 may include generating the second position estimate by adding new observations with negative variances as updates to the first position estimate (the new observations serving to remove the effects of detected outlier observations), or in any other manner.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the PPE state set of Segal by modifying the position uncertainty of the second PPE state using the measured position uncertainty of the first PPE state as taught by Carcanague to yield a predictable result of a means to quantify the accuracy of the new position estimate based on the previous position estimate.
Regarding claim 35, Segal teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions for handling a correction information source change for Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) positioning of a mobile device ([0084] The methods of the preferred embodiment and variations thereof can be embodied and/or implemented at least in part as a machine configured to receive a computer-readable medium storing computer-readable instructions. The instructions are preferably executed by computer-executable components integrated with a system for GNSS PVT generation. The computer-readable medium can be stored on any suitable computer-readable media), the instructions comprising code for:
obtaining first correction information from a first correction information source and second correction information from a second correction information source ([0016] Examples of the technology enable continuity by overlapping the tiles (correction tiles) that the corrections correspond to, such that a receiver receives correction information for the current location in addition to the adjoining geographic regions (e.g., instead of receiving correction information for the current location only).);
updating a Precise Positioning Engine (PPE) implemented at the mobile device ([0078] The receiver position is preferably determined by the receiver (e.g., a computing system thereof, a positioning engine, etc.)) to generate a first PPE state, wherein:
the first PPE state comprises a first set of position values and ambiguity values related to the position of the mobile device, and the first PPE state is based at least in part on the first correction information and a set of measurements obtained from data received by a GNSS receiver of the mobile device ([0078] Determining the receiver position can include: determining a carrier phase ambiguity (e.g., a float carrier phase ambiguity, an integer carrier phase ambiguity, etc.), calculating the receiver position based on the carrier phase ambiguity, determining a baseline vector between a receiver and a reference station, determining an absolute receiver position (e.g., by applying the baseline vector to the reference station location), and/ or any steps.);
modifying the first PPE state by initializing at least the ambiguity values of the first PPE state ([0079] Determining the receiver position can include correcting the set of satellite observations (observed by the receiver) based on the GNSS corrections, which can function to decrease and/or remove the impact of errors on the satellite observations. Correcting the set of satellite observations can include subtracting the GNSS corrections and the satellite observations, adding the GNSS corrections to the satellite observations, transforming the satellite observations based on the GNSS corrections, inputting the GNSS corrections into the estimator); and updating the modified first PPE state to generate a second PPE state, wherein:
the second PPE state comprises a second set of position values, velocity values, and ambiguity values related to the position of the mobile device, and the second PPE state is based at least in part on the second correction information and the set of measurements obtained from data received by the GNSS receiver of the mobile device ([0076] In variants, such as when the receiver tile corresponds to a plurality of tiles, each GNSS correction of the plurality of tiles, the GNSS corrections corresponding to the previous tile that the receiver was in, the GNSS corrections corresponding to a new tile that the receiver is in, the most recent (e.g., most recently updated) GNSS corrections, interpolated GNSS corrections (e.g., interpolated between all or a subset of the plurality of tiles), and/or any suitable GNSS corrections can be transmitted.).
Segal does not explicitly teach that the first and second PPE state comprises velocity values. However, Carcanague teaches a method handling a correction information change for Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) positioning of a mobile device ([0022] As shown in FIGS. 1A, 1B, and 1C, the system preferably includes a positioning engine and a corrections processing engine. The system can optionally include one or more GNSS receivers, reference stations, and/or any suitable components.) where the PPE state comprises velocity values in addition to position and ambiguity values ([0092] The optional velocity module 1170 functions to estimate a velocity of the GNSS receiver 1200 (and/or external system) and additionally to calculate an integrity (e.g., TIR, protection levels or a mathematically similar error estimate, etc.) for the estimated velocity.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the PPE state set of values of Segal by including velocity values as taught by Carcanague to improve the estimation of the PPE state taught by Segal to yield a predictable result of a more reliable PPE state estimation through including an independent method to calculate the velocity rather than using the time series of position estimates as noted by Carcanague ([00164] This specific example can further include, independent of estimating the position of the GNSS receiver, estimating a velocity of the GNSS receiver using time-differenced carrier phase measurements. In this specific example, at least one of the protection level of the estimated position and a protection level of the velocity can be determined using an advanced receiver advanced integrity monitoring (ARAIM) algorithm using only carrier phase ambiguities.).
Regarding claim 36, Segal as modified by Carcanague teaches the computer-readable medium of claim 35, accordingly the rejection of claim 35 above is incorporated. Segal further teaches the code for updating the modified first PPE state to generate the second PPE state comprises code for updating the modified first PPE state without a time update of the PPE ([0090] In a specific example, the position module 1160 calculates the estimated position (and associated protection levels) based only on carrier phase observation data).
Regarding claim 37 and 38, Segal as modified by Carcanague teaches the computer-readable medium of claim 35, accordingly the rejection of claim 35 above is incorporated. Segal further teaches the code for modifying the first PPE state comprises code for initializing the position values ([0070] The receiver locality can be determined from (or based on) …a previous receiver position (e.g., determined from a previous iteration of the method, receiver position calculated from the satellite observations without convergence, receiver position calculated from the satellite observations without validation, receiver position calculated from the satellite observations such as using pseudorange to calculate an approximate receiver location.) and the velocity values of the first PPE state ([0069] Determining the receiver locality can additionally or alternatively include determining the receiver kinematics (such as receiver velocity, receiver attitude, etc.)); and
further teaches the code for updating the second PPE state using the position values from the first PPE state ([0070] The receiver locality can be determined from (or based on) ... the last known receiver position, ... a previous receiver position (e.g., determined from a previous iteration of the method,...)).
Regarding claim 39, Segal as modified by Carcanague teaches the computer-readable medium of claim 38, accordingly the rejection of claim 38 above is incorporated. Segal fails to explicitly teach the code for updating the second PPE state comprises code for setting an uncertainty of the position values based on position variance values of the first PPE state.
However, Carcanague teaches updating the second PPE state ([0022] The positioning engine can include one or more: ... dead reckoning module) further comprises setting an uncertainty of the position values ([0105] The dead reckoning monitor preferably receives estimated fused data from … or alternatively receive estimated fused data from a single fusion module (e.g., at one or more time points), estimated GNSS position (e.g., last available GNSS position, historic GNSS position, unvalidated GNSS position, etc.), estimated GNSS velocity (e.g., last available GNSS velocity, historic GNSS velocity, unvalidated GNSS velocity, etc.), GNSS integrity (e.g., last available GNSS position and/or velocity integrity, historic GNSS integrity, etc.) based on position variance values of the first PPE state ([0105] The dead reckoning monitor can transmit (e.g., output) one or more flags (e.g., use or don't use, safe or not safe, etc.) relating to the state of the dead reckoning position, but can transmit an achievable integrity (e.g., of the estimated dead reckoning position, of the estimated dead reckoning velocity, etc.), an error (e.g., standard deviation, variance, etc.), a confidence interval, and/or any suitable output.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the PPE state set of values of Segal by including the position uncertainty as taught by Carcanague to improve the reliability of the PPE state taught by Segal to yield a predictable result of a means to quantity the accuracy and integrity of position estimates as noted by Carcanague ([0106] In a specific example, the dead reckoning monitor can compare a first set of estimated fused data to a second set of estimated fused data. When the overlap (e.g., position overlap, velocity overlap, etc.) between the two sets of fused data is greater than or equal to a threshold, the dead reckoning monitor can output a use flag. When the overlap between the two sets is less than (or equal to) a threshold, the dead reckoning filter can output a don't use flag. However, the dead reckoning monitor can generate outputs in any manner.).
Regarding claim 40, Segal as modified by Carcanague teaches the computer-readable medium of claim 38, accordingly the rejection of claim 38 above is incorporated. Segal fails to explicitly teach the code for updating the second PPE state comprises code for setting an uncertainty of the position values of the second PPE state using one or more predetermined values.
However, Carcanague teaches updating the second PPE state further comprises setting an uncertainty of the position values of the second PPE state using one or more predetermined values ([0047] The estimated position preferably has a high accuracy, but can have any suitable accuracy. For example, the estimated position can have an accuracy (e.g., with 50% confidence, 68% confidence, 95% confidence, 99.7% confidence, etc.) of at most 10 meters (e.g., 1 mm, 5 mm, 1 cm, 3 cm, 5 cm, 10 cm, 20 cm, 30 cm, 50 cm, 60 cm, 75 cm, 1 m, 1.5 m, 2 m, 3 m, 5 m, 7.5 m, etc.). The estimated position preferably has a high integrity (e.g., a low target integrity risk, a small protection level, etc.), but can have any suitable integrity…. In a second example, the estimated position can have a protection level less than about 10 meters, such as at most 5 m, 3 m, 2 m, 1 m, 75 cm, 50 cm, 40 cm, 30 cm, 25 cm, 20 cm, 10 cm, 5 cm, 3 cm, 1 cm, 5 mm, and/or 1 mm.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the PPE state set of Segal by including the position uncertainty using a predetermined value as taught by Carcanague to yield a predictable result of a means to scale the required uncertainty of position estimates to differing requires and have a more flexible system.
Claim(s) 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segal as modified by Carcanague as applied to claims 3 and 15 above, and further in view of RTCM SC-104 SSR Working Group, IGS Real-Time Working Group (RTCM SC-104 SSR Working Group, IGS Real-Time Working Group , IGS State Space Representation (SSR) Format Version 1.00 International GNSS Service (IGS); October 05, 2020).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Segal as modified by Carcanague teaches the method of claim 3 and the mobile device of claim 15, accordingly the rejections of claims 3 and 15 above are incorporated. Segal fails to explicitly teach that the time to which first correction information corresponds is a same second-of-week (SOW) as the time to which the second correction information corresponds. However, Segal teaches that the corrections use the state space representation (SSR) format ([0030] The corrections are preferably SSR corrections (e.g., state space representation corrections)).
RTCM SC-104 SSR Working Group, IGS Real-Time Working Group (RTCM SC-104 SSR Working Group, IGS Real-Time Working Group , IGS State Space Representation (SSR) Format Version 1.00 International GNSS Service (IGS); October 05, 2020) teaches that it is known in the art that SSR Time is equivalent to the SOW (Page 5, lines 17-20; The SSR message contains the SSR Epoch Time 1 s data field (IDF003). The consistency of the SSR parameters can be verified from this information. The rover is then capable to combine all relevant SSR parameters consistently and it secures the combination of state parameters from different messages). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to understand that the use of SSR corrections is equivalent to the statement that the time to which first correction information corresponds is a same second-of-week (SOW) as the time to which the second correction information corresponds. Such a modification would be advantageous through allowing the receiver/mobile device to aggregate and manipulate the data from the diverse sources ([0028] The computing system can: aggregate the data (e.g., combine the receiver satellite observations, reference station satellite observations, and sensor data; reorganize the receiver satellite observations, reference station satellite observations, and sensor data such as based on the time stamp, time of transmission, time of receipt; etc.), filter the data (e.g., to calculate state vectors, ambiguities such as phase ambiguities, etc. associated with the data), calculate the receiver position (e.g., based on ambiguities),).
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20210141099 discloses a method performed by a wireless device comprises sending to a network node, a request for GNSS reference station transfer information; obtaining the reference station transfer information for at least one pair of satellites; determining an integer ambiguity solution associated with a new reference station based on the obtained reference station transfer information and an integer ambiguity solution associated with a current reference station.
US 20200049830 discloses a method for operating a correction service system (CSS), for a satellite navigation system (SNS), having reference-stations (RS) (in a coordinate-system (CS)) having known/fixed coordinates, the RS being operated to receive satellite signals, at least one correction-value (CV) being predefined as a function of the signals received by the selected RS and its coordinates, and is provided to user-devices of the SNS, the at least one CV being checked for plausibility. The CSS divides the CS into multiple-regions, in which user-devices determine an individual position as a function of the plausibility of the received CV, at least one specific-region being selected as a function of the plausibility of the CV, the specific-region(s) being assigned the at least one CV, at least one information-packet being generated, which contains indications about the plausibility of the CV and the specific-region(s), the information-packet(s) being provided to at least one selected group of user-devices.
US 20150234051 discloses an assisted global positioning system (GPS) method and system. Wireless access points send assistance data to GPS receivers that are integrated into cellular chipsets and other chipsets. The access points may also act as fixed location references for differential GPS (DGPS) mobile stations. Errors caused by multipath travel of the GPS signals are reduced by using fixed location reference receivers.
US 20100090890 discloses techniques for supporting a change of a GNSS reference station, first data that is valid for a first reference station is provided for transmission to a device, then data that is valid for the first reference station and data that is valid for a second reference station is provided for transmission to the device in parallel for a limited time, and finally data that is valid for the second reference station is provided for transmission to the device. The data for the first reference station and the data for the second reference station include measurements on satellite signals. At a receiving end, the respectively received data can be provided for a positioning of a device comprising a satellite signal receiver.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN BS ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4145. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Jack Keith can be reached at (571)272-6878. 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.
/JBSA/Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646