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 .
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.
Joint Inventors
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05 March 2026 has been entered.
Priority
While noted in a previous office action, to restate for the record, receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 and acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to application IN202311076588 filed 09 November 2023.
Response to Amendment/Remarks
The examiner received amendments to the claims and corresponding remarks dated 05 March 2026 with request for continued examination (RCE) in response to the final rejection office action dated 08 December 2025 (hereinafter the document of concern when referencing “outstanding rejections”, “outstanding objections”, “prior office action”, and the like). No new matter was entered.
Regarding outstanding claim objections, the examiner notes that by way of amendment, the minor informality noted in claim 17 has been addressed and resolved. All outstanding claim objections are withdrawn.
Regarding outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claim 12, the examiner notes that by way of amendment, the problematic language has been removed. The examiner appreciates the applicant’s efforts and withdraws the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections.
Regarding the outstanding prior art (35 U.S.C. 103) rejections, the examiner first notes that arguments are moot as applicant has amended the claim language. However, for completeness of record, the examiner notes that applicant argues on page 9 of the remarks dated 05 March 2026 (hereinafter “the remarks”) that the primary prior art of record does not disclose the comparison of data and that the Office relied upon a secondary prior art of record to provide an obviousness-type rejection. Applicant disagrees with the use of the secondary prior art of record because the order of the transition from one geolocation system to another (first system to second system or second system to first system) is not consistent with the order presented in the instant claims. The examiner provided direct reference to where an analogous transition was recited in the secondary reference, but after an additional review, the examiner agrees that the scope of the invention of the secondary reference does pertain to the reverse scenario (checking a local positioning system result against a global positioning system result, then transitioning to a global positioning system, despite the teaching of the paragraph of note in the prior office action). However, the examiner performed additional search/consideration and has determined that the combination of references continues to read upon the instant claims. Put simply, in the case of claim 1, the primary prior art of note merely differs from the instant claim 1 in that a check is performed to ensure that the two positioning systems agree prior to switching to the local positioning system. The examiner insists that this is an obvious variant of the primary prior art of note; a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have obviously ensured that, prior to transitioning from one geolocation system to another, that the two systems generally agreed on the positioning of the ego vehicle. A geolocation system does not serve much use if the primary system determines that the ego vehicle is in the northern hemisphere while the secondary system believes that the ego vehicle is in the southern hemisphere, for instance; merely ensuring that the two systems agree prior to changeover would have been obvious to include. While the secondary art of note does primarily teach the opposite scenario (going from local to global rather than global to local), the intent is to show that it was known in the art to perform an analogous check prior to changing geolocation systems and would have been obvious to implement regardless of which system was the initial guidance system and the transitioned guidance system. Thus, the examiner insists that the claims remain unpatentable over the prior art of note. Regarding the analogous independent claims, the examiner notes that claims 17 and 19 merely differ from claim 1 in the recitation of additional elements; in the case of claim 17, an additional integrity check is added and in the case of claim 19, an additional calibration of other guidance systems and storage of dead zones is performed. As the examiner understands the inventive concept to pertain to the initialization and transition of an ego vehicle navigation system from a first geolocation system to a second geolocation system, the aforementioned elements are interpreted as merely obvious further “uses” of the inventive concept and do not necessarily change how the inventive concept is carried out. Regarding dependent claims, the examiner notes that applicant merely argues that by way of dependency, as applicant believes that the independent claims are allowable, the dependent claims are allowable. As the examiner respectfully disagrees with the assessment of the patentability of the independent claims noted above, the rationale for rejection of the dependent claims remains unchanged. Thus, the examiner withdraws the outstanding prior art (35 U.S.C. 103) rejections in favor of the new grounds of rejection, necessitated by amendment, shown below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiEsposti (US 9,031,725 B1; Date of Patent 12 May 2015, hereinafter DiEsposti) in view of Eslinger et al. (US 2007/0085737 A1; hereinafter Eslinger).
Regarding independent claim 1: DiEsposti discloses A method of determining a location of a vehicle, the method comprising: (Col [1:50-57], DiEsposti discloses a method for localizing a vehicle)
using a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) to determine a GNSS location of the vehicle when satellite signals from at least four satellites of the GNSS are being received by a GNSS receiver of the vehicle; and (Col [7:28-30] and Figure [1], DiEsposti discloses that signals from four GNSS satellite vehicles are used for position, navigation, and timing (PNT) calculation)
using a local positioning system (LPS) to determine a LPS location of the vehicle when the vehicle is within a LPS coverage region of the LPS and the vehicle is in a GNSS denied region [once a determined LPS location position matches a determined GNSS location within an overlap region], wherein the LPS coverage region is a region that provides a LPS signal from at least four fixed location LPS signal transmitters, (Col [3:33-55, 6:22-44, 7:28-8:8, 13:6-18], DiEsposti discloses that pseudolites (local position system) may be used when in a GPS denied area to determine TSPI information such as position. DiEsposti discloses that a plurality of ground based stations may be used to localize the vehicle within an area that is GPS-denied (thus, use of LPS when in a LPS region and in a GNSS denied region). While it is understood that, as noted above, four transmitters are used to calculate a PNT solution, DiEsposti discloses that a plurality of ground based components are used; as shown in Figure [1], three pseudolites plus one Control Monitoring and Ground Processing Station and Global Information Grid (GIG) system (also used to transmit data, and is thus a transmitter) for a total of at least four signal transmitters are disclosed)
each LPS signal from each LPS transmitter includes transmitter location information and clock information used by a controller of the vehicle to determine the LPS location of the vehicle. (Col [4:50-53, 7:28-8:8, 8:37-45, 13:6-46], DiEsposti discloses that both the pseudolites and (at least) the GIG transmit location and clock data, including utilizing pseudolite signals when GPS signals are not available (GNSS denied region))
Regarding once a determined LPS location position matches a determined GNSS location within an overlap region, DiEsposti does not explicitly disclose a comparison of the data received from both systems.
However, Eslinger, in a similar field of endeavor of navigation/positioning systems, teaches once a determined LPS location position matches a determined GNSS location within an overlap region (Abstract, Paragraph [0022-0023, 0061], and Figure [1], Eslinger teaches that when position data is available from both systems, the position data is compared and measured against a threshold of amount of difference. If the data differs below a threshold (thus, the data “matches”), then the system uses the local positioning system. As seen in Figure [1], the local positioning system coverage region (150) is within the global coverage region (101), and thus overlaps)
DiEsposti and Eslinger are in a similar field of endeavor of navigation/positioning systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of DiEsposti with the check performed by Eslinger in the interest of validating positional certainty/accuracy (Eslinger, Paragraph [0010]). While the teachings of Eslinger primarily pertain to checking that data matches for the transition from a local system to a global system (rather than the reverse), this is an obvious variation; ultimately, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have understood that while the aforementioned example was disclosed, checking that any two positioning systems match prior to changeover is beneficial and obvious regardless of if the change is happening from a local positioning system to a global positioning system or the reverse. This constitutes a combination of known elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 3: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over DiEsposti in view of Eslinger. DiEsposti further discloses where the LPS coverage region is formed at least in part in a GNSS denied region. (Col [13:6-18, 16:22-28], DiEsposti discloses that the pseudolite system is used in a GPS (GNSS) denied condition)
Regarding claim 14: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over DiEsposti in view of Eslinger. The combination of references cited in parent claim 1 discusses the comparison of data in the overlap region. As such, Eslinger teaches comparing the determined GNSS location with the determined LPS location within the overlap region. (Abstract, Paragraph [0022-0023, 0061] and Figure [1], Eslinger teaches that when position data is available from both systems, the position data is compared and measured against a threshold of amount of difference. If the data differs below a threshold (thus, the data “matches”), then the system uses the local positioning system. As seen in Figure [1], the local positioning system coverage region (150) is within the global coverage region (101), and thus overlaps)
DiEsposti and Eslinger are in a similar field of endeavor of navigation/positioning systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of DiEsposti with the check performed by Eslinger in the interest of validating positional certainty/accuracy (Eslinger, Paragraph [0010]). While the teachings of Eslinger primarily pertain to checking that data matches for the transition from a local system to a global system (rather than the reverse), this is an obvious variation; ultimately, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have understood that while the aforementioned example was disclosed, checking that any two positioning systems match prior to changeover is beneficial and obvious regardless of if the change is happening from a local positioning system to a global positioning system or the reverse. This constitutes a combination of known elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiEsposti in view of Eslinger in further view of Farley (US 9,903,954 B1; Date of Patent 27 Feb 2018, hereinafter Farley).
Regarding claim 2: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over DiEsposti in view of Eslinger. DiEsposti discloses clock data from the pseudolite (Col [8:37-45]) but does not explicitly disclose that the clock is an atomic clock.
However, Farley, in a similar field of endeavor of navigation and network systems, teaches wherein each LPS transmitter includes an atomic clock. (Col [2:57-63, 9:16-19, 10:15-21] and Figure [4], Farley teaches that the pseudolites utilize atomic clocks)
DiEsposti and Farley are in a similar field of endeavor of navigation and network systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of DiEsposti to specify that the clock of concern is specifically an atomic clock in the interest of accurate position and navigation data determination as taught by Farley (Farley, Col [10:56-61]).
Claims 4, 8, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiEsposti in view of Eslinger in further view of Sharma et al. (US 2008/0268830 A1; hereinafter Sharma).
Regarding claim 4: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over DiEsposti in view of Eslinger. DiEsposti discloses a display (Col [17:54-62], DiEsposti discloses a display) but does not explicitly disclose displaying the regions of interest on a display.
However, Sharma, in a similar field of endeavor of navigation and network systems, teaches displaying GNSS denied regions on a vehicle display as the vehicle travels along a travel path to alert vehicle crew members that the vehicle is about to travel within a GNSS denied region. (Paragraph [0009-0011, 0030, 0041, 0045-0046] and Figure [4-6], Sharma teaches that the maps pertaining to coverage of the network are displayed for a user as they travel along a path in order to alert the user of close proximity to the coverage area boundary)
DiEsposti and Sharma are in a similar field of endeavor of navigation and network systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of DiEsposti to additionally include a storage and display element to the coverage regions, as taught by Sharma, for the benefit of providing preemptive warning to a user that they are leaving a coverage area (Paragraph [0009-0010, 0045-0046] of Sharma).
Regarding claim 8: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over DiEsposti in view of Eslinger. DiEsposti discloses using LPS for guidance as noted in the parent claim, but does not explicitly disclose guiding the vehicle back to a GNSS coverage region or a designated stopping location.
However, Sharma, in a similar field of endeavor of navigation and network systems, teaches using the [LPS] to guide the vehicle to at least one of a GNSS coverage region and a designated stopping location. (Paragraph [0047], Sharma teaches providing guidance to return from a current position to a nearest or another selected point within a coverage area of the wireless network)
DiEsposti and Sharma are in a similar field of endeavor of navigation and network systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of DiEsposti to additionally teach that routing to a coverage area, as taught by Sharma, for the benefit of restoring access to the wireless network (Sharma, Paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 11: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over DiEsposti in view of Eslinger. DiEsposti discloses using LPS for guidance as noted in the parent claim, but does not explicitly disclose guiding the vehicle back to a GNSS coverage region or a designated stopping location.
However, Sharma, in a similar field of endeavor of navigation and network systems, teaches providing priority cues to guide the vehicle to at least one of a GNSS coverage region and a designated stopping location when within the LPS coverage region. (Paragraph [0047], Sharma teaches providing guidance to return from a current position to a nearest or another selected point within a coverage area of the wireless network)
DiEsposti and Sharma are in a similar field of endeavor of navigation and network systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of DiEsposti to additionally teach that routing to a coverage area, as taught by Sharma, for the benefit of restoring access to the wireless network (Sharma, Paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 12: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over DiEsposti in view of Eslinger. DiEsposti discloses a display (Col [17:54-62], DiEsposti discloses a display) but does not explicitly disclose displaying the regions of interest on a display.
However, Sharma, in a similar field of endeavor of navigation and network systems, teaches providing alerts when the vehicle is within a predefined distance of a boundary of at least one of a GNSS coverage region and the LPS coverage region. (Paragraph [0009-0011, 0030, 0041, 0045-0046] and Figure [4-6], Sharma teaches that the maps pertaining to coverage of the network are displayed for a user as they travel along a path in order to alert the user of close proximity to the coverage area boundary)
DiEsposti and Sharma are in a similar field of endeavor of navigation and network systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of DiEsposti to additionally include a storage and display element to the coverage regions, as taught by Sharma, for the benefit of providing preemptive warning to a user that they are leaving a coverage area (Paragraph [0009-0010, 0045-0046] of Sharma).
Regarding claim 13: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over DiEsposti in view of Eslinger. DiEsposti does not explicitly disclose storing coverage areas.
However, Sharma, in a similar field of endeavor of navigation and network systems, teaches collecting LPS coverage region information; and storing the LPS coverage region information in a database. (Paragraph [0009, 0029, 0032-0033], Sharma teaches collecting/storing a first map showing the coverage area of the wireless network)
DiEsposti and Sharma are in a similar field of endeavor of navigation and network systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of DiEsposti to additionally include a storage and display element to the coverage regions, as taught by Sharma, for the benefit of providing preemptive warning to a user that they may be leaving a coverage area (Paragraph [0009-0010, 0045-0046] of Sharma).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiEsposti in view of Eslinger in further view of Yochum (US 2010/0106416 A1; hereinafter Yochum).
Regarding claim 5: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over DiEsposti in view of Eslinger. DiEsposti does not explicitly state that the LPS is used to calibrate an alternative navigation system.
However, Yochum, in a similar field of endeavor of navigation and network systems, teaches using a position of the vehicle determined with use of the LPS to calibrate an alternative navigation system of the vehicle. (Paragraph [0006, 0010, 0032] and Figure [1-2, 4], Yochum teaches that if GPS data becomes unreliable or unavailable, the position indication from the distance measuring equipment (DME, analogous to the local positioning system) provides compensation to the inertial reference system (IRS, the inertial navigation system) indications)
DiEsposti and Yochum are in a similar field of endeavor of navigation and network systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of DiEsposti to additionally update the inertial navigation system with local positioning system information, as taught by Yochum, as the accuracy of the inertial systems onboard aircraft (or other vehicles) degrades over time (Yochum, Paragraph [0009]), so it was known in the art at the time of effective filing to reinforce inertial data with GPS (or local positioning systems, in the present case) data to perform adjustment/calibration. DiEsposti explicitly discloses that GPS and INS data are fused (Col [10:51-65] of DiEsposti) but does not explicitly state that this serves the purpose to correct/alter/calibrate the inertial data. Yochum serves as a reference that shows that not only was it known in the art at the time of effective filing to correct inertial data with GPS/GNSS data, but also with local positioning system data when GPS/GNSS data is unavailable.
