Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner’s Note
For applicant’s benefit, portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) See MPEP 2123.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 25 January, 2024 and 24 April, 2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 13-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) are directed to a method and recite(s) judicial exceptions as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis below. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis below. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as explained in the Step 2B analysis below.
Claim 1:
A method for providing a GNSS future coverage map, the method comprising: receiving worksite geography data associated with a worksite and satellite ephemeris data associated with a future time period; determining, based at least in part on the worksite geography data and the satellite ephemeris data associated with the future time period, GNSS coverage of the worksite throughout the future time period; generating a future coverage map representing the GNSS coverage of the worksite throughout the future time period; and causing a graphical user interface (GUI) to display the future coverage map.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 1 recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. Claim 16 recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. Claim 20 recites an apparatus, and therefore, is a machine/ manufacture. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes)?
Yes. The claim recites the limitations of:
“determining, based at least in part on the worksite geography data and the satellite ephemeris data associated with the future time period, GNSS coverage of the worksite throughout the future time period;
generating a future coverage map representing the GNSS coverage of the worksite throughout the future time period”
Each of these limitations, as drafted, is an observation or evaluation based on the obtained information and the information stored. These observations or evaluations are acts that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically performed in the human mind and/or a general-purpose computer as indicated in Applicant’s specification, and are simply mathematical manipulation of data. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Under the 2019 Guidance, concepts performed in the human mind, even with the aid of pen and paper, and concepts merely using a computer as a tool, fall within the “mental processes” grouping. Claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). Examples of claims that recite mental processes include:
• a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
• a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
The claim does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The recitation of the limitation(s) of, “receiving worksite geography data associated with a worksite and satellite ephemeris data associated with a future time period” amounts to mere data gathering, and is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The limitation(s) of “causing a graphical user interface (GUI) to display the future coverage map” represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer, and can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. Simply implementing the abstract ideas on generic tools is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
Step 2 considers whether the claim provides limitations which amount to “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 1. For example, the use of the “receiving worksite geography data associated with a worksite and satellite ephemeris data associated with a future time period” fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than the steps that would be considered well understood, routine and conventional in the field to gather data. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. Similarly, as explained with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, limitation(s) “causing a graphical user interface (GUI) to display the future coverage map” is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The limitation(s) is just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, and displaying data is also well-known. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually.
The Applicant’s disclosure discloses a generic computer/ processor, which is used for implementation of the abstract idea. It is important to note that a general-purpose circuitry that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The application of the abstract idea using generic components does not transform the claim into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea.
Applicant’s disclosure does not provide evidence that the additional element(s) recited in claim 1 (i.e., the claim element(s) in addition to the abstract idea) is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This issue is explained by the Federal Circuit, as follows:
It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention “significantly more” than that ineligible concept. In Alice, the Supreme Court held that claims directed to a computer-implemented scheme for mitigating settlement risks claimed a patent-ineligible abstract idea. 134 S.Ct. at 2352, 2355—56. Some of the claims at issue covered computer systems configured to mitigate risks through various financial transactions. Id. After determining that those claims were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, the Court considered whether the recitation of a generic computer added “significantly more” to the claims. Id. at 2357. Critically, the Court did not consider whether it was well-understood, routine, and conventional to execute the claimed intermediated settlement method on a generic computer. Instead, the Court only assessed whether the claim limitations other than the invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it was directed were well-understood, routine and conventional. Id. at 2359-60. BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (2018) (emphases added).
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Independent claim(s) 16 and 20 will not be evaluated separately because the claim(s) contain the same defects as those noted for claim 1 above.
Dependent claim(s) 2-3, 6-9, 13-15, and 18-19 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent-eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically, the claims only recite limitations further defining the mental process and recite further data gathering and the mathematical manipulation of the gathered data. These limitations are considered mental process steps and additional steps that amount to necessary data gathering or data output. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on the claimed invention. As such, the additional elements individually and in combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 1-3, 6-9, 13-16, and 18-20 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 8, 14-15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Driscoll et al. (US 2016/0280401 A1 “DRISCOLL”), in view of Behara et al. (US 2013/0138338 A1 “BEHARA”).
Regarding claim 1, DRISCOLL discloses (Examiner’s note: What DRISCOLL does not disclose is ) a method for providing a GNSS future coverage map, the method comprising:
receiving worksite geography data associated with a worksite and satellite ephemeris data associated with a future time period (a GNSS modeling system 102 that uses a three-dimensional map 112 containing buildings 114 with satellite ephemeris data [0035]); (the satellite ephemeris data can include information about satellite location (current and/or predicted), timing and satellite health [0029])
determining, based at least in part on the worksite geography data and the satellite ephemeris data associated with the future time period, GNSS coverage of the worksite throughout the future time period (a GNSS modeling system 102 that uses a three-dimensional map 112 containing buildings 114 with satellite ephemeris data to predict GNSS coverage of a spacetime location 122 [0035]); (transmission quality predictions can include a determination of which satellites are predicted to be available at any spacetime location along the route [0043])
generating a future coverage map representing the GNSS coverage of the worksite throughout the future time period (a GNSS modeling system can create a time dependent coverage map 212 [0041]); (the predictions can be made into a time dependent coverage map, allowing users to get coverage information for any desired spacetime location [0047])
DRISCOLL further discloses that a user can interact with the computing system 1100 though user interface devices 1118 and a rendering system 1104 that allows the computer to receive and provide feedback to the user [0072]. However, DRISCOLL does not explicitly disclose causing a graphical user interface (GUI) to display the future coverage map.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, BEHARA teaches that the user interface 210 could be implemented as a GUI rendered on the display element 206 [0030]. The display element 206 is realized as an electronic display configured to graphically display flight information, geographic map information, RAIM outage regions, or other data associated with operation of the host aircraft under control of the graphics system 208 [0029]. A "RAIM outage" refers to an actual or predicted loss of GPS navigation coverage, or an actual or predicted degradation in GPS navigation coverage [0020]. The lateral map includes graphical representations of various elements, such as, without limitation: a geographic map that is refreshed to accurately reflect the current geographic position of the aircraft; one or more RAIM outage regions; the flight plan; geographic boundaries; photographic or synthetic terrain; etc. [0035].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of DRISCOLL to include the teachings of BEHARA, because doing so would provide visual information in an intuitive and easy to understand manner. In addition, it is desirable to deploy such a display system onboard the aircraft such that RAIM prediction can be achieved continuously during flight, as recognized by BEHARA.
Regarding claim 4, DRISCOLL/ BEHARA discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising causing the GUI to display the future coverage map in a moving image format showing changes in the GNSS coverage of the worksite throughout the future time period.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, BEHARA teaches that the location and duration of these outages can be predicted with the aid of computer analysis tools, and can be displayed on a cockpit display element, such as a dynamic moving lateral map (which may be provided as part of a multifunction navigation display). The display of RAIM outages in conjunction with a lateral map is useful for purposes of pre-flight planning. Moreover, RAIM outage prediction can be performed in real-time during flight to further help the pilot in deciding whether or not to fly a given course, or to switch to a different mode of navigation in the event of a predicted RAIM outage [0021].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of DRISCOLL to include the teachings of BEHARA, because the display of predicted RAIM outages graphically over a navigation map will help the flight crew during pre-flight planning, during the flight, and during approach. The graphical representation of RAIM outage regions on a moving lateral map provides the flight crew with RAIM outage information in a non-numeric and intuitive manner, as recognized by BEHARA.
Regarding claim 5, DRISCOLL/ BEHARA discloses the method of claim 1,
BEHARA teaches that the display system will render graphical representations of RAIM outage regions with visually distinguishable characteristics. The different visually distinguishable characteristics may correspond to any of the following characteristics, individually or in any combination thereof: different colors; different brightness; different transparency levels; different translucency levels; different line patterns; different line thickness; different fill pattern shapes; different flicker patterns; different focus levels; different sharpness levels; and different clarity levels [0043].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of DRISCOLL to include the teachings of BEHARA, because the use of different visual characteristics enables the pilot and flight crew to quickly and intuitively determine regions representing outages, as recognized by BEHARA.
Regarding claim 8, DRISCOLL/ BEHARA discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising generating a coverage analytic based at least in part on the future coverage map and causing the GUI to display the coverage analytic (satellites 106, 108 and 110 are modeled to provide transmissions 116, 118 and 120 to the spacetime location 122. Transmissions 118 and 120 are predicted to have a high transmission quality (shown by solid lines), while transmission 116 is predicted to be blocked by a building 114 and become a low quality transmission (shown by the dashed line) [DRISCOLL 0036]); (the display element 206 is realized as an electronic display configured to graphically display flight information, geographic map information, RAIM outage regions, or other data associated with operation of the host aircraft under control of the graphics system 208 [BEHARA 0029]. A "RAIM outage" refers to an actual or predicted loss of GPS navigation coverage, or an actual or predicted degradation in GPS navigation coverage [BEHARA 0020], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 14, DRISCOLL/ BEHARA discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the worksite geography data includes a three-dimensional model of the worksite (the GNSS modeling system 102 can create a model 103 of an environment using a three-dimensional map 112 (such as those created by light detection and ranging (LIDAR) or other methods) [DRISCOLL 0035], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 15, DRISCOLL/ BEHARA discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the worksite geography data includes point cloud data representing the worksite (the GNSS modeling system 102 can create a model 103 of an environment using a three-dimensional map 112 (such as those created by light detection and ranging (LIDAR) or other methods) [DRISCOLL 0035], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 20, DRISCOLL discloses a system for providing a GNSS future coverage map, the system comprising at least one processor operative to:
receive worksite geography data associated with a worksite and satellite ephemeris data associated with a future time period (a GNSS modeling system 102 that uses a three-dimensional map 112 containing buildings 114 with satellite ephemeris data [0035]); (the satellite ephemeris data can include information about satellite location (current and/or predicted), timing and satellite health [0029])
determine, based at least in part on the worksite geography data and the satellite ephemeris data associated with the future time period, GNSS coverage of the worksite throughout the future time period (a GNSS modeling system 102 that uses a three-dimensional map 112 containing buildings 114 with satellite ephemeris data to predict GNSS coverage of a spacetime location 122 [0035]); (transmission quality predictions can include a determination of which satellites are predicted to be available at any spacetime location along the route [0043])
generate a future coverage map representing the GNSS coverage of the worksite throughout the future time period (a GNSS modeling system can create a time dependent coverage map 212 [0041]); (the predictions can be made into a time dependent coverage map, allowing users to get coverage information for any desired spacetime location [0047])
DRISCOLL further discloses that a user can interact with the computing system 1100 though user interface devices 1118 and a rendering system 1104 that allows the computer to receive and provide feedback to the user [0072]. However, DRISCOLL does not explicitly disclose causing a graphical user interface (GUI) to display the future coverage map.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, BEHARA teaches that the user interface 210 could be implemented as a GUI rendered on the display element 206 [0030]. The display element 206 is realized as an electronic display configured to graphically display flight information, geographic map information, RAIM outage regions, or other data associated with operation of the host aircraft under control of the graphics system 208 [0029]. A "RAIM outage" refers to an actual or predicted loss of GPS navigation coverage, or an actual or predicted degradation in GPS navigation coverage [0020].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of DRISCOLL to include the teachings of BEHARA, because doing so would provide visual information in an intuitive and easy to understand manner. In addition, it is desirable to deploy such a display system onboard the aircraft such that RAIM prediction can be achieved continuously during flight, as recognized by BEHARA.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DRISCOLL, in view of BEHARA, and further in view of Bennington et al. (US 2022/0018972 A1 “BENNINGTON”).
Regarding claim 2, DRISCOLL/ BEHARA discloses the method of claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, BENNINGTON teaches that scheduler service 354 can also schedule the running of orbit prediction runner 322 to cache a new 24-hour orbit in advance [0085].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of DRISCOLL to include the teachings of BENNINGTON, because doing so would forecast and plan a path with GNSS signals available over the path that satisfy predetermined criteria including accommodating real-time changes in flight paths, as recognized by BENNINGTON.
Regarding claim 3, DRISCOLL/ BEHARA discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the future time period includes a total duration of one week or more.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, BENNINGTON teaches that the GNSS Forecast Engine creates GNSS Forecasts on a periodic basis for different regions. The entire forecast period (14 days) [0289].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of DRISCOLL to include the teachings of BENNINGTON, because doing so would enable a client to request a forecast from anywhere in the world and receive a result with minimal delay, as recognized by BENNINGTON.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DRISCOLL, in view of BEHARA, and further in view of Gunning et al. (US 2021/0263164 A1 “GUNNING”).
Regarding claim 6, DRISCOLL/ BEHARA discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: generating a first version of the future coverage map based on a first set of GNSS satellites 106, 108 and 110 are modeled to provide transmissions 116, 118 and 120 to the spacetime location 122. Transmissions 118 and 120 are predicted to have a high transmission quality (shown by solid lines), while transmission 116 is predicted to be blocked by a building 114 and become a low quality transmission (shown by the dashed line) [DRISCOLL 0036]).
In a same or similar field of endeavor, GUNNING teaches that a first constellation configuration plan 1515 can have a more favorable cost than a second constellation configuration plan 1515 based on: the first constellation configuration plan 1515 having a lower and/or otherwise more favorable number of orbital planes than the first constellation configuration plan 1515; the total number of satellites of the first constellation configuration plan 1515 being lower than and/or otherwise more favorable than the total number of satellites of the second constellation configuration plan 1515; etc. [0449]. The visual depiction of coverage level data 1525.1 of FIG. 15F and/or FIG. 15G can optionally be automatically generated by the at least one processing system implementing the constellation coverage analysis 1510. The visual depiction of coverage level data 1525.1 of FIG. 15F and/or FIG. 15G can be displayed via a display device based on being sent to a corresponding client device for display by the at least one processor, and/or at least one corresponding network interface, that implements the constellation coverage analysis 1510 [0491].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of DRISCOLL to include the teachings of GUNNING, because doing so would ensure that the cost and/or coverage level of the satellite constellation are favorable, as recognized by GUNNING.
Regarding claim 7, DRISCOLL/ BEHARA discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: generating a first version of the future coverage map based on a first set of GNSS coverage map throughout the future time period; and causing the GUI to display the quality difference between the first total GNSS quality and the second total GNSS quality (satellites 106, 108 and 110 are modeled to provide transmissions 116, 118 and 120 to the spacetime location 122. Transmissions 118 and 120 are predicted to have a high transmission quality (shown by solid lines), while transmission 116 is predicted to be blocked by a building 114 and become a low quality transmission (shown by the dashed line) [DRISCOLL 0036]).
In a same or similar field of endeavor, GUNNING teaches that a first constellation configuration plan 1515 can have a more favorable cost than a second constellation configuration plan 1515 based on: the first constellation configuration plan 1515 having a lower and/or otherwise more favorable number of orbital planes than the first constellation configuration plan 1515; the total number of satellites of the first constellation configuration plan 1515 being lower than and/or otherwise more favorable than the total number of satellites of the second constellation configuration plan 1515; etc. [0449]. The visual depiction of coverage level data 1525.1 of FIG. 15F and/or FIG. 15G can optionally be automatically generated by the at least one processing system implementing the constellation coverage analysis 1510. The visual depiction of coverage level data 1525.1 of FIG. 15F and/or FIG. 15G can be displayed via a display device based on being sent to a corresponding client device for display by the at least one processor, and/or at least one corresponding network interface, that implements the constellation coverage analysis 1510 [0491].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of DRISCOLL to include the teachings of GUNNING, because doing so would ensure that the cost and/or coverage level of the satellite constellation are favorable, as recognized by GUNNING.
Claim(s) 9-12, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DRISCOLL, in view of BEHARA, and further in view of Crane et al. (US 2009/0112510 A1 “CRANE”).
Regarding claim 9, DRISCOLL/ BEHARA discloses the method of claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, CRANE teaches that by using an established algorithm, the difference between the known elevation on the base devices 9 and the elevation of the base device 9 as determined by the GPS signal is calculated. This calculated elevation difference is applied to the elevations of the rover devices 7 calculated by the GPS signal [0029].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of DRISCOLL to include the teachings of CRANE, because doing so would allow the on-vessel rover devices to be able to correct their positional elevation and this also provides the operator with a real time error coefficient during the loading process, as recognized by CRANE.
Regarding claim 10, DRISCOLL/ BEHARA/ CRANE discloses the method of claim 9, wherein determining the elevation offset comprises: receiving satellite ephemeris data associated with a historical time period (the navigation control system 504 can retrieve satellite ephemeris data from satellite data storage 532 (and/or from satellite signals received through the GNSS receiver 506) [DRISCOLL 0053]); determining, based at least in part on the worksite geography data and the satellite ephemeris data associated with the historical time period, GNSS coverage of the worksite throughout the historical time period (a GNSS modeling system 102 that uses a three-dimensional map 112 containing buildings 114 with satellite ephemeris data to predict GNSS coverage of a spacetime location 122 [DRISCOLL 0035]); receiving the ground-truth GNSS data, wherein the ground truth GNSS data corresponds to the historical time period (the navigation control system 504 can retrieve a three-dimensional map from map storage 530 [DRISCOLL 0053]); and comparing the GNSS coverage of the worksite throughout the historical time period to the ground-truth GNSS data (the navigation control system 504 can communicate with the GNSS receiver 506 to compare received GNSS signals (over an antenna 508) to predicted GNSS signals. The navigation control system 504 can use these anomalies to determine unmodeled obstructions, spoofing or jamming, and/or to make decisions on navigation [DRISCOLL 0058]).
Regarding claim 11, DRISCOLL/ BEHARA/ CRANE discloses the method of claim 9,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, CRANE teaches that each fixed base device 9 is further in operative communication with the central computer system 22 to allow communication back to the computer 22 through a transceiver for GPS coordinates [0027].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of DRISCOLL to include the teachings of CRANE, because doing so would allow the on-vessel rover devices to be able to correct their positional elevation and this also provides the operator with a real time error coefficient during the loading process, as recognized by CRANE.
Regarding claim 12, DRISCOLL/ BEHARA/ CRANE discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the ground-truth GNSS data is generated by a mobile machine located within the worksite (a mobile GNSS receiver [DRISCOLL 0019]).
Regarding claim 16, DRISCOLL discloses a method for providing a GNSS future coverage map, the method comprising:
receiving worksite geography data associated with a worksite and satellite ephemeris data associated with a future time period (a GNSS modeling system 102 that uses a three-dimensional map 112 containing buildings 114 with satellite ephemeris data [0035]); (the satellite ephemeris data can include information about satellite location (current and/or predicted), timing and satellite health [0029])
determining, based at least in part on the worksite geography data and the satellite ephemeris data associated with the future time period, GNSS coverage of the worksite throughout the future time period (a GNSS modeling system 102 that uses a three-dimensional map 112 containing buildings 114 with satellite ephemeris data to predict GNSS coverage of a spacetime location 122 [0035]); (transmission quality predictions can include a determination of which satellites are predicted to be available at any spacetime location along the route [0043])
generating, based at least in part on the GNSS coverage of the worksite throughout the future time period throughout the future time period (a GNSS modeling system can create a time dependent coverage map 212 [0041]); (the predictions can be made into a time dependent coverage map, allowing users to get coverage information for any desired spacetime location [0047])
DRISCOLL further discloses that a user can interact with the computing system 1100 though user interface devices 1118 and a rendering system 1104 that allows the computer to receive and provide feedback to the user [0072]. However, DRISCOLL does not explicitly disclose causing a graphical user interface (GUI) to display the future coverage map.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, BEHARA teaches that the user interface 210 could be implemented as a GUI rendered on the display element 206 [0030]. The display element 206 is realized as an electronic display configured to graphically display flight information, geographic map information, RAIM outage regions, or other data associated with operation of the host aircraft under control of the graphics system 208 [0029]. A "RAIM outage" refers to an actual or predicted loss of GPS navigation coverage, or an actual or predicted degradation in GPS navigation coverage [0020].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of DRISCOLL to include the teachings of BEHARA, because doing so would provide visual information in an intuitive and easy to understand manner. In addition, it is desirable to deploy such a display system onboard the aircraft such that RAIM prediction can be achieved continuously during flight, as recognized by BEHARA.
DRISCOLL, as modified by BEHARA, discloses the invention as set forth above, but does not disclose determining, based at least in part on ground-truth GNSS data associated with the worksite, an elevation offset associated with the worksite.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, CRANE teaches that by using an established algorithm, the difference between the known elevation on the base devices 9 and the elevation of the base device 9 as determined by the GPS signal is calculated. This calculated elevation difference is applied to the elevations of the rover devices 7 calculated by the GPS signal [0029].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of DRISCOLL to include the teachings of CRANE, because doing so would allow the on-vessel rover devices to be able to correct their positional elevation and this also provides the operator with a real time error coefficient during the loading process, as recognized by CRANE.
Regarding claim 17, DRISCOLL/ BEHARA/ CRANE discloses the method of claim 16, wherein determining the elevation offset associated with the worksite further comprises: receiving satellite ephemeris data associated with a historical time period (the navigation control system 504 can retrieve satellite ephemeris data from satellite data storage 532 (and/or from satellite signals received through the GNSS receiver 506) [DRISCOLL 0053]); determining, based at least in part on the worksite geography data and the satellite ephemeris data associated with the historical time period, GNSS coverage of the worksite throughout the historical time period (a GNSS modeling system 102 that uses a three-dimensional map 112 containing buildings 114 with satellite ephemeris data to predict GNSS coverage of a spacetime location 122 [DRISCOLL 0035]); receiving the ground-truth GNSS data, wherein the ground truth GNSS data corresponds to the historical time period (the navigation control system 504 can retrieve a three-dimensional map from map storage 530 [DRISCOLL 0053]); and comparing the GNSS coverage of the worksite throughout the historical time period to the ground-truth GNSS data (the navigation control system 504 can communicate with the GNSS receiver 506 to compare received GNSS signals (over an antenna 508) to predicted GNSS signals. The navigation control system 504 can use these anomalies to determine unmodeled obstructions, spoofing or jamming, and/or to make decisions on navigation [DRISCOLL 0058]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DRISCOLL, in view of BEHARA, and further in view of Abad et al. (US 2024/0324044 A1 “ABAD”).
Regarding claim 13, DRISCOLL/ BEHARA discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving operational plan data associated with the worksite (the lateral map includes graphical representations of various elements such as: a geographic map that is refreshed to accurately reflect the current geographic position of the aircraft; one or more RAIM outage regions; the flight plan; etc. [BEHARA 0035]);
In a same or similar field of endeavor, ABAD teaches that the coverage map could contain so called coverage holes, i.e. areas in the coverage map in which no, or hardly any, UE is supposedly to have an active connection to the telecommunication network [0020]. The network may already have constructed the map based on the information obtained from multiple UEs and stored it in a repository. The network could periodically obtain (location, signal strength, timestamp) information and combine this information with the coverage map to estimate the duration of stay in the coverage hole [0086].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of DRISCOLL to include the teachings of ABAD, because the network would use this information to identify the best course of action to ensure that the connection is not lost, as recognized by ABAD.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DRISCOLL, in view of BEHARA and CRANE, and further in view of GUNNING.
Regarding claim 18, DRISCOLL/ BEHARA/ CRANE discloses the method of claim 16, further comprising: generating a first version of the future coverage map based on a first set of GNSS satellites 106, 108 and 110 are modeled to provide transmissions 116, 118 and 120 to the spacetime location 122. Transmissions 118 and 120 are predicted to have a high transmission quality (shown by solid lines), while transmission 116 is predicted to be blocked by a building 114 and become a low quality transmission (shown by the dashed line) [DRISCOLL 0036]).
In a same or similar field of endeavor, GUNNING teaches that a first constellation configuration plan 1515 can have a more favorable cost than a second constellation configuration plan 1515 based on: the first constellation configuration plan 1515 having a lower and/or otherwise more favorable number of orbital planes than the first constellation configuration plan 1515; the total number of satellites of the first constellation configuration plan 1515 being lower than and/or otherwise more favorable than the total number of satellites of the second constellation configuration plan 1515; etc. [0449]. The visual depiction of coverage level data 1525.1 of FIG. 15F and/or FIG. 15G can optionally be automatically generated by the at least one processing system implementing the constellation coverage analysis 1510. The visual depiction of coverage level data 1525.1 of FIG. 15F and/or FIG. 15G can be displayed via a display device based on being sent to a corresponding client device for display by the at least one processor, and/or at least one corresponding network interface, that implements the constellation coverage analysis 1510 [0491].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of DRISCOLL to include the teachings of GUNNING, because doing so would ensure that the cost and/or coverage level of the satellite constellation are favorable, as recognized by GUNNING.
Regarding claim 19, DRISCOLL/ BEHARA/ CRANE/ GUNNING discloses the method of claim 18,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, CRANE teaches that each fixed base device 9 is further in operative communication with the central computer system 22 to allow communication back to the computer 22 through a transceiver for GPS coordinates [0027].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of DRISCOLL to include the teachings of CRANE, because doing so would allow the on-vessel rover devices to be able to correct their positional elevation and this also provides the operator with a real time error coefficient during the loading process, as recognized by CRANE.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAILEY R LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4910. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, WILLIAM J KELLEHER can be reached at (571) 272-7753. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Hailey R Le/Examiner, Art Unit 3648 December 9, 2025
/William Kelleher/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648