DETAILED ACTION
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 USC 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 USC 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 5 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd ¶ as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regard as the invention.
Claim 5 recites "identify whether the prior position fix information includes a prior location and time of the UE, wherein, to estimate the current position of the UE based on the prior position fix information from the prior GNSS positioning session, the at least one processor is configured to: estimate the current position of the UE further in response to the identified prior location and time of the UE being deleted". However, if the identified prior location/prior position fix information has been deleted, it is unclear how prior location/prior position fix information can be used to estimate the current position of the UE.
Claim 8 recites "from at least one other satellite vehicle" in the final line of p. 6. However, it is unclear what the word "other" is there to contrast with. No previous satellite vehicle has been recited in claim 1 or claim 8. Claim 9 is dependent upon claim 8.
“We note that the patent drafter is in the best position to resolve the ambiguity in the patent claims, and it is highly desirable that patent examiners demand that applicants do so in appropriate circumstances so that the patent can be amended during prosecution rather than attempting to resolve the ambiguity in litigation.”, Halliburton Energy Services Inc. v. M-I LLC., 85 USPQ2d 1654 at 1663.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7, 10-14, 17-18, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 2008/0091350 A1) in view of Soloviev (Inertial Error Propagation: Understanding Inertial Behavior), Bhatta (Global Navigation Satellite Systems: New Technologies and Applications), and Flawn (US 5,572,217 A).
In regard to claim 1, Smith discloses:
at least one memory (1915, Fig. 19) [also Central Processor, Fig. 6; ¶63, where a processor inherently includes associated memory]; and
at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory (Central Processor, Fig. 6; ¶63), the at least one processor is configured to:
detect that the UE is operating in a specified global navigation satellite system (GNSS) environment (NO output of 1906, Fig. 19; ¶47; ¶126, lines 8-9) [a GPS-denied or degraded environment]; and
estimate a current position of the UE based on prior position fix information from the prior GNSS positioning session (1911, Fig. 19; ¶118, lines 43-48; claim 15) [where an inertial navigation system propagates the previous position based on a change in position and a change in direction determined from the inertial measurements (see, e.g., the definition of "inertial navigation system" in the Academic Press Dictionary of Science and Technology)]; and
determining a heading of the UE (¶47) [where the heading is based on magnetic compass measurements].
Smith fails to disclose verifying, in response to the detection that the UE is operating in the specified GNSS environment, that a duration between a prior GNSS positioning session and a current GNSS positioning session is less than a time threshold; and the estimating being based on the duration being less than the time threshold, wherein the prior position fix information comprises a prior velocity associated with the prior GNSS positioning session and comprises a prior elevation and an azimuth of a set of satellites associated with the prior GNSS positioning session.
Soloviev teaches inertial navigation propagating a previous GNSS position and attitude/orientation where a duration between a prior GNSS positioning session and a current GNSS positioning session is less than a time threshold is verified (p. 2, final ¶ to p. 3, ¶1) [where inertial propagation is only used for a limited time because over time the position error becomes unacceptable].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to ensure that an inaccurate position is not determined and output.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that only accurate position determinations are used.
In the combination, the estimating being will be based on the duration being less than the time threshold.
Bhatta teaches estimating a position of a UE based on the prior position fix information comprises a prior velocity associated with the prior GNSS positioning session and a change in direction/orientation of the UE (p. 325, ¶1) [where Bhatta teaches multiplying a prior velocity of the UE with the duration to obtain an estimated distance, wherein the prior velocity of the UE is from the prior position fix information where the speed is the magnitude of the velocity, which in the discussed example is the previous velocity].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to be able to determine the position of the apparatus when determining the position based on inertial measurements fails.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that a position can be calculated even when positioning based on inertial measurements fails.
Flawn teaches using GNSS to determine UE heading (col. 4, line 1 to col. 5, line 18) [because magnetic compass heading measurements include inaccuracies (col. 1, lines 16-22)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include determining heading using GNSS into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the accuracy of the heading measurement by using accurate GNSS-determined heading rather than less accurate magnetic compass-determined heading.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the determined heading is more accurate.
In the combination, when inertial measurements are being used to propagate the previous GNSS measurements, the inertial-determined change in attitude/orientation/ direction is added to the previous GNSS-determined heading to get an updated heading. Thus, estimating the position of a UE is based on a prior elevation and an azimuth of a set of satellites associated with the prior GNSS positioning session.
In regard to claim 17, Smith discloses:
detecting that the UE is operating in a specified global navigation satellite system (GNSS) environment (NO output of 1906, Fig. 19; ¶126, lines 8-9) [a GPS-denied or degraded environment]; and
preserving, based on the duration being less than the time threshold, prior position fix information from the prior GNSS session; and estimating a current position of the UE based on the prior position fix information (1911, Fig. 19; ¶118, lines 43-48; claim 15) [where an inertial navigation system propagates the previous position based on a change in position and a change in direction determined from the inertial measurements (see, e.g., the definition of "inertial navigation system" in the Academic Press Dictionary of Science and Technology)]; and
determining a heading of the UE (¶47) [where the heading is based on magnetic compass measurements].
Smith fails to disclose verifying, in response to the detection that the UE is operating in the specified GNSS environment, that a duration between a prior GNSS positioning session and a current GNSS positioning session is less than a time threshold; and the estimating being based on the duration being less than the time threshold, wherein the prior position fix information comprises a prior velocity associated with the prior GNSS positioning session and comprises a prior elevation and an azimuth of a set of satellites associated with the prior GNSS positioning session.
Soloviev teaches inertial navigation propagating a previous GNSS position where a duration between a prior GNSS positioning session and a current GNSS positioning session is less than a time threshold is verified (p. 2, final ¶ to p. 3, ¶1) [where inertial propagation is only used for a limited time because over time the position error becomes unacceptable].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to ensure that an inaccurate position is not determined and output.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that only accurate position determinations are used.
In the combination, the estimating being will be based on the duration being less than the time threshold.
Bhatta teaches estimating a position of a UE based on the prior position fix information comprises a prior velocity associated with the prior GNSS positioning session and a change in direction/orientation of the UE (p. 325, ¶1) [where Bhatta teaches multiplying a prior velocity of the UE with the duration to obtain an estimated distance, wherein the prior velocity of the UE is from the prior position fix information where the speed is the magnitude of the velocity, which in the discussed example is the previous velocity].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to be able to determine the position of the apparatus when determining the position based on inertial measurements fails.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that a position can be calculated even when positioning based on inertial measurements fails.
Flawn teaches using GNSS to determine UE heading (col. 4, line 1 to col. 5, line 18) [because magnetic compass heading measurements include inaccuracies (col. 1, lines 16-22)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include determining heading using GNSS into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the accuracy of the heading measurement by using accurate GNSS-determined heading rather than less accurate magnetic compass-determined heading.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the determined heading is more accurate.
In the combination, when inertial measurements are being used to propagate the previous GNSS measurements, the inertial-determined change in attitude/orientation/ direction is added to the previous GNSS-determined heading to get an updated heading. Thus, estimating the position of a UE is based on a prior elevation and an azimuth of a set of satellites associated with the prior GNSS positioning session.
In regard to claim 20, Smith discloses:
detecting that a user equipment (UE) is operating in a specified global navigation satellite system (GNSS) environment (NO output of 1906, Fig. 19; ¶126, lines 8-9) [a GPS-denied or degraded environment];
estimating a current position of the UE based on prior position fix information from the prior GNSS session (1911, Fig. 19; ¶118, lines 43-48; claim 15) [where an inertial navigation system propagates the previous position based on a change in position and a change in direction determined from the inertial measurements (see, e.g., the definition of "inertial navigation system" in the Academic Press Dictionary of Science and Technology)]; and
determining a heading of the UE (¶47) [where the heading is based on magnetic compass measurements].
Smith fails to disclose verifying, in response to the detection that the UE is operating in the specified GNSS environment, that a duration between a prior GNSS positioning session and a current GNSS positioning session is less than a time threshold; and the estimating being based on the duration being less than the time threshold, wherein the prior position fix information comprises a prior velocity associated with the prior GNSS positioning session and comprises a prior elevation and an azimuth of a set of satellites associated with the prior GNSS positioning session.
Soloviev teaches inertial navigation propagating a previous GNSS position where a duration between a prior GNSS positioning session and a current GNSS positioning session is less than a time threshold is verified (p. 2, final ¶ to p. 3, ¶1) [where inertial propagation is only used for a limited time because over time the position error becomes unacceptable].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to ensure that an inaccurate position is not determined and output.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that only accurate position determinations are used.
In the combination, the estimating being will be based on the duration being less than the time threshold.
Bhatta teaches estimating a position of a UE based on the prior position fix information comprises a prior velocity associated with the prior GNSS positioning session and a change in direction/orientation of the UE (p. 325, ¶1) [where Bhatta teaches multiplying a prior velocity of the UE with the duration to obtain an estimated distance, wherein the prior velocity of the UE is from the prior position fix information where the speed is the magnitude of the velocity, which in the discussed example is the previous velocity].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to be able to determine the position of the apparatus when determining the position based on inertial measurements fails.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that a position can be calculated even when positioning based on inertial measurements fails.
Flawn teaches using GNSS to determine UE heading (col. 4, line 1 to col. 5, line 18) [because magnetic compass heading measurements include inaccuracies (col. 1, lines 16-22)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include determining heading using GNSS into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the accuracy of the heading measurement by using accurate GNSS-determined heading rather than less accurate magnetic compass-determined heading.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the determined heading is more accurate.
In the combination, when inertial measurements are being used to propagate the previous GNSS measurements, the inertial-determined change in attitude/orientation/ direction is added to the previous GNSS-determined heading to get an updated heading. Thus, estimating the position of a UE is based on a prior elevation and an azimuth of a set of satellites associated with the prior GNSS positioning session.
In regard to claims 2 and 18, Smith further discloses the prior position fix information includes at least one of:
a prior location of the UE (claim 15), or
a prior time in which the prior position fix information is obtained.
In regard to claim 4, Smith further discloses identifying whether there is an external position injection (EPI) (1907, Fig. 19), to estimate the current position of the UE based on the prior position fix information from the prior GNSS positioning session, the at least one processor is configured to estimate the current position of the UE further based in response to there being no identified EPI (NO output of 1907, Fig. 19).
In regard to claims 7 and 21, Flawn further teaches estimating a satellite vehicle (SV) steering [heading of the UE based on SV measurements] based on at least one of the prior elevation of the set of satellites or the azimuth of the set of satellites associated with the prior GNSS positioning session, wherein, to estimate the current position of the UE based on the prior position fix information from the prior GNSS positioning session, (col. 4, line 1 to col. 5, line 18).
In the combination, when inertial measurements are being used to propagate the previous GNSS measurements, the inertial-determined change in attitude/orientation/ direction is added to the previous GNSS-determined heading to get an updated heading. Thus, estimating the current position of a UE is based on a prior elevation and an azimuth of a set of satellites associated with the prior GNSS positioning session/estimated SV steering.
In regard to claim 10, Smith further discloses receiving an indication to initiate the current GNSS positioning session; and initiating, based on the indication, the current GNSS positioning session prior to the detection that the UE is operating in the specified GNSS environment (1903 prior to the NO output from 1906, Fig. 19).
In regard to claim 11, Smith further discloses computing a subsequent position of the UE based on a set of subsequently available satellites and without using the prior position fix information in response to at least one of:
a horizontal speed of the UE is above a speed threshold,
at least one external position injection (EPI) is available,
a previous location and time of the UE is available, or
at least four satellites are available for GNSS-based positioning (YES output of 1906, Fig. 19 resulting in 1911 not occurring).
