DETAILED ACTION
Amendment received 23 January 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-30 are pending and have been considered as follows.
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 1-5, 8-14, 17-22, and 24-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Venkatraman (US Pub. No. 2012/0059578).
As per Claim 1, Venkatraman discloses a method (Fig. 7) of determining route information (as per 716) (Fig. 7; ¶75-85), the method comprising:
receiving, from respective one or more devices (as per “multiple user navigation devices” in ¶19; as per “The location server 110 may … provide locations of access points (e.g., WLAN hotspots) along the routes” in ¶70), one or more measurements (as per 708, 710) corresponding to at least one or more portions (as per “first segment” in ¶83, as per “subsequent segment” in ¶83) of one or more routes (as per 706, 714) (Figs. 1, 6-7; ¶16-27, 67-88);
determining (for embodiments in which functionality of “route reliability calculation unit 108” is performed “entirely on the remote computer or server” as per ¶92) one or more localization parameters (as per “satellite visibility metrics” and “access point reliability metrics” in ¶83), based on the received one or more measurements (as per 708, 710), associated with the at least the one or more portions (as per “first segment” in ¶83, as per “subsequent segment” in ¶83) of the one or more routes (as per 706, 714), the one or more localization parameters (as per “satellite visibility metrics” and “access point reliability metrics” in ¶83) comprising a localization reliability parameter (as per “The reliability rating for the route may be calculated as a weighted combination (e.g., a weighted sum or a weighted average) of the visibility metrics associated with the route (or with each segment of the route)” in ¶71 and “The route reliability calculation unit 108 can combine satellite visibility metrics associated with the first segment of the route and access point visibility metrics associated with the subsequent segments of the route to determine a reliability rating for the route” in ¶83) indicating, for each of a plurality of positioning technologies (as per GPS in 708, as per WLAN in 710), a respective reliability (as per “both satellite visibility metrics and access point visibility metrics” in ¶83) of the positioning technology (as per GPS in 708, as per WLAN in 710) for determining a position (as per position corresponding to “first segment” in ¶83, as per position corresponding to “subsequent segment” in ¶83) along a given portion (as per “first segment” in ¶83, as per “subsequent segment” in ¶83) of the one or more routes (as per 706, 714), {a localization uncertainty parameter}, or {a combination thereof} (Figs. 1, 6-7; ¶16-27, 67-88, 92);
obtaining (for embodiments in which functionality of “routing unit 104” is performed “entirely on the remote computer or server” as per ¶92) a request for localization parameters (as per “satellite visibility metrics” and “access point reliability metrics” in ¶83) from a target device (102) associated with a requested route (as per 702) associated with at least a starting point (as per “source location” in 702, 704), a destination (as per “destination location” in 702, 704), or {both} (Figs. 1, 6-7; ¶16-27, 67-88, 92); and
sending (for embodiments in which functionality of “route reliability calculation unit 108” is performed “entirely on the remote computer or server” as per ¶92) one or more localization parameters (as per “satellite visibility metrics” and “access point reliability metrics” in ¶83) associated with the requested route (as per 702) to the target device (102) (Figs. 1, 6-7; ¶16-27, 67-88, 92).
As per Claim 2, Venkatraman further discloses wherein the one or more localization parameters (as per “satellite visibility metrics” and “access point reliability metrics” in ¶83) are determined at least in part via crowdsourcing the one or more measurements (as per 708, 710) from the one or more devices (as per “multiple user navigation devices” in ¶19) other than the target device (102) (Figs. 1, 6-7; ¶16-27, 67-88).
As per Claim 3, Venkatraman further discloses wherein the localization reliability parameter (as per “The reliability rating for the route may be calculated as a weighted combination (e.g., a weighted sum or a weighted average) of the visibility metrics associated with the route (or with each segment of the route)” in ¶71 and “The route reliability calculation unit 108 can combine satellite visibility metrics associated with the first segment of the route and access point visibility metrics associated with the subsequent segments of the route to determine a reliability rating for the route” in ¶83) is indicative of at least a likelihood of determining a position (as per “The reliability rating can be a score within a predetermined range that indicates the likelihood of maintaining continuous connectivity with four or more GPS satellites along the route and also indicates the reliability of routing directions determined along the route” in ¶40; as per “a high reliability rating for the route may indicate that a sufficient number of reliable access points are available on the route and that the route can be traversed without losing WLAN connectivity” in ¶71; as per “determine a reliability rating for the route, as was described above with reference to FIGS. 1-5” IN ¶82) along of the requested route (as per 702) (Figs. 1, 6-7; ¶16-27, 40, 67-88).
As per Claim 4, Venkatraman further discloses wherein the localization reliability parameter (as per “The reliability rating for the route may be calculated as a weighted combination (e.g., a weighted sum or a weighted average) of the visibility metrics associated with the route (or with each segment of the route)” in ¶71 and “The route reliability calculation unit 108 can combine satellite visibility metrics associated with the first segment of the route and access point visibility metrics associated with the subsequent segments of the route to determine a reliability rating for the route” in ¶83) is configured to enable the target device (102) to select the requested route from a plurality of routes or select another route from the plurality of routes (as per “prompt the user to select one of the routes” in ¶85) (Figs. 1, 6-7; ¶16-27, 40, 67-88).
As per Claim 5, Venkatraman further discloses wherein the one or more measurements (as per 708, 710) comprise one or more location measurements of a signal received by the one or more devices via Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) (as per “Each sample point along the route can be analyzed to determine whether a line of sight path to at least four GPS satellites is available at the user navigation device 102” in ¶80), {a signal received by the one or more devices from a network entity}, or {a combination thereof}.
As per Claim 8, Venkatraman further discloses wherein the localization uncertainty parameter comprises determining a localization uncertainty of the one or more devices associated the requested route based on a statistical value associated with the received one or more measurements, measurements based on a type of the one or more devices, a type of the vehicle, or a combination thereof (“localization uncertainty parameter” signals limitation is directed to alternative embodiments for “localization parameters” as per Claim 1).
As per Claim 9, Venkatraman further discloses wherein the localization uncertainty comprises an estimate of a positioning precision of a position of the one or more devices along the requested route, the estimate of the positioning precision comprising horizontal dilution of precision (HDOP), vertical dilution of precision (VDOP), position dilution of precision (PDOP), geometric dilution of precision (GDOP), or a combination thereof (“localization uncertainty parameter” in Claim 8 signals limitation is directed to alternative embodiments for “localization parameters” as per Claim 1).
As per Claim 10, Venkatraman discloses a device (as per device 800 for embodiments of the device in which functionality of the device 800 is performed “entirely on the remote computer or server” as per ¶92) (Fig. 8; ¶92-95) comprising:
one or more memories (806) (Fig. 8; ¶93);
one or more communication interfaces (810, 804) (Fig. 8; ¶93); and
one or more processors (802) coupled to the one or more memories (806) and the one or more communication interfaces (810, 804), the one or more processors (802) configured to cause the device (800) (Fig. 8; ¶92-95) to:
receive, from respective one or more devices (as per “multiple user navigation devices” in ¶19; as per “The location server 110 may … provide locations of access points (e.g., WLAN hotspots) along the routes” in ¶70) via the one or more communication interfaces (810, 804), one or more measurements (as per 708, 710) corresponding to at least one or more portions (as per “first segment” in ¶83, as per “subsequent segment” in ¶83) of one or more routes (as per 706, 714) (Figs. 1, 6-7; ¶16-27, 67-88);
determine (for embodiments in which functionality of “route reliability calculation unit 108” is performed “entirely on the remote computer or server” as per ¶92) one or more localization parameters (as per “satellite visibility metrics” and “access point reliability metrics” in ¶83), based on the received one or more measurements (as per 708, 710), associated with the at least the one or more portions (as per “first segment” in ¶83, as per “subsequent segment” in ¶83) of the one or more routes (as per 706, 714), the one or more localization parameters (as per “satellite visibility metrics” and “access point reliability metrics” in ¶83) comprising a localization reliability parameter (as per “The reliability rating for the route may be calculated as a weighted combination (e.g., a weighted sum or a weighted average) of the visibility metrics associated with the route (or with each segment of the route)” in ¶71 and “The route reliability calculation unit 108 can combine satellite visibility metrics associated with the first segment of the route and access point visibility metrics associated with the subsequent segments of the route to determine a reliability rating for the route” in ¶83) indicating, for each of a plurality of positioning technologies (as per GPS in 708, as per WLAN in 710), a respective reliability (as per “both satellite visibility metrics and access point visibility metrics” in ¶83) of the positioning technology (as per GPS in 708, as per WLAN in 710) for determining a position (as per position corresponding to “first segment” in ¶83, as per position corresponding to “subsequent segment” in ¶83) along a given portion (as per “first segment” in ¶83, as per “subsequent segment” in ¶83) of the one or more routes (as per 706, 714), {a localization uncertainty parameter}, or {a combination thereof} (Figs. 1, 6-7; ¶16-27, 67-88, 92);
obtain (for embodiments in which functionality of “routing unit 104” is performed “entirely on the remote computer or server” as per ¶92) a request for localization parameters (as per “satellite visibility metrics” and “access point reliability metrics” in ¶83) from a target device (102) associated with a requested route (as per 702) associated with at least a starting point (as per “source location” in 702, 704), a destination (as per “destination location” in 702, 704), or {both} (Figs. 1, 6-7; ¶16-27, 67-88, 92); and
sending (for embodiments in which functionality of “route reliability calculation unit 108” is performed “entirely on the remote computer or server” as per ¶92) one or more localization parameters (as per “satellite visibility metrics” and “access point reliability metrics” in ¶83) associated with the requested route (as per 702) to the target device (102) (Figs. 1, 6-7; ¶16-27, 67-88, 92).
As per Claim 11, Venkatraman further discloses wherein the one or more localization parameters (as per “satellite visibility metrics” and “access point reliability metrics” in ¶83) are determined at least in part via crowdsourcing the one or more measurements (as per 708, 710) from the one or more devices (as per “multiple user navigation devices” in ¶19) other than the target device (102) (Figs. 1, 6-7; ¶16-27, 67-88).
As per Claim 12, Venkatraman further discloses wherein the localization reliability parameter (as per “The reliability rating for the route may be calculated as a weighted combination (e.g., a weighted sum or a weighted average) of the visibility metrics associated with the route (or with each segment of the route)” in ¶71 and “The route reliability calculation unit 108 can combine satellite visibility metrics associated with the first segment of the route and access point visibility metrics associated with the subsequent segments of the route to determine a reliability rating for the route” in ¶83) is indicative of at least a likelihood of determining a position (as per “The reliability rating can be a score within a predetermined range that indicates the likelihood of maintaining continuous connectivity with four or more GPS satellites along the route and also indicates the reliability of routing directions determined along the route” in ¶40; as per “a high reliability rating for the route may indicate that a sufficient number of reliable access points are available on the route and that the route can be traversed without losing WLAN connectivity” in ¶71; as per “determine a reliability rating for the route, as was described above with reference to FIGS. 1-5” IN ¶82) along of the requested route (as per 702) (Figs. 1, 6-7; ¶16-27, 40, 67-88).
As per Claim 13, Venkatraman further discloses wherein the localization reliability parameter (as per “The reliability rating for the route may be calculated as a weighted combination (e.g., a weighted sum or a weighted average) of the visibility metrics associated with the route (or with each segment of the route)” in ¶71 and “The route reliability calculation unit 108 can combine satellite visibility metrics associated with the first segment of the route and access point visibility metrics associated with the subsequent segments of the route to determine a reliability rating for the route” in ¶83) is configured to enable the target device (102) to select the requested route from a plurality of routes or select another route from the plurality of routes (as per “prompt the user to select one of the routes” in ¶85) (Figs. 1, 6-7; ¶16-27, 40, 67-88).
As per Claim 14, Venkatraman further discloses wherein the one or more measurements (as per 708, 710) comprise one or more location measurements of a signal received by the one or more devices via Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) (as per “Each sample point along the route can be analyzed to determine whether a line of sight path to at least four GPS satellites is available at the user navigation device 102” in ¶80), {a signal received by the one or more devices from a network entity}, or {a combination thereof}.
As per Claim 17, Venkatraman further discloses wherein the localization uncertainty parameter comprises determining a localization uncertainty of the one or more devices associated the requested route based on a statistical value associated with the received one or more measurements, measurements based on a type of the one or more devices, a type of the vehicle, or a combination thereof (“localization uncertainty parameter” signals limitation is directed to alternative embodiments for “localization parameters” as per Claim 10).
As per Claim 18, Venkatraman discloses a device (as per device 800 for embodiments of the device in which functionality of the device 800 is performed “entirely on the remote computer or server” as per ¶92) (Fig. 8; ¶92-95) comprising:
means for receiving, from respective one or more devices (as per “multiple user navigation devices” in ¶19; as per “The location server 110 may … provide locations of access points (e.g., WLAN hotspots) along the routes” in ¶70), one or more measurements (as per 708, 710) corresponding to at least one or more portions (as per “first segment” in ¶83, as per “subsequent segment” in ¶83) of one or more routes (as per 706, 714) (Figs. 1, 6-7; ¶16-27, 67-88);
means for determining (for embodiments in which functionality of “route reliability calculation unit 108” is performed “entirely on the remote computer or server” as per ¶92) one or more localization parameters (as per “satellite visibility metrics” and “access point reliability metrics” in ¶83), based on the received one or more measurements (as per 708, 710), associated with the at least the one or more portions (as per “first segment” in ¶83, as per “subsequent segment” in ¶83) of the one or more routes (as per 706, 714), the one or more localization parameters (as per “satellite visibility metrics” and “access point reliability metrics” in ¶83) comprising a localization reliability parameter (as per “The reliability rating for the route may be calculated as a weighted combination (e.g., a weighted sum or a weighted average) of the visibility metrics associated with the route (or with each segment of the route)” in ¶71 and “The route reliability calculation unit 108 can combine satellite visibility metrics associated with the first segment of the route and access point visibility metrics associated with the subsequent segments of the route to determine a reliability rating for the route” in ¶83) indicating, for each of a plurality of positioning technologies (as per GPS in 708, as per WLAN in 710), a respective reliability (as per “both satellite visibility metrics and access point visibility metrics” in ¶83) of the positioning technology (as per GPS in 708, as per WLAN in 710) for determining a position (as per position corresponding to “first segment” in ¶83, as per position corresponding to “subsequent segment” in ¶83) along a given portion (as per “first segment” in ¶83, as per “subsequent segment” in ¶83) of the one or more routes (as per 706, 714), {a localization uncertainty parameter}, or {a combination thereof} (Figs. 1, 6-7; ¶16-27, 67-88, 92);
means for obtaining (for embodiments in which functionality of “routing unit 104” is performed “entirely on the remote computer or server” as per ¶92) a request for localization parameters (as per “satellite visibility metrics” and “access point reliability metrics” in ¶83) from a target device (102) associated with a requested route (as per 702) associated with at least a starting point (as per “source location” in 702, 704), a destination (as per “destination location” in 702, 704), or {both} (Figs. 1, 6-7; ¶16-27, 67-88, 92); and
means for sending (for embodiments in which functionality of “route reliability calculation unit 108” is performed “entirely on the remote computer or server” as per ¶92) one or more localization parameters (as per “satellite visibility metrics” and “access point reliability metrics” in ¶83) associated with the requested route (as per 702) to the target device (102) (Figs. 1, 6-7; ¶16-27, 67-88, 92).
As per Claim 19, Venkatraman further discloses wherein the one or more localization parameters (as per “satellite visibility metrics” and “access point reliability metrics” in ¶83) are determined at least in part via crowdsourcing the one or more measurements (as per 708, 710) from the one or more devices (as per “multiple user navigation devices” in ¶19) other than the target device (102) (Figs. 1, 6-7; ¶16-27, 67-88).
As per Claim 20, Venkatraman further discloses wherein the localization reliability parameter (as per “The reliability rating for the route may be calculated as a weighted combination (e.g., a weighted sum or a weighted average) of the visibility metrics associated with the route (or with each segment of the route)” in ¶71 and “The route reliability calculation unit 108 can combine satellite visibility metrics associated with the first segment of the route and access point visibility metrics associated with the subsequent segments of the route to determine a reliability rating for the route” in ¶83) is indicative of at least a likelihood of determining a position (as per “The reliability rating can be a score within a predetermined range that indicates the likelihood of maintaining continuous connectivity with four or more GPS satellites along the route and also indicates the reliability of routing directions determined along the route” in ¶40; as per “a high reliability rating for the route may indicate that a sufficient number of reliable access points are available on the route and that the route can be traversed without losing WLAN connectivity” in ¶71; as per “determine a reliability rating for the route, as was described above with reference to FIGS. 1-5” IN ¶82) along of the requested route (as per 702) (Figs. 1, 6-7; ¶16-27, 40, 67-88).
As per Claim 21, Venkatraman further discloses wherein the localization reliability parameter (as per “The reliability rating for the route may be calculated as a weighted combination (e.g., a weighted sum or a weighted average) of the visibility metrics associated with the route (or with each segment of the route)” in ¶71 and “The route reliability calculation unit 108 can combine satellite visibility metrics associated with the first segment of the route and access point visibility metrics associated with the subsequent segments of the route to determine a reliability rating for the route” in ¶83) is configured to enable the target device (102) to select the requested route from a plurality of routes or select another route from the plurality of routes (as per “prompt the user to select one of the routes” in ¶85) (Figs. 1, 6-7; ¶16-27, 40, 67-88).
As per Claim 22, Venkatraman further discloses wherein the one or more measurements (as per 708, 710) comprise one or more location measurements of a signal received by the one or more devices via Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) (as per “Each sample point along the route can be analyzed to determine whether a line of sight path to at least four GPS satellites is available at the user navigation device 102” in ¶80), {a signal received by the one or more devices from a network entity}, or {a combination thereof}.
As per Claim 24, Venkatraman further discloses wherein the localization uncertainty parameter comprises determining a localization uncertainty of the one or more devices associated the requested route based on a statistical value associated with the received one or more measurements, measurements based on a type of the one or more devices, a type of the vehicle, or a combination thereof (“localization uncertainty parameter” signals limitation is directed to alternative embodiments for “localization parameters” as per Claim 18).
As per Claim 25, Venkatraman discloses a non-transitory computer-readable apparatus (as per device 800 for embodiments of the device in which functionality of the device 800 is performed “entirely on the remote computer or server” as per ¶92) comprising a storage medium, the storage medium comprising a plurality of instructions (as per “medium having stored thereon instructions” in ¶91) configured to, when executed by one or more processors (802), cause a device (800) (Fig. 8; ¶92-95) to:
receive, from respective one or more devices (as per “multiple user navigation devices” in ¶19; as per “The location server 110 may … provide locations of access points (e.g., WLAN hotspots) along the routes” in ¶70), one or more measurements (as per 708, 710) corresponding to at least one or more portions (as per “first segment” in ¶83, as per “subsequent segment” in ¶83) of one or more routes (as per 706, 714) (Figs. 1, 6-7; ¶16-27, 67-88);
determine (for embodiments in which functionality of “route reliability calculation unit 108” is performed “entirely on the remote computer or server” as per ¶92) one or more localization parameters (as per “satellite visibility metrics” and “access point reliability metrics” in ¶83), based on the received one or more measurements (as per 708, 710), associated with the at least the one or more portions (as per “first segment” in ¶83, as per “subsequent segment” in ¶83) of the one or more routes (as per 706, 714), the one or more localization parameters (as per “satellite visibility metrics” and “access point reliability metrics” in ¶83) comprising a localization reliability parameter (as per “The reliability rating for the route may be calculated as a weighted combination (e.g., a weighted sum or a weighted average) of the visibility metrics associated with the route (or with each segment of the route)” in ¶71 and “The route reliability calculation unit 108 can combine satellite visibility metrics associated with the first segment of the route and access point visibility metrics associated with the subsequent segments of the route to determine a reliability rating for the route” in ¶83) indicating, for each of a plurality of positioning technologies (as per GPS in 708, as per WLAN in 710), a respective reliability (as per “both satellite visibility metrics and access point visibility metrics” in ¶83) of the positioning technology (as per GPS in 708, as per WLAN in 710) for determining a position (as per position corresponding to “first segment” in ¶83, as per position corresponding to “subsequent segment” in ¶83) along a given portion (as per “first segment” in ¶83, as per “subsequent segment” in ¶83) of the one or more routes (as per 706, 714), {a localization uncertainty parameter}, or {a combination thereof} (Figs. 1, 6-7; ¶16-27, 67-88, 92);
obtain (for embodiments in which functionality of “routing unit 104” is performed “entirely on the remote computer or server” as per ¶92) a request for localization parameters (as per “satellite visibility metrics” and “access point reliability metrics” in ¶83) from a target device (102) associated with a requested route (as per 702) associated with at least a starting point (as per “source location” in 702, 704), a destination (as per “destination location” in 702, 704), or {both} (Figs. 1, 6-7; ¶16-27, 67-88, 92); and
send (for embodiments in which functionality of “route reliability calculation unit 108” is performed “entirely on the remote computer or server” as per ¶92) one or more localization parameters (as per “satellite visibility metrics” and “access point reliability metrics” in ¶83) associated with the requested route (as per 702) to the target device (102) (Figs. 1, 6-7; ¶16-27, 67-88, 92).
As per Claim 26, Venkatraman further discloses wherein the one or more localization parameters (as per “satellite visibility metrics” and “access point reliability metrics” in ¶83) are determined at least in part via crowdsourcing the one or more measurements (as per 708, 710) from the one or more devices (as per “multiple user navigation devices” in ¶19) other than the target device (102) (Figs. 1, 6-7; ¶16-27, 67-88).
As per Claim 27, Venkatraman further discloses wherein the localization reliability parameter (as per “The reliability rating for the route may be calculated as a weighted combination (e.g., a weighted sum or a weighted average) of the visibility metrics associated with the route (or with each segment of the route)” in ¶71 and “The route reliability calculation unit 108 can combine satellite visibility metrics associated with the first segment of the route and access point visibility metrics associated with the subsequent segments of the route to determine a reliability rating for the route” in ¶83 is indicative of at least a likelihood of determining a position (as per “The reliability rating can be a score within a predetermined range that indicates the likelihood of maintaining continuous connectivity with four or more GPS satellites along the route and also indicates the reliability of routing directions determined along the route” in ¶40; as per “a high reliability rating for the route may indicate that a sufficient number of reliable access points are available on the route and that the route can be traversed without losing WLAN connectivity” in ¶71; as per “determine a reliability rating for the route, as was described above with reference to FIGS. 1-5” IN ¶82) along of the requested route (as per 702) (Figs. 1, 6-7; ¶16-27, 40, 67-88).
As per Claim 28, Venkatraman further discloses wherein the localization reliability parameter (as per “The reliability rating for the route may be calculated as a weighted combination (e.g., a weighted sum or a weighted average) of the visibility metrics associated with the route (or with each segment of the route)” in ¶71 and “The route reliability calculation unit 108 can combine satellite visibility metrics associated with the first segment of the route and access point visibility metrics associated with the subsequent segments of the route to determine a reliability rating for the route” in ¶83) is configured to enable the target device (102) to select the requested route from a plurality of routes or select another route from the plurality of routes (as per “prompt the user to select one of the routes” in ¶85) (Figs. 1, 6-7; ¶16-27, 40, 67-88).
As per Claim 29, Venkatraman further discloses wherein the one or more measurements (as per 708, 710) comprise one or more location measurements of a signal received by the one or more devices via Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) (as per “Each sample point along the route can be analyzed to determine whether a line of sight path to at least four GPS satellites is available at the user navigation device 102” in ¶80), {a signal received by the one or more devices from a network entity}, or {a combination thereof}.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkatraman (US Pub. No. 2012/0059578) in view of Mathis (US Patent No. 5,948,043).
As per Claim 6, Venkatraman discloses all limitations of Claim 5. Venkatraman does not expressly disclose responsive to a position of the target device determined based on the one or more location measurements not corresponding to a location of the target device determined based on at least the one or more measurements from the one or more devices, identifying a potential mismatch, a false positive, or a combination thereof.
Mathis discloses an automobile that includes a GPS receiver (106) which processes data received from satellites (100, 102, 104) (Fig. 1; 5:25-7:3). In operation, the receiver (106) operates with a computer (108) to determine whether received (200) GPS data is reliable (202) (Fig. 2; 6:4-48). Specifically, the system (106, 108) determines whether GPS data is reliable (202) based on factors derived from previous vehicle position and current GPS data (6:4-7:60). If the data is reliable (yes at 202), the system (106, 108) updates position data (6:25-48). If the data is not reliable (no at 202), the system (106, 108) receives another set of data (as per 200) (6:25-48). In this way, the system updates position only when a real position change has been made (7:61-8:3). Like Venkatraman, Mathis is concerned with positioning systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Venkatraman and Mathis, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Mathis to the system of Venkatraman since doing so would enhance the system by adapting the system to update position data only when a real position change has been made. Applying the teachings of Mathis to the system of Venkatraman would result in a system that operates “responsive to a position of the target device determined based on the one or more location measurements not corresponding to a location of the target device determined based on at least the one or more measurements from the one or more devices, identifying a potential mismatch, a false positive, or a combination thereof” in that position data as per Venkatraman would be checked for reliability as per Mathis.
As per Claim 15, Venkatraman discloses all limitations of Claim 14. Venkatraman does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the device to, responsive to a position of the target device determined based on the one or more location measurements not corresponding to a location of the target device determined based on at least the one or more measurements from the one or more devices, identify a potential mismatch, a false positive, or a combination thereof.
See rejection of Claim 6 for discussion of teachings of Mathis.
Therefore, from these teachings of Venkatraman and Mathis, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Mathis to the system of Venkatraman since doing so would enhance the system by adapting the system to update position data only when a real position change has been made. Applying the teachings of Mathis to the system of Venkatraman would result in a system that operates “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the device to, responsive to a position of the target device determined based on the one or more location measurements not corresponding to a location of the target device determined based on at least the one or more measurements from the one or more devices, identify a potential mismatch, a false positive, or a combination thereof” in that position data as per Venkatraman would be checked for reliability as per Mathis.
Claims 7, 16, 23, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (US Pub. No. 2016/0025505) in view of Venkatraman (US Pub. No. 2012/0059578).
As per Claims 7, 16, 23, and 30, Oh discloses a target device (10, 40, 50, 60) equipped on a vehicle comprising an advanced driver assistance (ADAS) capability (as per “setting an autonomous driving mode” in ¶37) (Figs. 1-2; ¶23, 27, 29, 39-40). Oh does not expressly disclose the method of Claim 1, the device of Claim 10, the device of Claim 18, and the medium of Claim 25.
As discussed above rejections under 35 USC 102, Venkatraman discloses all limitations of the method of Claim 1, the device of Claim 10, the device of Claim 18, and the medium of Claim 25. Venkatraman further discloses wherein the system is adapted to provide the most reliable route (¶43). Like Oh, Venkatraman is concerned with positioning systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Oh and Venkatraman, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Venkatraman to the system of Oh since doing so would enhance the system by adapting the system of Oh to provide the most reliable route as per Venkatraman.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 January 2026 have been fully considered as follows.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 112 should not be maintained in view of the amendments (page 8 of Amendment). This argument is persuasive in view of the amendments. Therefore, these rejections are not maintained.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 102 should be withdrawn in view of the amendments because (page 9 of Amendment):
Venkatraman's reliability rating is a composite score representing overall route reliability. … In contrast, the amended claims require a localization reliability parameter that indicates, "for each of a plurality of positioning technologies, a respective reliability of the positioning technology." This is not a single composite score but rather separate, technology-specific reliability values for each positioning technology. Venkatraman does not disclose providing reliability information broken down by individual positioning technology. Even in embodiments where Venkatraman discusses WLAN …, the reliability rating remains a single composite value. There is no disclosure of indicating a separate reliability value for GPS positioning and a separate reliability value for WLAN positioning.
Consistent with Applicant’s argument Venkatraman does calculate a reliability rating (as per 712) (Fig. 7; ¶82). However, consistent with citations in the present rejections necessitated by the amendments, Venkatraman further discloses embodiments in which the reliability rating for a given route is calculated as a weighted combination of the visibility metrics associated with each segment of the route (¶71) and in which the route reliability calculation unit (108) combines satellite visibility metrics associated with a first segment of the route and access point visibility metrics associated with subsequent segments of the route to determine the reliability rating for the route (¶83). In this way, Venkatraman indicates that “visibility metrics” inform determination of “reliability”.
Accordingly, Applicant’s assertion that “Venkatraman does not disclose providing reliability information broken down by individual positioning technology” is not consistent with expressly disclosed embodiments of Venkatraman in which visibility metrics for specified technologies over specified segments inform the calculation of a reliability metric.
Further, Applicant’s assertion that “Even in embodiments where Venkatraman discusses WLAN …, the reliability rating remains a single composite value” is not consistent with expressly disclosed embodiments describing how the “single composite value” is determined.
In addition, Applicant’s assertion that “There is no disclosure of indicating a separate reliability value for GPS positioning and a separate reliability value for WLAN positioning” is not consistent with expressly disclosed embodiments of Venkatraman in which visibility metrics for specified technologies at specified segments inform the calculation of a reliability metric.
Accordingly, Applicant’s argument involves an improper interpretation of the claim language and/or an improper interpretation of the cited reference. Therefore, Applicant’s argument does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 102 should be withdrawn in view of the amendments because (page 10 of Amendment):
Venkatraman's reliability rating concerns satellite connectivity … or wireless communication availability …. This is a measure of signal availability, not the reliability of actually determining a position using those signals. The amended claims recite reliability "for determining a position along a given portion of the one or more routes." Applicant's specification explains that reliability parameters may indicate "reliability of each positioning technology for determining a positioning fix" and whether "to use data from the positioning technology in performing a positioning fix." Specification, ¶47. Position determination reliability is a distinct concept from mere signal connectivity or availability. A technology may have high signal availability but poor reliability for actually computing an accurate position fix due to multipath, interference, geometric dilution, or other factors.
However, Applicant’s assertions involve a special definition for “reliability” that is not set forth in the claim language. Specifically, the term “reliability” is not further defined in the claim language in accordance with embodiments as per Applicant’s arguments. Applicant’s Specification may recite embodiments in which “reliability parameters” necessarily include embodiments like “determining a positioning fix” and in which “reliability is a distinct concept from mere signal connectivity or availability”, but these embodiments are not in the claim language. Further, Applicant’s Specification at ¶92 instructs the reader that specific details in the detailed description are not necessarily included in the claims. As such, Applicant’s assertion involves an improperly narrow interpretation of the claim language at issue.
In addition, Applicant’s assertions involve a special definition for “reliability” that is not consistent with the use of the term in the cited reference. As discussed above, Venkatraman discloses embodiments in which the reliability rating for a given route is calculated as a weighted combination of the visibility metrics associated with each segment of the route (¶71) and in which the route reliability calculation unit (108) combines satellite visibility metrics associated with a first segment of the route and access point visibility metrics associated with subsequent segments of the route to determine the reliability rating for the route (¶83). In this way, Venkatraman indicates that “visibility metrics” inform determination of “reliability”. Applicant does not identify any proper basis for setting aside the definition for “reliability” as per Venkatraman in order to apply a definition for “reliability” that would exclude embodiments linked to “visibility metrics” as per Venkatraman.
Further, Applicant’s assertion that “A technology may have high signal availability but poor reliability for actually computing an accurate position fix due to multipath, interference, geometric dilution, or other factors” is speculative, not clearly related to the claim language, and attorney argument as to a factual matter that would necessitate evidence (see MPEP § 2145(I)). As such, Applicant’s assertion does not inform the propriety of any rejection.
Accordingly, Applicant’s argument involves improper interpretation of the claim language and/or an improper interpretation of the cited reference. Therefore, Applicant’s argument does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 103 should be withdrawn because “Mathis is not cited for, and does not cure, the deficiencies of Venkatraman with respect to the amended features” and “Oh … also does not cure the deficiencies of Venkatraman with respect to the amended features” (page 11 of Amendment). However, as discussed above, the deficiencies alleged by Applicant are not present in any rejection. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is moot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Croyle (US Patent No. 5,862,511) and Donovan (US Pub. No. 2014/0022121) disclose navigation systems.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 STEPHEN HOLWERDA whose telephone number is (571)270-5747. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 4:30pm.
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, KHOI TRAN can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/STEPHEN HOLWERDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights