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 .
Examiner’s Note
For applicant’s benefit, portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) See MPEP 2123.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 28 January, 2026 is acknowledged and has been entered.
Claim objection(s) with respect to claim 27 has been overcome in view of the amendment to the claim.
Drawing objection has been overcome in view of the amendment to the drawing.
Specification objection with respect to the title has been withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s remarks.
Claim(s) 30, and 32-33 are no longer invoked under 112(f) in view of the Applicant’s remarks.
Claim rejection(s) under 112(a) and 112(b) with respect to claim(s) 30-33 have been withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s remarks.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed 28 January, 2026 has been fully considered but are not persuasive because:
Applicant’s argument with respect to USC 101:
“The Examiner asserted that the presently claimed subject matter falls “within ‘mental processes’ grouping.” However, it is respectfully noted that the human mind is incapable of receiving measurement signals, estimating a measurement noise signal, or estimating variances. Further, independent claims 16 and 30 reach recite a position measurement apparatus/sensor, which is clearly not part of the human brain. Thus, the presently claimed subject matter is not drawn to “mental processes.””
“In the present patent application, it is clear that the claimed method integrates a set of steps into an overall claimed process which, when viewed as a whole, has the clear practical application of operating a position measurement device.”
“The presently claimed subject matter is directed towards a method which makes use of a position measurement apparatus (i.e., a sensor for generating a measurement signal) which, when viewed in combination with the process steps, and when viewed as a whole, clearly lead to the practical application of operating a position measurement device. Contrary to the Examiner’s assertion, the presently claimed subject matter is clearly not purely performed on a generic computer, since a separate position measurement apparatus, such as a sensor, is also required.”
Examiner’s response with respect to USC 101:
Firstly, with respect to Applicant’s argument that human mind is incapable of receiving measurement signals, estimating a measurement noise signal, or estimating variances, the Examiner would like to note that “receiving measurement signals” is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that the human mind is incapable of estimating a measurement noise signal and estimating variances. The focus of the claim (i.e., “a measurement noise signal being estimated based on the measurement signal; a first variance estimation and a second variance estimation different from the first variance estimation being performed based on the measurement noise signal, wherein the first variance estimation yields a first variance estimated value and the second variance estimation yields a second variance estimated value; a final variance estimated value being determined based on a comparison of the first variance estimated value with the second variance estimated value; and a confidence interval being determined based on the final variance estimated value, wherein the confidence interval is output”) is on selecting certain information and analyzing it. These observations or evaluations are acts that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion, and/or a general-purpose computer as indicated in Applicant’s disclosure. When given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the disclosure, it is simply selection and mathematical manipulation of data. Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from §101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract idea. See Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a generically-recited analysis step is a mental process). Thus, the claim recites a mental process. Under the 2019 Guidance, concepts performed in the human mind, even with the aid of pen and paper, and concepts merely using a computer as a tool, fall within the “mental processes” grouping. Claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). Examples of claims that recite mental processes include:
• a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
• a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
Secondly, with respect to Applicant’s argument that the claimed method integrates a set of steps into an overall claimed process which, when viewed as a whole, has the clear practical application of operating a position measurement device, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The limitation(s) of “a sensor for generating a measurement signal” and “an estimation module” of claim 30 are recited at a high level of generality. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. The recitation of limitation(s) of “a measurement signal being received from the position measurement apparatus” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. They can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to link the use of the judicial exception to a technological field. Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Lastly, with respect to Applicant’s argument that the presently claimed subject matter is clearly not purely performed on a generic computer, since a separate position measurement apparatus, such as a sensor, is also required, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Step 2 considers whether the claim provides limitations which amount to “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 1. The limitation(s) of “a sensor for generating a measurement signal” and “an estimation module” are recited in a manner that is well understood, generic and conventional, and are just nominal or tangential additions to the claim. The additional recitation of “a measurement signal being received from the position measurement apparatus” does not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not provide meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 1 and does not state an inventive concept. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually.
The Examiner therefore maintains that claims 16-26, and 30-36 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as detailed herein.
Applicant’s argument with respect to USC 103:
“On pages 15 and 16 of the Office Action, the Examiner appears to interpret paragraph [0028] of Rokosz et al. as disclosing the determination of multiple variances and the derivation of a final variance estimate based on those variances. However, paragraph [0028] of Rokosz et al. merely refers to an analysis of estimated variances, for example, by using different estimation methods such as least-square compensation and Kalman filtering. Rokosz et al. does not actually disclose determining a final variance estimate value based on a comparison of a first variance estimate value with a second variance estimate value, as explicitly required by the present claims. In particular, Rokosz et al. does not disclose any defined comparison mechanism between different variance estimates.”
“Safavi neither teaches nor suggests two variance estimations that are both based on a measurement noise signal for determining a final variance estimate value. An interference component of a signal is not equivalent to a measurement noise component, thus the interference variance disclosed in Safavi cannot be regarded as a measurement noise variance. Moreover, Safavi does not disclose determining a confidence interval based on a final variance estimate value.”
Examiner’s response with respect to USC 103:
With respect to Applicant’s argument that Rokosz et al. does not actually disclose determining a final variance estimate value based on a comparison of a first variance estimate value with a second variance estimate value, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Reference Rokosz discloses that estimated variances are utilized to ascertain the basic integrity information [para. 0028]. Furthermore, Rokosz discloses a representation of possible stochastic parameters or estimation errors (in the form of variances and covariances in this context). In addition, a mathematical basic model converts data from the exemplarily mentioned covariance matrix into basic integrity information such as a basic confidence range [para. 0055-0056]. Furthermore, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references, which are Rokosz in view of Safavi. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Specifically, Safavi is directed to systems and methods that estimate noise variance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 16-26, and 30-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more (see MPEP 2106).
Claims 16-26, and 30-36 are directed to an apparatus and a method that fall within “mental processes” grouping. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all claim elements, both individually and in combination, are directed to the manipulation of data and do not result in an improvement in the functioning of the process, that is, “A method for operating a position measurement apparatus, wherein the method comprises: a measurement signal being received from the position measurement apparatus; a measurement noise signal being estimated based on the measurement signal; a first variance estimation and a second variance estimation different from the first variance estimation being performed based on the measurement noise signal, wherein the first variance estimation yields a first variance estimated value and the second variance estimation yields a second variance estimated value; a final variance estimated value being determined based on a comparison of the first variance estimated value with the second variance estimated value; and a confidence interval being determined based on the final variance estimated value, wherein the confidence interval is output” as recited in claim 16 and as similarly recited in claim 30.
These steps are all operations being performed with a generic computer. Viewed as a whole, the additional claim elements of interface circuitry and processing circuitry do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
ANALYSIS - Patent Ineligible Subject Matter
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of § 101. USPTO’s January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“Memorandum”). Under Step 2A of that guidance, the Examiner first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, the Examiner then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Step 1 — Statutory Category
Claim 16 recites a series of steps, and, therefore, is a process. Claim 30 recites a position measurement apparatus, and, therefore, is a machine/manufacture. As such, claims 16 and 30 are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Claim 30 will not be evaluated separately because the claim(s) contain the same defects as those noted for claim 16 below.
Step 2A, Prong One — Recitation of Judicial Exception
It is determined that claim 16 is directed to an abstract idea, and, particularly, to an apparatus that falls under mental processes grouping.
As recited in claim 16, the limitations of “A method for operating a position measurement apparatus, wherein the method comprises: a measurement signal being received from the position measurement apparatus; a measurement noise signal being estimated based on the measurement signal; a first variance estimation and a second variance estimation different from the first variance estimation being performed based on the measurement noise signal, wherein the first variance estimation yields a first variance estimated value and the second variance estimation yields a second variance estimated value; a final variance estimated value being determined based on a comparison of the first variance estimated value with the second variance estimated value; and a confidence interval being determined based on the final variance estimated value, wherein the confidence interval is output”, under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention, constitute an abstract idea and recite a mental process. Each of these limitations can reasonably be performed by human minds and/or a general-purpose computer as indicated in Applicant’s specification. Claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). Examples of claims that recite mental processes include:
• a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
• a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
Under the 2019 Guidance, concepts performed in the human mind, even with the aid of pen and paper, and concepts merely using a computer as a tool, fall within the “mental processes” grouping. Claim 1 recites limitations that can be performed mentally, or with the aid of pen and paper, or with a generic computer. Accordingly, the subject matter of claim 16 falls within this grouping and claim 16 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two — Practical Application
Claim 16 does not integrate the claimed abstract idea into a practical application, which is additionally accomplished through a series of operations performed by generic circuitry. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional limitations merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. Simply implementing the abstract ideas on generic tools is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Step 2B — Inventive Concept
As set forth above, it has been concluded that claim 16 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, and thus, the additional elements do not transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.
Applicant’s disclosure does not provide evidence that the additional elements recited in claim 16 (i.e., the claim element in addition to the claim elements that recite an abstract idea) is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This issue is explained by the Federal Circuit, as follows:
It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention “significantly more” than that ineligible concept. In Alice, the Supreme Court held that claims directed to a computer-implemented scheme for mitigating settlement risks claimed a patent-ineligible abstract idea. 134 S.Ct. at 2352, 2355—56. Some of the claims at issue covered computer systems configured to mitigate risks through various financial transactions. Id. After determining that those claims were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, the Court considered whether the recitation of a generic computer added “significantly more” to the claims. Id. at 2357. Critically, the Court did not consider whether it was well-understood, routine, and conventional to execute the claimed intermediated settlement method on a generic computer. Instead, the Court only assessed whether the claim limitations other than the invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it was directed were well-understood, routine and conventional. Id. at 2359-60. BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (2018) (emphases added).
Claim 16 does not recite additional elements, taken individually and in combination, that result in the claim as a whole, amounting to an inventive concept. Thus, the claim generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular mental process; and thus, fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than the steps that would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. The Applicant’s specification discloses a generic computer/ processor, which is used for implementation of the abstract idea. It is important to note that a general-purpose circuitry that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The application of the abstract idea using generic components does not transform the claim into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claim 16 fails to recite an inventive concept that transforms the claim into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea.
Claims 17-26, and 30-36 do not include any new additional elements. Therefore, these claims are rejected for the same reasons as the above claims.
As such, claims 16-26, and 30-36 are not patent-eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 16, 18-20, 22, 30, 32, and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rokosz et al. (US 2021/0389473 A1 previously cited “ROKOSZ”), in view of Safavi (US 2010/0158171 A1 previously cited “SAFAVI”).
Regarding claim 16, ROKOSZ discloses (Examiner’s note: What ROKOSZ does not disclose is ) a method for operating a position measurement apparatus, comprising:
a measurement signal being received from the position measurement apparatus (the parameter estimate and/or the ascertainment of the basic information may be realized on the basis of data from a sensor of a motor vehicle [0022])
a measurement the parameter estimate and/or the ascertainment of the basic information may be realized on the basis of data from a sensor of a motor vehicle [0022])
a first variance estimation and a second variance estimation different from the first variance estimation being performed based on the measurement the basic integrity information may be a variance of the parameter estimate [0021]); (variances are possible as stochastic parameters. For example, the basic integrity information is able to be ascertained on the basis of an analysis of the estimated variances (e.g., from a least square compensation or Kalman filtering) [0028])
a final variance estimated value being determined based on a comparison of the first variance estimated value with the second variance estimated value (variances are possible as stochastic parameters. For example, the basic integrity information is able to be ascertained on the basis of an analysis of the estimated variances (e.g., from a least square compensation or Kalman filtering) [0028])
and a confidence interval being determined based on the final variance estimated value, wherein the confidence interval is output (the integrity range preferably is a confidence interval. A confidence interval (also referred to as a trust range or trust interval or expected range) is an interval from statistics, whose purpose it is to indicate the precision of the position estimate of a parameter (such as a mean value). The confidence interval indicates the range that includes the true position of the parameter with a certain probability (the confidence level) in an infinite repetition of a random experiment [0027]. The basic integrity information is ascertained on the basis of at least one stochastic parameter. Residues, variances, covariances or the like are possible as stochastic parameters, in particular. For example, the basic integrity information is able to be ascertained on the basis of an analysis of the estimated variances (e.g., from a least square compensation or Kalman filtering) [0028])
In a same or similar field of endeavor, SAFAVI teaches received signal power measurement [0011] and a receiver configured to receive data packets [claim 6]. Furthermore, SAFAVI teaches a comparison of the noise and interference variance estimates [0037].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of ROKOSZ to include the teachings of SAFAVI, because doing so would improve error correction and signal processing accuracy, as recognized by SAFAVI. In addition, both of the prior art references, ROKOSZ and SAFAVI, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, signal data processing.
Regarding claim 18, ROKOSZ/ SAFAVI discloses the method according to claim 16. However, ROKOSZ, as modified, does not disclose wherein the first variance estimation takes place based on a plurality of samples of the measurement noise signal, wherein fewer samples are used for the first variance estimation than for the second variance estimation.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, SAFAVI teaches that the decision directed noise for a number of samples is used to determine a variance for the decision directed noise of these samples [0038].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of ROKOSZ to include the teachings of SAFAVI, because doing so would improve error correction and signal processing accuracy, as recognized by SAFAVI.
Regarding claim 19, ROKOSZ/ SAFAVI discloses the method according to claim 16. However, ROKOSZ, as modified, does not disclose wherein the first variance estimation takes place based on fewer than 20 samples of the measurement noise signal.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, SAFAVI teaches that the decision directed noise for a number of samples is used to determine a variance for the decision directed noise of these samples [0038].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of ROKOSZ to include the teachings of SAFAVI, because doing so would improve error correction and signal processing accuracy, as recognized by SAFAVI. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ROKOSZ to include fewer than 20 samples of the measurement noise signal, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 20, ROKOSZ/ SAFAVI discloses the method according to claim 16. However, ROKOSZ, as modified, does not disclose wherein the second variance estimation takes place based on more than 20 samples of the measurement noise signal.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, SAFAVI teaches that the decision directed noise for a number of samples is used to determine a variance for the decision directed noise of these samples [0038].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of ROKOSZ to include the teachings of SAFAVI, because doing so would improve error correction and signal processing accuracy, as recognized by SAFAVI. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ROKOSZ to include more than 20 samples of the measurement noise signal, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 22, ROKOSZ/ SAFAVI discloses the method according to claim 16, wherein the confidence interval and/or the final variance estimated value is/are further limited based on a process model (a mathematical basic model may be stored in base module 3, which, for instance, converts data from the exemplarily mentioned covariance matrix into basic integrity information 2 such as a basic confidence range [ROKOSZ 0056]).
Regarding claim 30, ROKOSZ discloses a position measurement apparatus comprising: a sensor for generating a measurement signal (a sensor of a motor vehicle [0022]); and an estimation module (the control unit [0041]) that is configured to:
estimate a measurement the parameter estimate and/or the ascertainment of the basic information may be realized on the basis of data from a sensor of a motor vehicle [0022])
perform a first variance estimation and a second variance estimation different from the first variance estimation based on the measurement the basic integrity information may be a variance of the parameter estimate [0021]); (variances are possible as stochastic parameters. For example, the basic integrity information is able to be ascertained on the basis of an analysis of the estimated variances (e.g., from a least square compensation or Kalman filtering) [0028])
determine a final variance estimated value based on a comparison of the first variance estimated value with the second variance estimated value (variances are possible as stochastic parameters. For example, the basic integrity information is able to be ascertained on the basis of an analysis of the estimated variances (e.g., from a least square compensation or Kalman filtering) [0028])
and determine a confidence interval based on the final variance estimated value, wherein the confidence interval is output by the estimation module (the integrity range preferably is a confidence interval. A confidence interval (also referred to as a trust range or trust interval or expected range) is an interval from statistics, whose purpose it is to indicate the precision of the position estimate of a parameter (such as a mean value). The confidence interval indicates the range that includes the true position of the parameter with a certain probability (the confidence level) in an infinite repetition of a random experiment [0027]. The basic integrity information is ascertained on the basis of at least one stochastic parameter. Residues, variances, covariances or the like are possible as stochastic parameters, in particular. For example, the basic integrity information is able to be ascertained on the basis of an analysis of the estimated variances (e.g., from a least square compensation or Kalman filtering) [0028])
In a same or similar field of endeavor, SAFAVI teaches received signal power measurement [0011] and a receiver configured to receive data packets [claim 6]. Furthermore, SAFAVI teaches a comparison of the noise and interference variance estimates [0037].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of ROKOSZ to include the teachings of SAFAVI, because doing so would improve error correction and signal processing accuracy, as recognized by SAFAVI.
Regarding claim 32, ROKOSZ/ SAFAVI discloses the position measurement apparatus according to claim 30, wherein the confidence interval is output by the estimation module and is used in a safety function (the method is used for ascertaining an integrity range of a parameter estimate of a driving operation parameter of a motor vehicle. The driving operation parameter usually involves a safety-critical or safety-relevant parameter of the driving operation of a motor vehicle [ROKOSZ 0014]).
Regarding claim 34, ROKOSZ/ SAFAVI discloses the method according to claim 16, wherein the confidence interval is output and is used in a safety function (the method is used for ascertaining an integrity range of a parameter estimate of a driving operation parameter of a motor vehicle. The driving operation parameter usually involves a safety-critical or safety-relevant parameter of the driving operation of a motor vehicle [ROKOSZ 0014]).
Claim(s) 17 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROKOSZ, in view of SAFAVI, and further in view of Rosu (US 2022/0252696 A1 previously cited “ROSU”).
Regarding claim 17, ROKOSZ/ SAFAVI discloses the method according to claim 16. However, ROKOSZ/ SAFAVI does not disclose wherein the final variance estimated value is set to the first variance estimated value or the second variance estimated value.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, ROSU teaches to select the values that satisfy the desired confidence interval [0055].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of ROKOSZ to include the teachings of ROSU, because doing so would improve signal processing, as recognized by ROSU.
Regarding claim 23, ROKOSZ/ SAFAVI discloses the method according to claim 18. However, ROKOSZ/ SAFAVI does not disclose wherein the final variance estimated value is determined based on a plausibility check, wherein the plausibility check comprises: the final variance estimated value is set to the second variance estimated value; when it is determined that a current value of the measurement noise signal is greater than a predefined threshold value, the first variance estimated value is compared to the second variance estimated value; and when it is determined that the first variance estimated value is larger in amount than the second variance estimated value, the final variance estimated value is set to the first variance estimated value.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, ROSU teaches to select the values that satisfy the desired confidence interval [0055].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of ROKOSZ to include the teachings of ROSU, because doing so would improve signal processing, as recognized by ROSU. It is further noted that claim 23 recites a method. Limitation “when it is determined that a current value of the measurement noise signal is greater than a predefined threshold value, the first variance estimated value is compared to the second variance estimated value; and when it is determined that the first variance estimated value is larger in amount than the second variance estimated value, the final variance estimated value is set to the first variance estimated value” contains contingent claim language. See MPEP 2111.04. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. In this case, the method claim requires step (i.e. “the first variance estimated value is compared to the second variance estimated value”) if a condition (i.e. “when it is determined that a current value of the measurement noise signal is greater than a predefined threshold value”) happens; and step (i.e. “the final variance estimated value is set to the first variance estimated value”) if a condition (i.e. “when it is determined that the first variance estimated value is larger in amount than the second variance estimated value”) happens. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of a method claim.
Claim(s) 21 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROKOSZ, in view of SAFAVI, and further in view of Simonson et al. (US 8,103,116 B1 previously cited “SIMONSON”).
Regarding claim 21, ROKOSZ/ SAFAVI discloses the method according to claim 16. However, ROKOSZ/ SAFAVI does not disclose wherein the final variance estimated value is set to the highest value of the N last samples of the measurement noise signal.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, SIMONSON teaches that the combination of the spatial error estimates and the temporal error estimates comprises using a larger value between the spatial error estimates and the temporal error estimates [claim 6].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of ROKOSZ to include the teachings of SIMONSON, because doing so would improve data processing while accounting for errors, as recognized by SIMONSON.
Regarding claim 25, ROKOSZ/ SAFAVI discloses the method according to claim 18. However, ROKOSZ/ SAFAVI does not disclose wherein the final variance estimated value is determined based on a weighting of the first and second variance estimated value, wherein the weighting is determined in dependence on which of the first and second variance estimated value is larger in amount.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, SIMONSON teaches that the combination of the spatial error estimates and the temporal error estimates comprises using a larger value between the spatial error estimates and the temporal error estimates [claim 6].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of ROKOSZ to include the teachings of SIMONSON, because doing so would improve data processing while accounting for errors, as recognized by SIMONSON.
Claim(s) 24 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROKOSZ, in view of SAFAVI and ROSU, and further in view of Jansen et al. (US 2020/0072941 A1 previously cited “JANSEN”).
Regarding claim 24, ROKOSZ/ SAFAVI/ ROSU discloses the method according to claim 23. However, ROKOSZ/ SAFAVI/ ROSU does not disclose wherein the threshold value is determined depending on the final variance estimation.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, JANSEN teaches that the threshold used at step 306 may then be calculated by multiplying the power of the 192nd ranked sample by a constant [0079].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of ROKOSZ to include the teachings of JANSEN, because doing so would reduce false alarm, as recognized by JANSEN.
Regarding claim 36, ROKOSZ/ SAFAVI/ ROSU/ JANSEN discloses the method according to claim 24, wherein the predefined threshold value is set to a multiple of the square root of the final variance estimated value (the threshold used at step 306 may then be calculated by multiplying the power of the 192nd ranked sample by a constant [JANSEN 0079]).
Claim(s) 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROKOSZ, in view of SAFAVI, and further in view of Abrishamkar et al. (US 2004/0179496 A1 previously cited “ABRISHAMKAR”).
Regarding claim 26, ROKOSZ/ SAFAVI discloses the method according to claim 16. However, ROKOSZ/ SAFAVI does not disclose wherein the estimation of the measurement noise signal comprises estimating a useful signal associated with the measurement signal and determining the estimated measurement noise signal based on the measurement signal and the estimated useful signal.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, ABRISHAMKAR teaches that a method for estimating a pilot signal using a PEM-switched double IIR. The input signal is fed 802 into both IIR filters. The IIR filters each determine 804 a filtered estimate and a prediction error. The prediction errors are used 806 to drive the switching mechanism [0070].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of ROKOSZ to include the teachings of ABRISHAMKAR, because doing so would improve signal processing, as recognized by ABRISHAMKAR.
Regarding claim 27, ROKOSZ/ SAFAVI/ ABRISHAMKAR discloses the method according to claim 26, wherein the useful signal is estimated based on a polynomial regression and/or based on a prediction filter (a method for estimating a pilot signal using a PEM-switched double IIR. The input signal is fed 802 into both IIR filters. The IIR filters each determine 804 a filtered estimate and a prediction error. The prediction errors are used 806 to drive the switching mechanism [ABRISHAMKAR 0070], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 26).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROKOSZ, in view of SAFAVI, and further in view of Troost (US 2018/0372885 A1 previously cited “TROOST”).
Regarding claim 28, ROKOSZ/ SAFAVI discloses the method according to claim 16. However, ROKOSZ/ SAFAVI does not disclose wherein the first variance estimation is performed using a nonlinear FIR filter.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, TROOST teaches that when a FIR filter is used the results of the variance measurement are significantly improved if the coefficients of the high-pass filter are dependent on the sampling rate with which the measurement signal is acquired [0020].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of ROKOSZ to include the teachings of TROOST, because doing so would improve measurement accuracy, as recognized by TROOST.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROKOSZ, in view of SAFAVI, and further in view of Wang (US 2009/0326740 A1 previously cited “WANG”).
Regarding claim 29, ROKOSZ/ SAFAVI discloses the method according to claim 16. However, ROKOSZ/ SAFAVI does not disclose wherein the second variance estimation is performed using a recursive filter.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, WANG teaches that the Kalman filter is a recursive minimum-variance estimation algorithm that computes an estimate of a state vector based on constructed measurements [0100].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of ROKOSZ to include the teachings of WANG, because doing so would improve signal processing, as recognized by WANG.
Claim(s) 31 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROKOSZ, in view of SAFAVI, and further in view of Martini (US 2005/0288892 A1 previously cited “MARTINI”).
Regarding claim 31, ROKOSZ/ SAFAVI discloses the position measurement apparatus according to claim 30. However, ROKOSZ/ SAFAVI does not disclose that wherein the position measurement apparatus is configured to control an industrial process.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, MARTINI relates to the control of industrial processes, and in particular a method and a system for the control of an industrial process based on an examination of observed variables obtained from a sample of products which are indicative of the properties of the product generated by the process and correlated with the set process parameters [0001]. Specifically, MARTINI teaches that the method to which the invention relates is based on the determination of an admissible interval of values for the power (technically a Confidence Interval) having a confidence level or degree of reliability [0070].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of ROKOSZ to include the teachings of MARTINI, because doing so would enable quality control and improve data processing, as recognized by MARTINI.
Regarding claim 33, ROKOSZ/ SAFAVI discloses the position measurement apparatus according to claim 31, wherein the confidence interval is output by the estimation module to control the industrial process (the method to which the invention relates is based on the determination of an admissible interval of values for the power (technically a Confidence Interval) having a confidence level or degree of reliability [MARTINI 0070], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 31).
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROKOSZ, in view of SAFAVI and ROSU, and further in view of SIMONSON.
Regarding claim 35, ROKOSZ/ SAFAVI discloses the method according to claim 17. However, ROKOSZ/ SAFAVO/ ROSU does not disclose wherein the final variance estimated value is set to the one of the first or the second variance estimated value that is larger in amount.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, SIMONSON teaches that the combination of the spatial error estimates and the temporal error estimates comprises using a larger value between the spatial error estimates and the temporal error estimates [claim 6].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of ROKOSZ to include the teachings of SIMONSON, because doing so would improve data processing while accounting for errors, as recognized by SIMONSON.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Metzger et al. (US 2022/0128705 A1) is cited as pertinent art for the disclosure of ascertaining at least one piece of integrity information relating to a location result of a GNSS-based location device of a vehicle in the event of an abruptly and significantly changing GNSS reception situation, comprising at least the following steps: (a) ascertaining the current ego position of the vehicle by means of the GNSS-based location device; (b) ascertaining at least one piece of integrity information relating to the ego position ascertained in step (a), by means of the GNSS-based location device; (c) detecting an abruptly and significantly changing or significantly altered GNSS reception situation; and (d) adapting the ascertainment of the at least one piece of integrity information for the changing or altered GNSS reception situation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAILEY R LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4910. The examiner can normally be reached 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, WILLIAM J KELLEHER can be reached at (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.
/Hailey R Le/Examiner, Art Unit 3648 February 19, 2026
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648