In regard to claim 12, Smith further discloses detecting at least one of:
receptions of GNSS signals from a set of satellites being below a reception threshold, or
a number of satellites available for GNSS-based positioning being less than four (¶69; ¶78; ¶118, lines 23-28).
In regard to claim 13, Smith further discloses outputting an indication of the estimated current position of the UE (1914, Fig. 19).
In regard to claim 14, Smith further discloses:
transmitting the indication of the estimated current position of the UE; or
storing the indication of the estimated current position of the UE (1914, 1915, Fig. 19).
In regard to claim 15, the Office takes Official Notice that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it well known before the effective filing date of the invention for a UE to comprise a transceiver to transmit an indication of the estimated current position of the UE.
Claim(s) 3 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, Soloviev, Bhatta, and Flawn, as applied to claims 1 and 17, above, and further in view of Ono (US 2004/0267840 A1) and Matsushita (JP 2014167460 A).
In regard to claim 3, the combination fails to teach e identifying whether a horizontal speed of the UE is within a defined range between zero and a threshold value, wherein, to estimate the current position of the UE based on the prior position fix information from the prior GNSS positioning session, the at least one processor is configured to estimate the current position of the UE based on the prior position fix information further in response to the identified horizontal speed of the UE being within the defined range.
Ono teaches performing positioning differently based on the application/state, including a walking state (Fig. 7), in order to increase the accuracy of the determined position (¶45; ¶85-86), where positioning in the walking state includes averaging the last three positions [when at least three position have been determined (Fig. 5)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the accuracy of the determined position.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the accuracy of the determined position is improved.
In the combination, when the prior position was determined by GNSS positioning and the current position is determined by using inertial navigation system measurements to propagate the prior GNSS position, the average is based on the prior position fix (from both the raw prior position fix and the prior position fix that was added to the inertial change in position at the current time].
Matsushita teaches identifying whether a horizontal speed of the UE is within a defined range [in order to determine a walking state] (abstract, lines 7-8; p. 17, ¶3, lines 5-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to determine when the apparatus is in a walking state in order to determine whether to implement the walking state positioning method of Matsushita.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the state of the apparatus (e.g. a walking state) is determined.
In the combination, the estimation of the current position of the UE is based on the apparatus being in a walking state which is based on the horizontal speed of the UE being within the defined range.
Ono further teaches a walking speed range is between zero and a threshold value (Fig. 7; Fig. 10) [where a walking speed in S22 corresponds to a low speed in S62, where the walking speed is in contrast with being at rest/at halt in S62, so it is above zero, and it is below a high speed in S62, so there is a threshold between low speed and high speed].
In regard to claim 19, Smith further discloses identifying whether there is an external position injection (EPI) (1907, Fig. 19), wherein the estimation of the current position of the UE is further based on there being no EPI (NO output of 1907, Fig. 19).
Smith fails to disclose identifying whether a horizontal speed of the UE is within a defined range between zero and a threshold value, wherein, to estimate the current position of the UE based on the prior position fix information from the prior GNSS positioning session, the at least one processor is configured to estimate the current position of the UE based on the prior position fix information further in response to the identified horizontal speed of the UE being within the defined range.
Ono teaches performing positioning differently based on the application/state, including a walking state (Fig. 7), in order to increase the accuracy of the determined position (¶45; ¶85-86), where positioning in the walking state includes averaging the last three positions [when at least three position have been determined (Fig. 5)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the accuracy of the determined position.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the accuracy of the determined position is improved.
In the combination, when the prior position was determined by GNSS positioning and the current position is determined by using inertial navigation system measurements to propagate the prior GNSS position, the average is based on the prior position fix (from both the raw prior position fix and the prior position fix that was added to the inertial change in position at the current time].
Matsushita teaches identifying whether a horizontal speed of the UE is within a defined range [in order to determine a walking state] (abstract, lines 7-8; p. 17, ¶3, lines 5-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to determine when the apparatus is in a walking state in order to determine whether to implement the walking state positioning method of Matsushita.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the state of the apparatus (e.g. a walking state) is determined.
In the combination, the estimation of the current position of the UE is based on the apparatus being in a walking state which is based on the horizontal speed of the UE being within the defined range.
Ono further teaches a walking speed range is between zero and a threshold value (Fig. 7; Fig. 10) [where a walking speed in S22 corresponds to a low speed in S62, where the walking speed is in contrast with being at rest/at halt in S62, so it is above zero, and it is below a high speed in S62, so there is a threshold between low speed and high speed].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, Soloviev, Bhatta, and Flawn, as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Fraker (US 5,919,239 A).
Smith further teaches using the apparatus for military training and testing (¶56).
The combination fails to teach identifying whether the prior position fix information includes a prior location and time of the UE, wherein, to estimate the current position of the UE based on the prior position fix information from the prior GNSS positioning session, the at least one processor is configured to: estimate the current position of the UE further in response to the identified prior location and time of the UE being deleted.
Fraker teaches a UE that logs a location and time of the UE (Fig. 3; col. 2, lines 19-37), including initializing the logging by the prior location and time of the UE being deleted (236, Fig. 3; 520 to 522, Fig. 7A; col. 15, lines 38-42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to record position and time information for training purposes. In the combination, the particular position and time logging being used includes deleting old position and time data when a new mission is initiated.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that position and corresponding time are logged, and that old position and corresponding time data are deleted when a new logging session is initiated.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, Soloviev, Bhatta, and Flawn, as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Sun (US 2015/0142309 A1).
Smith further teaches, if determining a position based on inertial measurements fails, and error message is sent (1911 to 1912, Fig. 19).
Bhatta further teaches multiplying a previous velocity of the UE with the duration to obtain an estimated distance, wherein the previous velocity of the UE is from the prior position fix information (p. 325, ¶1) [where the speed is the magnitude of the velocity, which in the discussed example is the previous velocity].
The combination fails to teach multiplying a previous velocity of the UE with the duration to obtain an estimated distance, wherein the previous velocity of the UE is from the prior position fix information; computing a horizontal error position estimate (HEPE) based on the estimated distance; and computing the current position of the UE based on the computed HEPE.
Sun teaches computing a horizontal error position estimate (HEPE) based on an estimated distance corresponding to a duration (230, Fig. 2; ¶5-6; ¶43-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to determine the error of the dead reckoning position in order to determine when the error is small enough for the position to be used and when the position becomes too inaccurate to use.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the error of the dead reckoning propagated position is known.
In the combination the HEPE estimate is determined from the dead-reckoning distance, and the current position of the UE is based on the computed HEPE in that the position calculated by propagating the previous position and time based on dead reckoning combined with the HEPE gives the area in which the position of the UE is expected to be.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, Soloviev, Bhatta, and Flawn, as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Peeters (US 2011/0032148 A1) and Ishii (US 2005/0135194 A1).
Smith further discloses identifying a number of satellites tracked, and whether the number of satellites tracked is less than a reception threshold of four (¶69; ¶78; ¶118, lines 23-28).
The combination fails to teach generating, based on the number of satellites tracked being less than the reception threshold, a list of satellites by performing a time transfer from at least one other satellite vehicle (SV) for which SV millisecond is decoded, wherein, to estimate the current position of the UE based on the prior position fix information from the prior GNSS positioning session, the at least one processor is configured to: estimate the current position of the UE further based on the generated list of satellites.
Peeters teaches generating a list of satellites, wherein the estimation of the current position of the UE is further based on the list of satellites (¶5) [where almanac is used to determine which satellites are present at a particular time so that those satellites can be searched for and, if possible, acquired and used in positioning].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow subsequent satellites to be acquired after a first satellite has been received by use of the almanac data from the first satellite, such that a sufficient number of satellites for positioning can be received.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that a GNSS position is helped to be determined/helped to be determined faster using almanac data.
Ishii teaches performing a time transfer from at least one satellite vehicle in the number of satellites (¶22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide the UE a more accurate time measurement
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the time used by the UE is more accurate.
In in the combination, the UE has a more accurate time to use with the almanac data (i.e. time is an input into the almanac model, which outputs satellites positions corresponding to that time) to determine more accurate positions of GNSS satellites to allow acquisition of the GNSS satellites and thus GNSS positioning to occur.
The Office takes Official Notice that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it well known before the effective filing date of the invention that both (i) the code offset and the Doppler offset must have been acquired (tracking) and (ii) the code integer must have been determined (millisecond decode) for a satellite for that satellite to be usable for positioning. Thus, if the number of satellites that meet both (i) and (ii) is less than four, the number of usable satellites is less than four.
The following reference(s) is/are also found relevant:
Academic Press Dictionary of Science and Technology (inertial navigation system), which teaches that an inertial navigation system measures changes in velocity and direction in order to determine a change in position, which added to a starting position, provides a new position.
Landry (Inertial Navigation Systems: The Physics behind Personnel Tracking and the ExacTrak System), which teaches that an inertial navigation system measures changes in degrees of rotation/direction/attitude (p. 4, col. 1).
Parkinson (Global Positioning System: Theory and Applications, Volume I), which teaches using four satellites for determining a GPS fix in order to solve for four unknowns, the latitude, longitude, attitude, and a correction to the user's clock (p. 10).
Steed (Network Graphics), which teaches the Basic Dead Reckoning equation (p. 371, section 11.7.1).
Yoo (US 2018/0073892 A1), which teaches estimating a steering of a UE based on at least one of elevation of a set of satellites or azimuth of the set of satellites from the prior position fix information (¶46-53).
Jarvis (US 2013/0002478 A1) teaches several methods of determining a code integer/millisecond decode (¶13-17) and determining a code integer/millisecond decode when no approximate position is available (¶110).
Bacelon (US 5,923,294 A), which teaches a UE transmitting the UE's current position using a transceiver (5A, Fig. 1; col. 2, lines 41-43 and 51-54; col. 3, lines 43-50).
Applicant is encouraged to consider these documents in formulating their response (if one is required) to this Office Action, in order to expedite prosecution of this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on p. 12, with respect to the objection(s), have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection(s) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments on p. 12, with respect to the 35 USC 101 and 112 rejection(s) and double patenting rejection, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection(s) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments on p. 13-15, with respect to the prior art rejection(s) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
507
1088
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, an inertial navigation system (INS) provides a relative position that is added to a previous absolute position to get a current absolute position. Fig. 19 explicitly shows that the positioning process iterates (1916, Fig. 19). Thus, when at the prior iteration the GPS fix was ok and a GPS position was determined (YES result of 1906, Fig. 19), and when at a current iteration the INS is used to propagate the prior position (YES result of 1911, Fig. 19), the current position is estimated based on the prior position fix information from the prior GNSS session.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image2.png
220
1078
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, it is noted that Smith was not cited as teaching the duration being less than the time threshold in the previous rejection, but instead Soloviev was. Smith was not cited as teaching the use of a prior velocity in the previous rejection, but instead Bhatta was. Smith was not cited as teaching the use of a prior elevation and azimuth in the previous rejection, but instead Flawn was. Thus, applicant's argument is moot.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image3.png
274
1070
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
128
1068
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, the previous rejection explicitly points to where Soloviev teaches the duration being less than a limited time period/threshold. Soloviev was not cited as teaching the use of a prior velocity in the previous rejection, but instead Bhatta was. Soloviev was not cited as teaching the use of a prior elevation and azimuth in the previous rejection, but instead Flawn was.
Since applicant has not traversed the Official Notice taken by the Office, the well-known in the art statements outlined in the Official Notice are taken to be admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03(C), ¶2.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment of 6-5-2026 necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action, e.g., claim(s) 1 was/were amended, necessitating the new grounds of rejection. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fred H. Mull whose telephone number is 571-272-6975. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from approximately 9-5:30 Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 https://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Resha Desai, can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
Fred H. Mull
Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/F. H. M./
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights