DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claim 3 is canceled.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9 are amended.
Claims 1-2, 4-9 are pending.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application filed in DE 102022212146.5 on 11/15/2022 under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rudow (US 20140253375) in view of Mao (US 20110118979).
Regarding Claim 1, Rudow teaches the following limitations:
A method for processing and assessing integrity of GNSS position information, comprising: (Rudow - [0256] A position fix may be determined to be an "outlier" based on the accuracy of that position fix. Validating accuracy of a position fix, discarding a position fix that is an "outlier," and calculating a new position fix to replace a discarded position fix based on locally measured movement information are each examples of improving position determine of a cellular device using locally measured movement information. A filter can be used to perform one or more of the validating of the accuracy of a position fix, the discarding of the position fix, the calculating of a new position fix and the replacing of the discarded position fix. [0259] The first process extracts raw pseudorange information, which is uncorrected and unsmoothed, from a GNSS chipset embedded in the cellular device, determines position fix(es) based on the extracted raw pseudoranges and optionally smoothes, for example, by discarding one or more of the position fix(es) using locally measured movement (LMM) information. The extracted raw pseudoranges may be corrected based on external corrections prior to determining the position fix(es). Examples of external corrections include WAAS, SBAS, DGPS, PPP, RTK, VRS and RTX corrections. [0523] Many types of data estimation methods may be employed to smooth the data from any single source to remove outliers, or to combine the effects of multiple and different data sources, as may be found in the cellular device system described herein. Well-known methods include use of least squares, Bayes filtering, sequential least squares, particle filtering, other methods for robust estimation, the Hough transform, the Random Sample Consensus [RANSAC] method, and so forth, as is well-known in the estimation arts. The Kalman Filtering method is also well-suited to multi-variant blending of dissimilar data sets. It is described herein as one example of a suitable estimation method. [0525] Examples of inputs to the Kalman Filter processing 1900 are position fixes 1501F and locally measured movement information 1502F. The Kalman Filter processing 1900 selects one or more position fixes for removal. The position fixes can then be smoothed by removing the selected position fix(es).)
receiving GNSS signals and ascertaining a preliminary GNSS position; (Rudow – [0259], [0255] At times a current position fix can differ significantly from one or more previous position fixes or succeeding position fixes, or a combination of previous position fixes and succeeding position fixes. A position fix that differs significantly from one or more previous position fixes or succeeding position fixes, or a combination thereof, is referred to as an "outlier." Further, locally measured movement information obtained, for example, from hardware, such as an accelerometer or an image capturing device, may be used to validate the accuracy of a position fix, to discard a position fix that is an "outlier," or to calculate a new position fix that can replace the discarded position fix, or a combination there of.)
checking the preliminary GNSS position against a first condition and discarding the preliminary GNSS position if the first condition is satisfied, (Rudow – [0255], [0259])
the first condition including at least one geographic criterion; (Rudow – [0255], [0259], [0146] The VRS corrections generator outputs a single set of M pseudorange and carrier phase observables that appear to originate from a virtual reference receiver at a specified position (hereafter called the VRS position) within the boundaries of the network defined by a polygon (or projected polygon) having all or some of the N reference receivers as vertices.)
ascertaining the integrity of the GNSS position based on an integrity criterion ascertained in the field which was determined excluding GNSS positions that satisfy the first condition, (Rudow – [0255], [0259])
outputting the preliminary GNSS position as a verified GNSS position in response to the preliminary GNSS position failing to satisfy the first condition. (Rudow – [0255], [0259])
Rudow does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Mao, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
the integrity criterion indicating a likelihood that a specified position exceeds a predetermined inaccuracy; and (Mao – [0006] determining an integrity of the location estimation by comparing a test statistic calculated by evaluating the map-matching position and the location estimation with a decision threshold based upon a predetermined location estimation accuracy specification; providing, if the test statistic is less than the decision threshold, the location estimation and the permissible error associated with the location estimation; and providing, if the test statistic is greater than the decision threshold, an indication that the integrity of the location estimation does not satisfy the predetermined location estimation accuracy specification.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the outlier position data of Rudow with the predetermined location estimation accuracy specification of Mao in order to determine an integrity of a location estimation (Mao – [0006]).
Regarding Claim 2, Rudow further teaches:
further comprises outputting an unavailability flag indicating an unavailability of verified GNSS position information in response to discarding the preliminary GNSS position in the checking of the preliminary GNSS position. (Rudow – [0255], [0259] Determining a fix to be an “outlier”.)
Regarding Claim 4, Rudow further teaches:
wherein geographic criterion is stored as position data and/or route data in a database and is retrieved from the database to carry out the checking of the preliminary GNSS position. (Rudow – [0146], [0255], [0259], [0150] The VRS server combines the observables from the dedicated reference receivers to compute a set of synthetic observables at the VRS position and broadcasts these plus the VRS position in a standard differential GNSS (DGNSS) message format,)
Regarding Claim 5, Rudow further teaches:
wherein: the first condition includes checking a distance of the preliminary GNSS position from at least one position specified by position data, the distance is compared with a radius distance around the at least one position, and the first condition is satisfied in response to the distance being within the radius distance. (Rudow – [0146], [0255], [0259])
Regarding Claim 6, Rudow further teaches:
wherein the first condition includes checking whether the preliminary GNSS position is within a polygon of specified position data, and the first condition is satisfied in response to the preliminary GNSS position being within the polygon. (Rudow – [0146], [0255], [0259])
Regarding Claim 7, Rudow further teaches:
further comprising outputting the preliminary GNSS position as an unverified position in response to the preliminary GNSS position satisfying the first condition. (Rudow – [0255], [0259] Determining a fix to be an “outlier”.)
Regarding Claim 8, Rudow further teaches:
A GNSS receiver comprising at least one processor which is configured to carry out the method according to claim 1. (Rudow – [0046] As depicted in FIG. 1A, the cellular device 100 includes a GNSS chipset 170, a GNSS receiver 107, a processor 172 that is part of the GNSS receiver 107,)
Regarding Claim 9, Rudow teaches the following limitations:
A method for creating at least one integrity criterion for GNSS position information, comprising: (Rudow – [0255], [0259], [0523], [0525])
receiving GNSS signals and ascertaining a preliminary GNSS position; (Rudow – [0255], [0259])
checking the preliminary GNSS position against a first condition and discarding the preliminary GNSS position if the first condition is satisfied, (Rudow – [0255], [0259])
the first condition including at least one geographic criterion; and (Rudow – [0146], [0255], [0259])
creating the integrity criterion based on GNSS positions that were not discarded in the checking of the preliminary GNSS position, (Rudow – [0255], [0259])
Rudow does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Mao, in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
the integrity criterion indicating a likelihood that a specified position exceeds a predetermined inaccuracy (Mao – [0006])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the outlier position data of Rudow with the predetermined location estimation accuracy specification of Mao in order to determine an integrity of a location estimation (Mao – [0006]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 6-9, filed 01/15/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The claims are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Applicant argues, see Pages 7-8, “Rudow Does Not Disclose a First Condition”. The examiner disagrees, Rudow teaches a first condition when discarding a position fix based on the accuracy of the position fix. Assessing integrity is then synonymous to validating the accuracy of a position fix. Applicant’s further arguments point to individual aspects used to determine a position fix, not the position fix as a whole.
Applicant argues, see Page 8, “Rudow Does Not Disclose a First Condition that Includes a Geographic Criterion”. The examiner disagrees, the BRI of a “geographic criterion” is not well defined and the examiner has understood this limiting term as a position fix. Though it is inherent that a GNSS position requires some sort of geographic correlation, Rudow explicitly teaches VRS which uses reference receivers to define a specified position.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 9, filed 01/15/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the dependent claims are allowable due to the dependency on the independent claims. The examiner disagrees due to the above-mentioned rejections
Applicant's remaining arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims is understandable and distinguishable from other inventions.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure or directed to the state of art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
The following is a brief description for relevant prior art that was cited but not applied:
Grayson (US 20230003907) describes a navigation processing system that performs operations that include generating navigation data based on applying a bandwidth-efficient modulation scheme to a data stream and a pilot stream.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON JAMES HENSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Resha H. 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.
/BRANDON JAMES HENSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648