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 .
Applicant’s 06/26/2026 Amendments/Arguments, which directly amended claims 1-18; added new claims 19-23; and traversed the rejections of the claims of the 02/26/2026 Office Action are acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 9, 11, and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Laurichesse (WO 2016/008991).
PNG
media_image1.png
362
430
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
272
486
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
348
438
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
268
484
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, and similarly claims 9 and 11, Laurichesse discloses a positioning device (i.e. smart phone 110) (Fig 1) comprising:
processing circuitry (i.e. “In the case of a smartphone, the satellite signals are processed either by an integrated circuit or an electronic board of the terminal, which board or circuit is specialized for this function, or by processing blocks of an integrated chipset 150, which also carries out other functions.”) ([0036]) configured to:
perform position measurement of a position of the positioning device using carrier phases of a plurality of position measurement signals to calculate a position measurement result representing the position of the positioning device and an accuracy index (i.e. reads on the precision and/or the confidence index) of the position measurement result (i.e. “…processing circuits to process raw positioning, velocity and time data for a satellite axis; processing circuits to calculate an information characterizing a precision and/or a confidence index of a calculation of a position of the receiver based on receiving conditions,…”) ([0009]) ([0010]; [0014]; [0017]-[0019]; [0024]; [0041]-[0042]; [0044]);
estimate a predicted convergence time of the position measurement based on the accuracy index, the predicted convergence time indicating a time until the processing circuitry determines that accuracy of the position measurement result is within a predetermined error range (i.e. Fig. 7a-7b above show the convergence for bi-frequency mode with the predicted convergence time when the range is within 10cm (i.e. horizontal < 10cm); and Fig 7c-7c above show the convergence for mono-frequency mode with the predicted convergence time when the range is within 1 m (i.e. horizontal < 1 m)) ([0068]-[0071]); and
output the position measurement result to a display upon determining that the accuracy of the position measurement result is within the predetermined error range (i.e. “…the precision information is delivered graphically or in numerical form to the user.”) (Abstract; [0028]).
While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claim 2, Laurichesse discloses the processing circuitry is further configured: to estimate the predicted convergence time based on a scale of the accuracy index (i.e. “It may be seen that the precision is centimetre scale under all the operating conditions with corrections…”) ([0070]) (i.e. “It may be seen that the precision passes from the centimetre scale to a decimetre scale.”) ([0071]) (Fig 7a-7d above). While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claim 3, Laurichesse discloses the processing circuitry is further configured: to estimate the predicted convergence time to be shorter as the accuracy index becomes smaller (i.e. as shown in Fig 7b and 7d above, as the horizontal precision getting smaller, the convergence time for horizontal is getting shorter). While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claim 19, Laurichesse discloses the processing circuitry is further configured to receive the position measurement signals from a plurality of positioning satellites (Fig 1; [0033]; [0035]). While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claim 20, Laurichesse discloses the processing circuitry is further configured to perform the position measurement using a state estimation equation that is a Kalman filter, and the accuracy index is an error covariance matrix used in the Kalman filter (Fig 4a-4b; [0054]-[0057]). While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claims 21-23, Laurichesse discloses the accuracy index is of a state estimation equation used to calculate the position measurement result (i.e. broadly reads on the accuracy index is an error covariance matrix used in the Kalman filter). (Fig 4a-4b; [0054]-[0057]). While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4-8, 10, and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laurichesse.
Regarding claims 4-7, Laurichesse does not explicitly disclose to estimate the predicted convergence time based on a temporal change of the accuracy index; or to estimate the predicted convergence time based on a value indicating a variation in the accuracy index within a predetermined time as claimed. Instead, Laurichesse teaches in the same field of endeavor to estimate the predicted convergence time based on a scale of the accuracy index (i.e. “It may be seen that the precision is centimetre scale under all the operating conditions with corrections…”) ([0070]) (i.e. “It may be seen that the precision passes from the centimetre scale to a decimetre scale.”) ([0071]) (Fig 7a-7d above). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice for utilizing accuracy index in different approaches for estimate the predicted convergence time, since Applicant has not disclosed to estimate the predicted convergence time based on a temporal change of the accuracy index; or to estimate the predicted convergence time based on a value indicating a variation in the accuracy index within a predetermined time solves any stated problem. It appears that the invention would perform equally well with the estimation the predicted convergence time based on a scale of the accuracy index as taught by Laurichesse to be used in determining the accuracy of a device’s position. While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claims 8, 10, and 12-18, Laurichesse discloses the processing circuitry is further configured: to use an error variance of the state estimation equation as the accuracy index (i.e. broadly reads on the accuracy index is an error covariance matrix used in the Kalman filter). (Fig 4a-4b; [0054]-[0057]). Laurichesse does not explicitly disclose a state estimation equation to be used for performing the position measurement as claimed. However, Laurichesse teach in the same field of endeavor a Kalman filter for calculating the position measurement (Fig 4a-4b; [0051]-[0057]). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice for utilizing a state estimation equation to be used for performing the position measurement as claimed, since Applicant has not disclosed such state estimation equation to be used for performing the position measurement solves any stated problem. It appears that the invention would perform equally well with the Kalman filter calculating the position measurement as taught by Laurichesse to be used in determining the accuracy of a device’s position. While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 10,564,295 discloses a positioning terminal of a global navigation satellite system configured to: receive a plurality of navigation signals and an augmentation signal from a plurality of navigation satellites and an augmentation satellite; acquire, in a process of causing each value of error causes including an ambiguity to converge through a plurality of times of observation to enhance an accuracy of positioning through continuous observation, each value of a position of the positioning terminal recorded in advance in a storage area to calculate each value of the error cause, and use the calculated each value as an initial value and/or one value to be added for the continuous observation to cause each value of the error cause to converge; and successively perform positioning calculation.
US 7,498,979 discloses methods and apparatus for processing of data from GNSS receivers. A post-processing engine and a post-processed accuracy predictor are described. The post-processing engine provides high accuracy GNSS (GPS) position determination with short occupation time for GIS applications. The post-processed accuracy predictor calculates during data collection an estimate of the accuracy likely to be achieved after post-processing. This helps to optimize productivity when collecting GNSS data for which post-processed accuracy is important. The predictor examines the quality of carrier measurements and estimates how well the post-processed float solution will converge in the time since carrier lock was obtained.
JP 2015152461 discloses a positioning device receives a positioning signal from a positioning satellite and captures and tracks the positioning signal. The positioning device performs the positioning by the weighting least square method. The positioning device performs the positioning by the least square method, and demodulates a navigation message and calculates the PDOP. When the PDOP is a first threshold THd or less, the positioning device calculates the χvalue. When the χvalue is a second threshold THk or less, the positioning device stops the positioning by the least square method, and switches it to estimation positioning by filter operation.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUONG P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 10:00-10:00 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, JACK KEITH can be reached at (571) 272-6878. 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.
/CHUONG P NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights