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 .
Response to Amendments
Claims 1-2 and 7-9 are amended.
Claims 5 is cancelled.
Claims 11-12 are new.
Claims 1-4 and 6-12 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 1, filed 14 August 2025, with respect to Claim Rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejections have been overcome.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 2, with respect to Double Patenting Rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because a Notice of Abandonment has not been mailed in co-pending Application No. US 17/621,869.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 2-5, with respect Claim Rejections under 35 USC 102 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the specific combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, with respect Claim Rejections under 35 USC 103 have been considered but are not persuasive. Stelfox is cited for teaching a satellite navigation system that uses a North-East coordinate system, not for teaching optimizing the north and east components. Merely using a North-East coordinate system would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art; see the rejection for Claim 8 below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 1 and 11-12 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding Claim 12, the claim is rejected for failing the enablement requirement. In making this determination, the Examine has considered the following factors:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
Claim 12 is considered to be fairly broad, in that it only requires receiving measurement data, classifying this data, and then generating wall objects using an optimization algorithm where a wall base point at the height of an antenna is critical to the optimization. Claim 12 does not require any specifics of what characteristics a wall object possesses or any specifics of how the actual optimization is actually accomplished.
(B) The nature of the invention;
The nature of the invention is signal processing and generating a 3D model from imperfect or assumed data.
(C) The state of the prior art;
The state of the prior art is as follows: receiving signals at an antenna from a satellite is well-understood, routine, and conventional, as is classifying these signals into either a line of sight or non-line of sight category based on a carrier to noise ratio. The prior art also demonstrates there is a felt need to know where buildings exist and how tall these buildings are.
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
The level of one of ordinary skill in this art is one who understands how signals are sent and received from satellites to receiving antennas, how to classify these signals into line of sight or non-line-of-sight categories, and how to run an optimization algorithm to “best guess” where NLoS signals were reflected from.
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
The examiner finds that signal processing, classification of signals, and trying to infer the location of a signal reflection is fairly predictable.
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
The amount of direction provided by the inventor is considered to be the most relevant in the examiner’s conclusion of a lack of enablement. Claim 12 requires “generating wall objects” but does not offer any details as to what a wall object is. When looking towards the applicant’s specification, the examiner notes paragraph 0024. In this paragraph, wall objects are referenced, but then the further description seems to use “wall” and “wall object” interchangeably. For this reason, the examiner’s understanding is that “wall object” is some kind of data object that is meant to describe characteristics of a wall. Applicant provides the following descriptions of said wall:
“i. The wall is a geometry in 3D space, e.g., a rectangular surface in 3D space.
ii. The wall is vertical, i.e., its normal vector is oriented horizontally in 3D space. This approach increases the robustness of the method, but it is not absolutely necessary.
iii. The wall can be divided into several sub-geometries, e.g., several rectangular surfaces.
This wall (or wall object) is clearly a vertical rectangle (or a series of vertical rectangles) existing in 3D space. However, there seems to be no mention of the length of these rectangles, the width of these rectangles, or the location of these rectangles, all of which seem to be critical in defining the size and location of a wall in 3D model. Applicant’s specification then moves towards discussion of a wall base point. While “wall base point” may normally be interpreted as a point existing on the bottom of a wall (or plane), here the Examiner is interpreting “wall base point” to be “a point in space critical to determining where a wall exists.” However, Applicant’s specification does not explain how this point is chosen, predicted, or whether or not it is part of the wall. It seemingly can be any point anywhere in 3D space. Applicant’s specification mentions that this wall base point is “assumed to be identical to the antenna height” but uses “e.g.” which leads the examiner to understand that the antenna height is just one example of what the wall base point height could be, but not that the wall base point height MUST be identical to the antenna height. This is further evidenced the applicant’s disclosure that “this can be any desired height.” Even if the examiner were to assume that the height of the wall base point MUST be identical to the antenna height, a height is only one of the three dimensions needed to define a point in 3D space. Applicant’s specification then mentions that the wall base point has a “north component” and an “east component,” but does not go into any detail about what these components are or how they are determined. Are they guessed? Are they triangulated based on several satellite signals? Applicant’s disclosure then discusses running an optimization in order to determine where a wall most likely exists. It is the Examiner’s understanding that in order to run an error-minimizing optimization, one would need to 1) make a “best-guess” as to where a wall exists, 2) compare the signals actually received to what the received signals would look like from the “best-guess” wall, and then 3) iterate the “best-guess” wall location until the difference is minimized to a desired degree. However, for the reasons stated above, the specification does not reasonably convey (and therefore enable) one of ordinary skill in the art to start this optimization with a “best-guess” or starting point because the specification does not describe how to start the algorithm with a best guess wall location.
(G) The existence of working examples; and
The examiner is unaware of any working models of this invention
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
Based on the discussion above, one of ordinary skill in the art would need to conduct significant experimentation in order to bridge the gap from one data point (the height of an antenna) to the location, size, height, and width of rectangle to then begin an optimization algorithm.
The Examiner has the following questions, which remain unanswered after reading Applicant’s specification and a thorough search of other disclosures aimed at creating a 3D model of building/wall locations based on received signals at an antenna.
Is the height of the wall base point identical to the antenna height or is the height of the wall base point “any desired height?”
Assuming that the height of the wall base point must be identical to the antenna height, how are the north and east (or x and y) components of the wall base point determined?
Is the wall base point contained within the wall model? Applicant’s specification discloses that “the wall base point need not be part of the wall model.” However, if this wall base point is a critical point in determining where a wall exists (such as a reflection point), why would this point not be part of the wall model?
Assuming the height, north component, and east component of the wall base point are known, a vector can then be drawn between the wall base point and antenna point. Assuming their heights are equal, this vector would be horizontal, resulting in a vertical 2D plane being determined. How are the extents of this plane determined? Applicant’s specification describes methods for bounding a plurality of reflection points into a rectangle, however, it is unclear to the examiner how these plurality of reflection points are determined.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim requires receiving measurement data, classifying this data, and generating wall objects using the classified measurement data, wherein the classification is performed by evaluating C/N0 values. Given that the claim requires generating wall objects, Claim 1 is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 12.
Regarding Claim 11, the claim requires receiving measurement data, classifying this data, and generating wall objects using the classified measurement data, wherein north and east components of a wall base point are considered as optimization variables in the generation of the wall objects. Given that the claim requires generating wall objects, Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 12 is/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 12, the claim recites the limitation “the optimization variables” in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2 and 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 5-6, and 9-10 of co-pending Application No. US 17/621,869. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are obvious variants of the subject matter claimed in the patent. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding Claim 1 of the instant application, the claim is substantially identical to Claim 1 of the co-pending application except that the co-pending application registers a profile of an object boundary whereas the instant application generates a wall object and the measurement data is classified by evaluating C/N0 values. However, in that the co-pending application discloses that the object boundary may be a wall (e.g., pgs. 21-22), it would have been obvious generate wall objects. In that Lines (Terence Lines et al., “3D map creation using crowdsourced GNSS data,” 2021) teaches classifying signals by evaluating C/N0 values is well-known, it would have been obvious to classify the measurement data by evaluating C/N0 values.
Regarding Claim 2 of the instant application, the claim is substantially identical to Claims 5 and 6 of the co-pending application.
Regarding Claim 10 of the instant application, the claim is substantially identical to Claim 10 of the co-pending application except that Claim 10 of the co-pending application does not claim “an apparatus for updating software.” However, in that the co-pending application discloses a computer to execute the program (e.g., pg. 14), it would have been obvious to use an apparatus for updating software to perform the claimed method.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C.
102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the
statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection,
would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the
claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the
differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the
claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which
the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in
which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinrichs (DE 102019210659) in view of Lines (Terence Lines et al., “3D map creation using crowdsourced GNSS data,” Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, Volume 89, 2021, 101671, ISSN 0198-9715, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2021.101671.).
Regarding Claim 1, Hinrichs discloses:
A method for creating an environment model ([0001]), comprising:
receiving measurement data from a satellite navigation system ([0004]: “a) receiving a plurality of measurement data sets, each describing a propagation path of a GNSS signal between a GNSS satellite and a GNSS receiver”);
classifying the measurement data with respect to a line of sight ([0004]: “b) selecting individual measurement data sets that satisfy a first selection criterion from the plurality of measurement data sets, wherein the first selection criterion is characteristic of the presence of an object boundary along the propagation path of the GNSS signal”; [0016-0020]); and
generating wall objects based upon the classified measurement data ([0004]: “c) Detecting an object boundary of an object in the vicinity of at least one GNSS receiver using the selected measurement data sets.”; [0060]: “adjust the position of the generated building wall”).
Hinrichs does not explicitly teach – but Lines teaches:wherein the classification is performed by evaluating C/N0 values (Lines [pg. 2, section 2]: “the signal can be classified in relation to its propagation path, as detailed below, using signal features such as the pseudorange and the Carrier-to-Noise ratio (C/N0). The C/N0 is not directly part of the transmitted information but is a measurement by the receiver of the strength of the received signal.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hinrichs and classify the measurement data by evaluating C/N0 values, as taught by Lines. Classifying measurement data by evaluating C/N0 values is considered ordinary and well-known for use in GNSS systems. Modifying Hinrichs with the teachings of Lines comprises combing prior art elements to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 2, Hinrichs discloses: wherein the following are considered when receiving measurement data:
a position of a receiving antenna ([0009]: “position of the GNSS receiver”),
a position of a satellite ([0009]: “position of the GNSS satellite”), and
a measured pseudo range ([0009]: “measured pseudorange”).
Regarding Claim 3, Hinrichs does not explicitly teach: wherein a clock error is considered for PR measurements.
However, in that Hinrichs teaches that clock errors can reduced by applying GNSS correction data ([0021]: “clock errors”; “applying GNSS correction data”), it would have been obvious to modify Hinrichs and consider clock error for PR measurements. Considering clock error is well-known in the art and is beneficial for improving PR measurement accuracy.
Regarding Claim 4, Hinrichs discloses: wherein measurement data are gathered from several measurement instances ([0013]: “collection of measurements from different measurement instances”).
Regarding Claim 6, Hinrichs discloses: wherein the classification is performed by evaluating at least one PR error ([0027]: “whether the PR error exceeds a sensitivity limit”).
Regarding Claim 7, Hinrichs discloses: wherein optimization variables are considered in the generation of wall objects ([0036]; [0037]: “linear regression”; [0059-0060]: disclosing adjusting the position of the wall based on the PR error).
Regarding Claim 10, Hinrichs discloses: An apparatus for updating software, wherein the apparatus is configured to perform a method according to claim 1 ([0001]; [0004]; [0039-0041]).
Regarding Claim 12, Hinrichs teaches:
A method for creating an environment model ([0001]), comprising:
receiving measurement data from a satellite navigation system ([0004]: “a) receiving a plurality of measurement data sets, each describing a propagation path of a GNSS signal between a GNSS satellite and a GNSS receiver”);
classifying the measurement data with respect to a line of sight ([0004]: “b) selecting individual measurement data sets that satisfy a first selection criterion from the plurality of measurement data sets, wherein the first selection criterion is characteristic of the presence of an object boundary along the propagation path of the GNSS signal”; [0016-0020]); and
generating wall objects based upon the classified measurement data ([0004]: “c) Detecting an object boundary of an object in the vicinity of at least one GNSS receiver using the selected measurement data sets.”; [0060]: “adjust the position of the generated building wall”), wherein any desired wall base point … is considered as the optimization variable in the generation of the wall objects ([0031]: “They are used as a hypothesis that a building edge is located at a point along the path or connecting line...”; [0036-0037]: “linear regression”; [0059-0060]).
Hinrichs does not explicitly teach:
… having a height identical to a height of a receiving antenna …
However, the system of Hinrichs requires determining a starting point (wall base point) for generating wall models ([0016-0017]; [0031]) and has knowledge of the position of the receiver antenna ([0006]). The specification of the instant application explains that the height of the wall base point can be identical to the antenna height, but can also be “any desired height” ([0024]). Given that the system of Hinrichs knows the position of the antenna, selecting a wall base point having a height identical to a height of a receiving antenna would be obvious to try.
Claims 8-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hinrichs (DE 102019210659) in view of Lines (Terence Lines et al., “3D map creation using crowdsourced GNSS data,” 2021), as applied to Claim 7 above, and further in view of Stelfox (US 2015/0375083).
Regarding Claim 8, Hinrichs teaches: wherein … components of a wall base point are considered as optimization variables in the generation of the wall objects ([0031]: “They are used as a hypothesis that a building edge is located at a point along the path or connecting line...”; [0036-0037]; [0059-0060]).
Hinrichs does not explicitly teach – but Stelfox teaches: north and east components (Stelfox [0103]: “a local NED (North-East-Down) system”).
It would have been obvious to modify Hinrichs use a coordinate system with north and east components. Coordinate systems with north and east components are well known in the art. Modifying Hinrichs to use such a coordinate system involves combining prior art elements to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 9, Hinrichs discloses: wherein any desired wall base point … is considered as the optimization variable in the generation of the wall objects ([0031]: “They are used as a hypothesis that a building edge is located at a point along the path or connecting line...”; [0036-0037]; [0059-0060]).
Hinrichs does not explicitly teach:
… having a height identical to a height of a receiving antenna …
However, the system of Hinrichs requires determining a starting point (wall base point) for generating wall models ([0016-0017]; [0031]) and has knowledge of the position of the receiver antenna ([0006]). The specification of the instant application explains that the height of the wall base point can be identical to the antenna height, but can also be “any desired height” ([0024]). Given that the system of Hinrichs knows the position of the antenna, selecting a wall base point having a height identical to a height of a receiving antenna would be obvious to try.
Regarding Claim 11, Hinrichs teaches:
A method for creating an environment model, comprising:
receiving measurement data from a satellite navigation system ([0004]: “a) receiving a plurality of measurement data sets, each describing a propagation path of a GNSS signal between a GNSS satellite and a GNSS receiver”);
classifying the measurement data with respect to a line of sight ([0004]: “b) selecting individual measurement data sets that satisfy a first selection criterion from the plurality of measurement data sets, wherein the first selection criterion is characteristic of the presence of an object boundary along the propagation path of the GNSS signal”; [0016-0020]); and
generating wall objects based upon the classified measurement data ([0004]: “c) Detecting an object boundary of an object in the vicinity of at least one GNSS receiver using the selected measurement data sets.”; [0060]: “adjust the position of the generated building wall”), wherein … components of a wall base point are considered as optimization variables in the generation of the wall objects ([0031]: “They are used as a hypothesis that a building edge is located at a point along the path or connecting line...”; [0036-0037]: “linear regression”; [0059-0060]).
Hinrichs does not explicitly teach – but Stelfox teaches: north and east components (Stelfox [0103]: “a local NED (North-East-Down) system”).
It would have been obvious to modify Hinrichs use a coordinate system with north and east components. Coordinate systems with north and east components are well known in the art. Modifying Hinrichs to use such a coordinate system involves combining prior art elements to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH Y. ZHU whose telephone number is (571) 270-0170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-4PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William J. Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NOAH YI MIN ZHU/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648