Regarding claim 6: Parent claim 5 is unpatentable over DiEsposti in view of Eslinger in further view of Yochum. As noted above, DiEsposti does not explicitly state that the LPS is used to calibrate an alternative navigation system.
However, Yochum, in a similar field of endeavor of navigation and network systems, teaches wherein the alternative navigation system is an inertial navigation system. (Paragraph [0006, 0010, 0032] and Figure [1-2, 4], Yochum teaches that if GPS data becomes unreliable or unavailable, the position indication from the distance measuring equipment (DME, analogous to the local positioning system) provides compensation to the inertial reference system (IRS, the inertial navigation system) indications)
DiEsposti and Yochum are in a similar field of endeavor of navigation and network systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of DiEsposti to additionally update the inertial navigation system with local positioning system information, as taught by Yochum, as the accuracy of the inertial systems onboard aircraft (or other vehicles) degrades over time (Yochum, Paragraph [0009]), so it was known in the art at the time of effective filing to reinforce inertial data with GPS (or local positioning systems, in the present case) data to perform adjustment/calibration. DiEsposti explicitly discloses that GPS and INS data are fused (Col [10:51-65] of DiEsposti) but does not explicitly state that this serves the purpose to correct/alter/calibrate the inertial data. Yochum serves as a reference that shows that not only was it known in the art at the time of effective filing to correct inertial data with GPS/GNSS data, but also with local positioning system data when GPS/GNSS data is unavailable.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiEsposti in view of Eslinger in view of Yochum in further view of Nishida (US 2004/0210384 A1; hereinafter Nishida).
Regarding claim 7: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over DiEsposti in view of Eslinger. DiEsposti does not explicitly state that the LPS is used to calibrate an alternative navigation system.
However, Yochum, in a similar field of endeavor of navigation and network systems, teaches tracking a length of time [the vehicle is traversing through a GNSS denied region] to determine if a calibration of an alternative navigation system should occur with an LPS location when the vehicle enters the LPS coverage region. (Paragraph [0006, 0010, 0029-0033] and Figure [1-2, 4], Yochum teaches that if GPS data becomes unreliable or unavailable, the position indication from the distance measuring equipment (DME, analogous to the local positioning system) provides compensation to the inertial reference system (IRS, the inertial navigation system) indications based on an execution time)
DiEsposti and Yochum are in a similar field of endeavor of navigation and network systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of DiEsposti to additionally update the inertial navigation system with local positioning system information, as taught by Yochum, as the accuracy of the inertial systems onboard aircraft (or other vehicles) degrades over time (Yochum, Paragraph [0009]), so it is known to reinforce the inertial data with GPS (or local positioning systems, in the present case) data to perform adjustment/calibration. DiEsposti explicitly discloses that GPS and INS data are fused (Col [10:51-65] of DiEsposti) but does not explicitly state that this serves the purpose to correct/alter/calibrate the inertial data. Yochum serves as a reference that shows that not only is it known in the art to correct inertial data with GPS/GNSS data, but also with local positioning system data when GPS/GNSS data is unavailable.
Regarding tracking a length of time the vehicle is traversing through a GNSS denied region, Yochum provides implicit teaching that “If the GPS information is lost, the accuracy of the inertial reference system degraded over time.” Thus, it is implicit that an amount of time drift when GPS signal is no longer present impacts the accuracy of the navigation system. Yochum does not explicitly teach that the length of time traveling in a GNSS denied region is tracked, however.
However, Nishida, in a similar field of endeavor of navigation and network systems, teaches tracking a length of time the vehicle is traversing through a GNSS denied region (Paragraph [0023, 0059, 0062, 0067] and Figure [5], Nishida teaches that if position information is not detected from the satellite navigation system (GPS), a persistence timer is initiated)
DiEsposti and Nishida are in a similar field of endeavor of navigation and network systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of DiEsposti to additionally include a notification process after a certain period of time in order to alert a user of faulty equipment and/or abnormal reception (Paragraph [0023, 0033, 0035, 0062] of Nishida).
Therefore, the teaching that time drift affects accuracy of an inertial measurement when left uncorrected (by Yochum as noted above) and the tracking of an amount of time that a vehicle is no longer connected to a GNSS network for purposes of alerting for degrading precision of position measurement (by Nishida) would reasonably constitute an obvious combination of known elements to produce predictable results.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiEsposti in view of Eslinger in further view of Chennichetty et al. (US 2022/0078644 A1; hereinafter Chennichetty).
Regarding claim 9: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over DiEsposti in view of Eslinger. DiEsposti does not explicitly disclose integrity checks.
However, Chennichetty, in a similar field of endeavor of navigation and network systems, teaches integrity checking an LPS location determination by the LPS. (Paragraph [0129-0138] and Figure [4-5, 16], Chennichetty teaches determining the position of a STA with respect to an AP, the determination analogous to an “integrity check”. As applicant has not defined an “integrity check”, the examiner considers the checking of position of the STA relative to the frequency band area to be an “integrity check”.)
DiEsposti and Chennichetty are in a similar field of endeavor of navigation and network systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of DiEsposti to include an integrity check for the benefit of improving accuracy of the detection system (Chennichetty, Paragraph [0103, 0111]).
Regarding claim 10: Parent claim 9 is unpatentable over DiEsposti in view of Eslinger in further view of Chennichetty. As noted above, DiEsposti does not explicitly disclose integrity checks.
However, Chennichetty, in a similar field of endeavor of navigation and network systems, teaches wherein the integrity checking the LPS location determination by the LPS further comprises: determining the location of the vehicle in relation to a first integrity coverage region and a second integrity coverage region, wherein the first integrity region is generated by a LPS transmitter transmitting a first LPS signal having a first intensity and a first frequency at a first time that reaches a first distance from the LPS transmitter and the second integrity region is generated by the LPS transmitter transmitting a second LPS signal having a second intensity and a second frequency at a second time to generate a second integrity coverage region that extends a second distance from the LPS transmitter, the second integrity coverage region includes part of the first integrity coverage region and the second integrity coverage region; and (Paragraph [0091, 0093, 0098, 0129-0138, 0188, 0229] and Figure [4, 16], Chennichetty teaches determining the location of the station (STA) in relation to the access point by using two signals comprising a first and second frequency and corresponding strength (intensity), having concentric circles (a second region includes a part of the first region))
comparing stored cover region information that includes at least frequency and range information associated with the respective first integrity coverage region and the second integrity coverage region with the determined location of the vehicle in relation to the first integrity coverage region and the second integrity coverage region to determine the integrity of the determined LPS location. (Paragraph [0091, 0093, 0098, 0129-0138, 0188, 0229] and Figure [4, 16], Chennichetty teaches determining the location of the station (STA) in relation to the access point by using two signals comprising a first and second frequency and corresponding strength to determine proximity to the access point (local positioning system). The coverage regions have corresponding frequencies (2.4GHz and 5GHZ, for instance) and ranges (see Fig. 4, circles 320 and 322), determination is made of the position of the STA relative to the regions)
DiEsposti and Chennichetty are in a similar field of endeavor of navigation and network systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of DiEsposti to include an integrity check for the benefit of improving accuracy of the detection system (Chennichetty, Paragraph [0103, 0111]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiEsposti in view of Eslinger in view of Nishida.
Regarding claim 15: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over DiEsposti in view of Eslinger. DiEsposti does not explicitly disclose a persistence timer to count the amount of time that the vehicle may not be connected to the network.
However, Nishida, in a similar field of endeavor of navigation and network systems, teaches tracking a length of time the vehicle is outside of a GNSS coverage region and the LPS coverage region; and generating an alarm when the tracked length of time reaches a threshold. (Paragraph [0023, 0059, 0062, 0067] and Figure [5], Nishida teaches that if position information is not detected from the satellite navigation system (GPS), a persistence timer is initiated. If a preset time is reached, then an alert is provided)
DiEsposti and Nishida are in a similar field of endeavor of navigation and network systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of DiEsposti to additionally include a notification process after a certain period of time in order to alert a user of faulty equipment and/or abnormal reception (Paragraph [0023, 0033, 0062] of Nishida).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiEsposti in view of Eslinger in view of Hammond et al. (US 2024/0419180 A1; claiming priority to 15 June 2023, hereinafter Hammond).
Regarding claim 16: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over DiEsposti in view of Eslinger. DiEsposti does not explicitly disclose ascending to re-obtain GNSS coverage.
However, Hammond, in a similar field of endeavor of navigation and network systems, teaches receiving a direction to ascend to a GNSS coverage based on a clearing of a plurality of vehicles that includes the vehicle based on an altitude of each vehicle of the plurality of vehicles. (Paragraph [0055, 0076] and Figure [4B, 7A], Hammond teaches that a UAV in a network of UAVs may ascend to a sufficiently high altitude to mitigate the effects of interference when GPS signal is degraded and additional teaches that the UAV performs obstacle avoidance (clearing))
DiEsposti and Hammond are in a similar field of endeavor of navigation and network systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of DiEsposti to clarify that one of the paths to re-obtaining GNSS coverage is through ascent (as taught by Hammond) in the event that the vehicle of concern may control its elevation (such as an aircraft). Further, clearing other obstacles (such as other UAVs of the plurality of UAVs) is an obvious modification to prevent collision and subsequent damage.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiEsposti in view of Eslinger in view of Chennichetty.
Regarding independent claim 17: DiEsposti discloses A navigation system comprising: (Col [1:50-57], DiEsposti discloses a navigation system)
a global positioning satellite system (GNSS) receiver to receive satellite signals from a plurality of satellites; (Col [5:22-52, 7:28-30], DiEsposti discloses a receiver configured to receive GNSS/GPS satellite/space vehicle signals from a plurality of satellites)
a local positioning system (LPS) receiver to receive LPS signals from a plurality of fixed location LPS transmitters that are positioned to form a LPS coverage region; (Col [5:53-63, 6:2-21], DiEsposti discloses that the air platform receives pseudolite data from the pseudolites)
a memory to store at least operating instructions; and (Col [16:29-50], DiEsposti discloses non-transitory memory storing operating instructions)
a controller in communication with the GNSS receiver, the LPS receiver, and the memory, (Col [5:12-55, 6:39-44, 16:29-58] and Figure [1], DiEsposti discloses a plurality of components such as on-board navigation systems, processors, memory (the combination being a “controller”), receivers, etc. as communicatively coupled components)
the controller configured to use the LPS signals to determine a location of a vehicle when the vehicle is within the LPS coverage region and within a GNSS denied region [once a determined LPS location position matches a determined GNSS location within an overlap region], wherein the LPS coverage region is a region that provides the LPS signals from at least four fixed location LPS transmitters, (Col [3:33-55, 6:22-44, 7:28-8:8, 13:6-18, 16:22-28], DiEsposti discloses that pseudolites (local position system) may be used when in a GPS denied area to determine TSPI information such as position. DiEsposti discloses that a plurality of ground based stations may be used to localize the vehicle within an area that is GPS-denied (thus, use of LPS when in a LPS region and in a GNSS denied region). While it is understood that, as noted above, four transmitters are used to calculate a PNT solution, DiEsposti discloses that a plurality of ground based components are used; as shown in Figure [1], three pseudolites plus one Control Monitoring and Ground Processing Station and Global Information Grid (GIG) system (also used to transmit data, and is thus a transmitter) for a total of at least four signal transmitters are disclosed)
each LPS signal from each LPS transmitter includes LPS transmitter location information and clock information used by the controller of the vehicle to determine the location of the vehicle, […] (Col [4:50-53, 7:28-8:8, 8:37-45, 13:6-46], DiEsposti discloses that both the pseudolites and (at least) the GIG transmit location and clock data, including utilizing pseudolite signals when GPS signals are not available (GNSS denied region))
DiEsposti differs from the instant claim in the explicit disclosure of confirming a match between the two positioning systems prior to changeover and integrity checks.
However, Eslinger, in a similar field of endeavor of navigation/positioning systems, teaches once a determined LPS location position matches a determined GNSS location within an overlap region (Abstract, Paragraph [0022-0023, 0061] and Figure [1], Eslinger teaches that when position data is available from both systems, the position data is compared and measured against a threshold of amount of difference. If the data differs below a threshold (thus, the data “matches”), then the system uses the local positioning system. As seen in Figure [1], the local positioning system coverage region (150) is within the global coverage region (101), and thus overlaps)
DiEsposti and Eslinger are in a similar field of endeavor of navigation/positioning systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of DiEsposti with the check performed by Eslinger in the interest of validating positional certainty/accuracy (Eslinger, Paragraph [0010]). While the teachings of Eslinger primarily pertain to checking that data matches for the transition from a local system to a global system (rather than the reverse), this is an obvious variation; ultimately, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have understood that while the aforementioned example was disclosed, checking that any two positioning systems match prior to changeover is beneficial and obvious regardless of if the change is happening from a local positioning system to a global positioning system or the reverse. This constitutes a combination of known elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Chennichetty, in a similar field of endeavor of navigation and network systems, teaches the controller configured to perform an integrity check on LPS signals received by the LPS transceiver within the LPS coverage area using frequency, signal strength, and distance information associated with each received LPS signal and a determination of the location of the vehicle within the LPS coverage region. (Paragraph [0129-0138] and Figure [4-5, 16], Chennichetty teaches determining the position of a STA with respect to an AP, the determination analogous to an “integrity check”. As applicant has not defined an “integrity check”, the examiner considers the checking of position of the STA relative to the frequency band area to be an “integrity check”. Further, Chennichetty teaches the use of two frequency bands (2.4GHz and 5GHz) with associated coverage areas; “The first frequency band may include the 2.4 GHz band and the second frequency band may include the 5 GHz band. The first frequency band may have a coverage area represented by a first area within a circle 322. The second frequency band may have a coverage area represented by a second area within a circle 320.” Further, Chennichetty teaches that the determination includes distance determination from the AP “Using the RTT , the AP 310 may determine the distance from the AP 310 to the STA 314.” Further still, Chennichetty teaches that the strength of the signal is measured to determine if steering is effective and therefore it is “used” for the determination, “For example , after steering a STA, the steering unit 308 may measure signal strength at the STA to determine whether steering was effective.” Finally, Chennichetty teaches that “In response to determining the signal strength is less than the signal strength threshold, the AP 312 may determine a location of the STA 314 based on RTT information associated with the STA 314 and location information obtained from the AP 310.” (thus, determination of location))
DiEsposti and Chennichetty are in a similar field of endeavor of navigation and network systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of DiEsposti to include an integrity check for the benefit of improving accuracy of the detection system (Chennichetty, Paragraph [0103, 0111]). The claim merely reads as a combination of the local positioning system disclosure of DiEsposti with a generic “integrity check” that is not further utilized or reasonably impacts the performance of the local positioning system. Therefore, the claim merely recites a combination of known elements (the local positioning system disclosure of DiEsposti with the “integrity checking” of Chennichetty) according to known methods to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
In summary, the instant claim differs from DiEsposti in the explicit disclosure of confirming a match between the two positioning systems prior to changeover and integrity checks. The examiner considers the confirming of a match to be implicit and obvious (a guidance system that does not track/indicate a proper position is not especially useful) and the addition of an integrity check to be an additional well-understood, routine, and conventional element that does not alter how the inventive concept is carried out. The examiner insists that the aforementioned differences are mere obvious variants of the disclosure of DiEsposti.
Regarding claim 18: Parent claim 17 is unpatentable over DiEsposti in view of Eslinger in view of Chennichetty. DiEsposti further discloses wherein the controller is configured to determine the location of the vehicle using the satellite signals received by the GNSS receiver when the vehicle is in a GNSS coverage region. (Col [3:52-63, 4:45-53], DiEsposti discloses that TSPI data (including position) may be provided by GNSS)
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiEsposti in view of Eslinger in view of Yochum in view of Sharma.
Regarding independent claim 19: DiEsposti discloses A vehicle location determining system that uses a local positioning system (LPS), the vehicle location determining system comprising: (Col [1:50-57, 4:34-53, 5:10-21, 6:2-8], DiEsposti discloses a navigation system for a vehicle such as an aircraft using pseudolites (local positioning))
a display; (Col [17:54-62], DiEsposti discloses a display)
global positioning satellite system (GNSS) receiver to receive satellite signals from a plurality of satellites; (Col [5:22-52, 7:28-30], DiEsposti discloses a receiver configured to receive GNSS/GPS satellite/space vehicle signals from a plurality of satellites)
a local positioning system (LPS) receiver to receive LPS signals from a plurality of fixed location LPS transmitters that are positioned to form a LPS coverage region; (Col [5:53-63, 6:2-21], DiEsposti discloses that the air platform receives pseudolite data from the pseudolites)
an inertial navigation system (INS) to at least determine relative measurements given an initial reference; (Col [2:19-22, 5:30-35, 9:19-32, 10:51-67], DiEsposti discloses an INS collecting relative movement data)
a memory to store at least operating instructions, [the memory including a database that includes at least GNSS coverage regions and LPS coverage regions]; and (Col [16:29-50], DiEsposti discloses non-transitory memory storing operating instructions)
a controller in communication with the GNSS receiver, the LPS receiver, the INS, the memory, and the display, (Col [5:12-55, 6:39-44, 16:29-58, 17:54-62] and Figure [1], DiEsposti discloses a plurality of components such as on-board navigation systems, processors, memory (the combination being a “controller”), receivers, display, etc. as communicatively coupled components)
the controller configured to use the LPS signals to determine a location of the vehicle when the vehicle is within the LPS coverage region and within a GNSS denied region [once a determined LPS location position matches a determined GNSS location within an overlap region], wherein the LPS coverage region is a region that provides the LPS signals from at least four fixed location LPS transmitters, (Col [3:33-55, 6:22-44, 7:28-8:8, 13:6-18, 16:22-28], DiEsposti discloses that pseudolites (local position system) may be used when in a GPS denied area to determine TSPI information such as position. DiEsposti discloses that a plurality of ground based stations may be used to localize the vehicle within an area that is GPS-denied (thus, use of LPS when in a LPS region and in a GNSS denied region). While it is understood that, as noted above, four transmitters are used to calculate a PNT solution, DiEsposti discloses that a plurality of ground based components are used; as shown in Figure [1], three pseudolites plus one Control Monitoring and Ground Processing Station and Global Information Grid (GIG) system (also used to transmit data, and is thus a transmitter) for a total of at least four signal transmitters are disclosed)
each LPS signal from each LPS transmitter includes LPS transmitter location information and clock information used by the controller of the vehicle to determine the location of the vehicle, […] (Col [4:50-53, 7:28-8:8, 8:37-45, 13:6-46], DiEsposti discloses that both the pseudolites and (at least) the GIG transmit location and clock data, including utilizing pseudolite signals when GPS signals are not available (GNSS denied region))
DiEsposti differs from the instant claim in 1) explicit disclosure of confirming a match between the two positioning systems prior to changeover, 2) storing and displaying network coverage regions, and 3) use of the network to calibrate INS. The examiner considers these to be mere obvious variants of the disclosure of DiEsposti.
Eslinger, in a similar field of endeavor of navigation/positioning systems, teaches once a determined LPS location position matches a determined GNSS location within an overlap region (Abstract, Paragraph [0022-0023, 0061] and Figure [1], Eslinger teaches that when position data is available from both systems, the position data is compared and measured against a threshold of amount of difference. If the data differs below a threshold (thus, the data “matches”), then the system uses the local positioning system. As seen in Figure [1], the local positioning system coverage region (150) is within the global coverage region (101), and thus overlaps)
DiEsposti and Eslinger are in a similar field of endeavor of navigation/positioning systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of DiEsposti with the check performed by Eslinger in the interest of validating positional certainty/accuracy (Eslinger, Paragraph [0010]). While the teachings of Eslinger primarily pertain to checking that data matches for the transition from a local system to a global system (rather than the reverse), this is an obvious variation; ultimately, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have understood that while the aforementioned example was disclosed, checking that any two positioning systems match prior to changeover is beneficial and obvious regardless of if the change is happening from a local positioning system to a global positioning system or the reverse. This constitutes a combination of known elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Yochum, in a similar field of endeavor of navigation and network systems, teaches the controller further configured to use the location of the vehicle determined with the use of the LPS [in a GNSS denied region] to calibrate the INS, (Paragraph [0006, 0010, 0032] and Figure [1-2, 4], Yochum teaches that if GPS data becomes unreliable or unavailable, the position indication from the distance measuring equipment (DME, analogous to the local positioning system) provides compensation to the inertial reference system (IRS, the inertial navigation system) indications)
DiEsposti and Yochum are in a similar field of endeavor of navigation and network systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of DiEsposti to additionally update the inertial navigation system with local positioning system information, as taught by Yochum, as the accuracy of the inertial systems onboard aircraft (or other vehicles) degrades over time (Yochum, Paragraph [0009]), so it is known to reinforce the inertial data with GPS (or local positioning systems, in the present case) data to perform adjustment/calibration. DiEsposti explicitly discloses that GPS and INS data are fused (Col [10:51-65] of DiEsposti) but does not explicitly state that this serves the purpose to correct/alter/calibrate the inertial data. Yochum serves as a reference that shows that not only is it known in the art to correct inertial data with GPS/GNSS data, but also with local positioning system data when GPS/GNSS data is unavailable, such as in a GNSS denied region.
Sharma, in a similar field of endeavor of navigation and network systems, teaches the memory including a database that includes at least [GNSS] coverage regions and [LPS] coverage regions (Paragraph [0009-0011, 0029], Sharma teaches that a plurality of maps indicating coverage are stored in memory)
And the controller also configured to use the display to display the [GNSS] coverage regions and the [LPS] coverage regions stored in the database. (Paragraph [0009-0011, 0041, 0045] and Figure [4-6], Sharma teaches that the maps pertaining to coverage of the network are displayed for a user)
DiEsposti and Sharma are in a similar field of endeavor of navigation and network systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of DiEsposti to additionally include a storage and display element to the coverage regions, as taught by Sharma, for the benefit of providing preemptive warning to a user that they are leaving a coverage area (Paragraph [0009-0010, 0045-0046] of Sharma).
In summary, the instant claim differs from DiEsposti differs from the instant claim in 1) explicit disclosure of confirming a match between the two positioning systems prior to changeover, 2) storing and displaying network coverage regions, and 3) use of the network to calibrate INS. The examiner considers the confirming of a match to be implicit and obvious (a guidance system that does not track/indicate a proper position is not especially useful), the storage of coverage regions to be an additional element that is well-understood, routine, and conventional, and the addition of calibrating a well-known system (INS) using the positioning system to be an additional well-understood, routine, and conventional element that does not alter how the inventive concept is carried out. The examiner insists that the aforementioned differences are mere obvious variants of the disclosure of DiEsposti.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiEsposti in view of Eslinger in view of Yochum in view of Sharma in further view of Nishida.
Regarding claim 20: Parent claim 19 is unpatentable over DiEsposti in view of Yochum in further view of Sharma.
DiEsposti does not explicitly disclose a persistence timer to count the amount of time that the vehicle may not be connected to the network.
However, Nishida, in a similar field of endeavor of navigation and network systems, teaches wherein the controller is configured to track a length of time the vehicle is outside of the GNSS coverage regions and the LPS coverage regions and generate an alarm when the tracked time reaches a threshold. (Paragraph [0023, 0059, 0062, 0067] and Figure [5], Nishida teaches that if position information is not detected from the satellite navigation system (GPS), a persistence timer is initiated. If a preset time is reached, then an alert is provided)
DiEsposti and Nishida are in a similar field of endeavor of navigation and network systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of DiEsposti to additionally include a notification process after a certain period of time in order to alert a user of faulty equipment and/or abnormal reception (Paragraph [0023, 0033, 0062] of Nishida).
References
Further references that discuss prior art, but were not relied upon for creation of this office action are provided below:
#
Publication Number
Title
Inventor
Dates
Description of Relevance
1
US 6,707,424 B1
Integrated Positioning System and Method
Snyder et al.
Filed: 11 Oct 2000
Pat: 16 Mar 2004
Discusses a positioning system that utilizes both GPS and a local positioning system, the LPS used when GPS is unavailable, including a check of the system’s accuracy and integrity.
2
US 2021/0311203 A1
Satellite Relaying for Geolocation and Mitigation of GNSS Denial
Reis et al.
Filed: 26 Feb 2021
Pub: 07Oct 2021
Discusses a positioning system that utilizes both GNSS and a local positioning system, determining which to use based on a determined deviation.
3
US 2018/0025650 A1
Systems and Methods for Managing Drone Access
Taveira
Filed: 01 Sep 2017
Pub: 25 Jan 2018
Discusses a drone guidance system that falls back on a local positioning system to provide guidance when GPS is unavailable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN J BROSH whose telephone number is (571)270-0105. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1700.
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, THOMAS WORDEN can be reached at (571)272-4876. 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.
/B.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights