DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
The pending application 18/554,457, filed on 20 SEP 2023, is a national stage application filed under 35 U.S.C. 371 of PCT/EP2022/057597, filed on 23 MAR 2022, and claims priority from foreign application DE10 2021 107 213.1, filed on 23 MAR 2021 in the Federal Republic of Germany.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 5 MAR 2026 has been entered. Claims 2-6 and 9-10 have been amended. Claims 11-13 have been added. Claims 1-13 are still pending in this application, with claims 1 being independent.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 9 has overcome the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. 101 made in the previous office action dated 5 NOV 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 5 MAR 2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 101, applicant argues that the claims do not recite a mental process, specifically “GNSS correction data streams must be electronically received and processed by positioning systems, and a human cannot practically detect impairment of such signals or read the correction data in the manner required by the claim.” (applicant’s remarks p. 5-6)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Electronically receiving and processing GNSS correction streams is not required in order to recognize an impairment. Correction data is a text string that can be read by a human, and a human can look at the correction data and recognize an impairment. For example, a human could look at a list of received correction data with timestamps, and observe that the correction data is currently not being received, implying impairment. Therefore, applicant’s argument on this issue is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues: “claim 1 integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The claimed method detects impaired receipt of GNSS correction data and generates substitute correction data so that a positioning system may continue to determine accurate positions. This constitutes a specific technological solution to a technical problem in satellite positioning systems.” (applicant’s remarks p. 6)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 is directed to generating substitute correction data for GNSS-based localization of a mobile device. Generating the substitute correction data is reasonably considered a mathematical calculation, i.e. an abstract idea, in light of the specification teaching the use of mathematical approaches/procedures as described in p. 5, lines 35-37 of the specification, “The generation of substitute correction data in step c) can be done by use of different mathematical approaches/procedures which are described in more detail below.” Applicant is advised that “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g., a recited fundamental concept) is not an improvement in technology.” (MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) In this case, applicant’s claimed invention is an improvement in generating substitute correction data, i.e. an abstract idea, and thus does not constitute an improvement in the technology. Therefore, applicant’s argument on this issue is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues that “The UPSTO’s eligibility examples similarly recognize that GPS-related inventions that apply mathematical operations within a positioning system improve the underlying technology and therefore integrate any mathematical concept into a practical application. (See USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Example 4, recognizing that a claim that uses mathematical operations to improve GNSS technology amounts to significantly more than tan abstract idea.)” (applicant’s remarks p. 6)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. “The ALJ held that the asserted method claims are “tied to a specific machine—a GPS receiver” and therefore found them directed to patentable subject matter.” SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319. In contrast, claim 1 of the instant application only recites “a mobile device.” Under broadest reasonable interpretation, “a mobile device” is considered a generic computer. As such, the claim fails to tie the method to a specific machine, and thus fails to integrate any mathematical concept into a practical application. Therefore, applicant’s argument on this issue is not persuasive.
Regarding the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Lie et al. (WO 2017/004047 A1), the applicant argues that the cited reference fails to disclose all of the features of the claimed invention, specifically “reading correction data that has been received earlier.”
Applicant argues that “In the technique referenced by in the Office Action, the next precise position estimate can be based on the last available RTK position prior to signal loss and a relative position vector between the last available measurement and the next measurement time. (Lie page 25, lines 25-31. The relative position vector is the position change between two time points (See Lie page 52, lines 32-33).” (Applicant’s remarks p. 8)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. 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 In this case, Lie et al. also discloses “In alternate embodiments, the precise position estimator 120 can provide one or more of the following data to the relative position estimator 124: (1) an absolute position of the mobile receiver (or its antenna 17), (2) a reference trajectory (or reference points) of the mobile receiver 12, or (3) bias-related parameters (e.g., then-current, bias-related parameters for storage in or retrieval from the data storage device 155) associated with previous or current precise point position estimates, where bias-related parameters relate to initial position bias of the relative position estimate, atmospheric delay bias, or receiver clock bias.” (Lie et al. p. 40, lines 9-15). Therefore, applicant’s argument on this issue is not persuasive.
Regarding the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Lie et al. (WO 2017/004047 A1), the applicant argues that the cited reference fails to disclose all of the features of the claimed invention, specifically “determining at least one estimation error for the substitute correction data generated in step c).”
Applicant argues that “step S702 is a quality check for the offset vector or derivations thereof, which are not related to the using of the last available RTK position or the relative position vector.” (applicant’s remarks p. 9)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Step S702 is preceded by step S504 and S506, which include receiving an RTK signal encoded with RTK correction data and determining by the RTK position estimator a RTK position for the first measurement time (considered to be the last available RTK position). However, to further clarify the rejection of claim 7, the instant office action cites additional teachings from Lie et al., including “the relative position estimator 124 or engine can estimate an offset vector based on the RTK position used to initialize the engine,” where the offset vector is considered to be the correction data (Lie et al. p. 29, lines 28-29). Lie et al. also discloses that “the relative position estimator 124 or any of the bias estimators may comprise a Kalman filter, a least squares estimator, a weighted least squares estimator, or a predictive filter.” (Lie et al. p. 41, lines 1-3) The biases that are estimated are also considered to be correction data, and estimation error is determined as part of the process of using a Kalman filter, a least squares estimator, a weighted least squares estimator or a predictive filter. Therefore, applicant’s argument on this issue is not persuasive.
Regarding the examiner’s rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable in view of Lie et al. in view of Kelley et al. (US 2014/0253369 A1) and Mueller et al. (US 5,323,322), the applicant argues that the cited references fail to disclose all of the features of the claimed invention, specifically “the extrapolation is carried out using Lagrange polynomials.
Applicant argues that “Kelley and Mueller references are directed to using polynomials for anchors and deltas for bandwidth compression, or for determining orbit errors. Neither of these functions is relevant to the relative position vector of Lie.” (applicant’s remarks p. 9)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Lie et al. discloses that the precise position estimator provides an absolute position of the mobile receiver and bias-related parameters associated with previous or current point estimates to the relative position estimator (Lie et al. p. 40, lines 9-15). The relative position estimator then determines estimates for initial position bias, atmospheric bias, and receiver clock bias (Lie et al. p. 40, lines 30-32). However, Lie et al. does not explicitly disclose that using the extrapolation of Lagrange polynomials for estimating the biases. Kelley et al. uses the polynomials to represent the trends in the nonce, or correction, values over time (Kelley et al. ¶ [0096]). The parameters include orbital almanacs, orbital ephemerides, atmospheric parameters, and meteorological data (Kelley et al. ¶ [0063]-[0069]). Kelley et al. further discloses that “The expansion of polynomials may be executed according to polynomial principles known in the art.” (Kelley et al. ¶ [0110]) The device of Kelley et al. “can be used to advantage in situations where message loss or data dropout prevents reception…” (Kelley et al. ¶ [0138]) The polynomials of Kelley et al. trends similar parameters of correction values to the relative position estimator of Lie et al. Although Kelley et al. teaches the use of polynomial expansion, Kelley et al. does not explicitly disclose the use of Lagrange polynomials. Mueller et al. discloses the use of the “The differential equations describing the orbit errors in Keplerian element form are the Lagrange Planetary Equations.” (Mueller et al. Col. 21 lines 46-48). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the invention of Lie et al. with the teachings of Kelley et al. and Mueller et al. for the purpose of using parametric models in order to transmit the essential error correction information to without using excessive bandwidth (Kelley et al. ¶ [0011]) and to provide predictive trends for estimating correction values in the event of loss of reception (Kelley et al. ¶ [0096]-[0097]; [0138]), and estimate orbit errors with good accuracy and reduce computational load at various key points (Mueller et al. Col. 22, lines 6-25). Therefore, applicant’s argument on this issue is not persuasive.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter according to the subject matter eligibility flowchart analysis described below:
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Step 1:
The instant application includes the following independent claim directed to the following categories of patent eligible subject matter articulated in parenthesis:
(claim 1)… a method for generating substitute correction data for GNSS-based localization of a mobile device (i.e., a process)
As such claim 1 is directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Regarding Step 2A, prong 1:
Claim 1 recites the following elements which, under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention, constitute either mathematical calculations for the articulated reasons given in parenthesis or mental processes for the articulated reasons given in parenthesis:
(claim 1, lines 3-4): … recognizing that receipt of correction data from at least one correction data source is currently impaired… (the broadest reasonable interpretation of the recognizing that receipt of correction data step, is reasonably considered a mental process that can reasonably be performed by a person looking at the correction data and forming a simple judgement)
(claim 1, line 5): … reading correction data that has been received earlier… (the broadest reasonable interpretation of the reading correction data step, is reasonably considered a mental process that can reasonably be performed by a person who reads the correction data)
(claim 1, lines 6-7): … generating substitute correction data for the current situation by using at least part of the correction data that has been received earlier (the broadest reasonable interpretation of the generating substitute correction data step, is reasonably considered a mathematical calculation in light of the specification teaching the use of mathematical approaches/procedures to generate the substitute correction data, see the instant specification, p. 5, lines 35-37, “The generation of substitute correction data in step c) can be done by use of different mathematical approaches/procedures which are described in more detail below.”)
Regarding Step 2A, prong 2:
Claim 1 does not integrate the claimed abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the following elements but fail to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception for the articulated reasons given in parenthesis:
(claim 1, line 3-4): … receipt of the correction data from at least one correction data source… (amounts to mere data gathering, thus failing to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception)
(claim 1, line 5): … correction data that has been received earlier… (amounts to mere data gathering, thus failing to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception)
As such, these additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in claim 1, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, at least claim 1 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention as a whole, considering all of the elements, both individually and in combination, is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-13 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. Claims 2-7 only include the steps of generating substitute correction data, selecting at least one estimation procedure, and determining at least one estimation error, which constitute mathematical calculations and mental processes. Claims 8-10 recite a computer program, a machine-readable storage medium and an installation, adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the extrapolation” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of prosecution “the extrapolation” has been interpreted as “generating the substitute correction data.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lie et al. (WO 2017/004047 A1, cited by applicant in IDS dated 20 SEP 2023, previously relied upon by the examiner).
Regarding claim 1 (Previously Presented), Lie et al. discloses:
A method for generating substitute correction data for GNSS-based localization of a mobile device (Lie et al. “Upon loss of the RTK correction signal, the navigation positioning estimator (57) or controller switches to a relative position mode based a last available RTK position.” – abstract; mobile receiver 12, Fig. 1), comprising:
a) recognizing that receipt of correction data from at least one correction data source is currently impaired (Lie et al. “FIG. 5 is a flow chart of a first embodiment of a method operating a satellite navigation receiver, and more particularly for switching between a real-time kinematic mode and a precise positioning mode. Extended RTK (RTKX) mode means an operational mode of the receiver 12 after RTK correction signal is lost, interrupted, corrupt or unavailable.” – p. 20, lines 11-15),
b) reading correction data that has been received earlier (Lie et al. “The next precise position estimate is based on a last available RTK position prior to the loss and a relative position vector between a last available measurement time and a next measurement time.” – p. 25, lines 29-31; “In one embodiment, the relative position estimator 124 uses the precise correction data to generate changes in position relative to a certain epoch.” – p. 29, lines 21-23; “In alternate embodiments, the precise position estimator 120 can provide one or more of the following data to the relative position estimator 124: (1) an absolute position of the mobile receiver (or its antenna 17), (2) a reference trajectory (or reference points) of the mobile receiver 12, or (3) bias-related parameters (e.g., then-current, bias-related parameters for storage in or retrieval from the data storage device 155) associated with previous or current precise point position estimates, where bias-related parameters relate to initial position bias of the relative position estimate, atmospheric delay bias, or receiver clock bias.” p. 40, lines 9-15), and
c) generating substitute correction data for the current situation by using at least part of the correction data that has been received earlier (Lie et al. “The next precise position estimate is based on a last available RTK position prior to the loss and a relative position vector between a last available measurement time and a next measurement time.” – p. 25, lines 29-31; “In one embodiment, in step S201 the receiver or relative position estimator 124 models or estimates one or more biases selected from the group comprising: a bias (e.g., initial position bias) in the initial position of the receiver, a temporal change in receiver clock bias (over time) with respect to a reference time (e.g., satellite system time), or a temporal change in atmospheric propagation delay bias (over time) between a receiver and a respective satellite with respect to a reference time.” – p. 45, lines 15-20).
Regarding claim 2 (Currently Amended), Lie et al. discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the generating of the substitute correction data is carried out adaptively based on a current situation of the mobile device (Lie et al. “Further, the atmospheric bias estimator 536 can estimate a respective time-varying tropospheric bias for each corresponding chained relative position vector in a set (or sequence) of chained relative position vectors, across one or more cycle slips; the atmospheric bias estimator 536 can accumulate or add one or more respective time-varying tropospheric biases in the data storage device 155 of the electronic data processing system 129 for tracking tropospheric bias over indefinite time periods (e.g., with or without cycle slips in the carrier phase of one or more received satellite signals) after loss of an RTK correction signal and transition from an RTK positioning mode to a relative positioning mode.” – p. 41, line 32 – p. 42, line 6)
Regarding claim 3 (Currently Amended), Lie et al. discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the generating of the substitute correction data includes extrapolating from the correction data that has been received earlier (Lie et al. “Each reference position (or its corresponding bias-related data) of the receiver or precise position estimator 120 at time zero or tO (e.g. , xref,t0), or a reference position at another time (e.g., xref,t) can aid, augment or enhance the accuracy of the relative position estimator 124… The reference position or reference trajectory may be based on the output of a precise position estimator 120 that is available at tO or another time as an input to the relative position estimator 124. In step S200, the receiver 12 or relative position estimator 124 models or estimates an initial position bias in the position of the receiver.” – p. 47, lines 24-32) and generating the substitute correction data from the extrapolation (Lie et al. “In step S202, the receiver 12 or relative position estimator 124 models or estimates one or more of the following: (1) the atmospheric propagation delay bias (e.g. , tropospheric propagation delay bias) over time associated with a signal propagation path between a receiver and a respective satellite, or (2) the temporal change in atmospheric propagation delay bias (e.g., tropospheric propagation delay bias) over time associated with a signal propagation path between a receiver and a respective satellite.” – p. 48, lines 13-18; “In step S204, the receiver or relative position estimator 124 models or estimates one or more of the following: (1) receiver clock bias (over time) with respect to a reference time or one or more satellite clocks, and (2) a temporal change in receiver clock bias (over time) with respect to a reference time or one or more satellite clocks.” – p. 51, lines 1-4 ).
Regarding claim 4 (Currently Amended), Lie et al. discloses:
The method according to claim 3, wherein the extrapolation is carried out adaptively based on a current situation of the mobile device (Lie et al. “Further, the atmospheric bias estimator 536 can estimate a respective time-varying tropospheric bias for each corresponding chained relative position vector in a set (or sequence) of chained relative position vectors, across one or more cycle slips; the atmospheric bias estimator 536 can accumulate or add one or more respective time-varying tropospheric biases in the data storage device 155 of the electronic data processing system 129 for tracking tropospheric bias over indefinite time periods (e.g., with or without cycle slips in the carrier phase of one or more received satellite signals) after loss of an RTK correction signal and transition from an RTK positioning mode to a relative positioning mode.” – p. 41, line 32 – p. 42, line 6).
Regarding claim 6 (Currently Amended), Lie et al. discloses:
The method according to claim 2, wherein the generating of the substitute correction data comprises selecting at least one estimation procedure from a plurality of available estimation procedures based on the current situation of the mobile device (Lie et al. “In one embodiment, in step S201 the receiver or relative position estimator 124 models or estimates one or more biases selected from the group comprising: a bias (e.g., initial position bias) in the initial position of the receiver, a temporal change in receiver clock bias (over time) with respect to a reference time (e.g., satellite system time), or a temporal change in atmospheric propagation delay bias (over time) between a receiver and a respective satellite with respect to a reference time.” – p. 45, lines 15-20; see also p. 48, line 13 – p. 51, line 31).
Regarding claim 7 (Previously Presented), Lie et al. discloses:
The method according to claim 1, further comprising:
d) determining at least one estimation error for the substitute correction data generated in step c) (Lie et al. “the relative position estimator 124 or engine can estimate an offset vector based on the RTK position used to initialize the engine.” p. 29, lines 28-29; “In one configuration, the relative position estimator 124 or any of the bias estimators may comprise a Kalman filter, a least squares estimator, a weighted least squares estimator, or a predictive filter.” – p. 41, lines 1-3)
Regarding claim 8 (Previously Presented), Lie et al. discloses:
A computer program configured for carrying out a method according to claim 1 (Lie et al. “Software instructions and data that are stored in the data storage device 24 may be executed by the data processor 20 to implement any of the blocks, components or modules (e.g., electronic modules, software modules, or both) described in this disclosure document.” – p. 9, lines 26-28).
Regarding claim 9 (Currently Amended), Lie et al. discloses:
A non-transitory machine readable storage medium on which the computer program according to claim 8 is stored (Lie et al. “Software instructions and data that are stored in the data storage device 24 may be executed by the data processor 20 to implement any of the blocks, components or modules (e.g., electronic modules, software modules, or both) described in this disclosure document.” – p. 9, lines 26-28).
Regarding claim 10 (Currently Amended), Lie et al. discloses:
An installation (Lie et al. data processing center 18, Fig. 1A) for GNSS-based localization of a mobile device (Lie et al. mobile receiver 12, Fig. 1A) comprising: a controller (Lie et al. “The data processor 20 may comprise a microcontroller, a microprocessor, a programmable logic array, an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a digital signal processor, or another device for processing data, manipulating, accessing, retrieving, and storing data.” – p. 9, lines 29-31) configured to execute commands stored in a memory to execute the method according to claim 1 (Lie et al. “Software instructions and data that are stored in the data storage device 24 may be executed by the data processor 20 to implement any of the blocks, components or modules (e.g., electronic modules, software modules, or both) described in this disclosure document.” – p. 9, lines 26-28).
Regarding claim 11 (New), Lie et al. discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the substitute correction data describes errors or influences to GNSS signals (Lie et al. “In one embodiment, in step S201 the receiver or relative position estimator 124 models or estimates one or more biases selected from the group comprising: a bias (e.g., initial position bias) in the initial position of the receiver, a temporal change in receiver clock bias (over time) with respect to a reference time (e.g., satellite system time), or a temporal change in atmospheric propagation delay bias (over time) between a receiver and a respective satellite with respect to a reference time.” – p. 45, lines 15-20).
Regarding claim 12 (New), Lie et al. discloses:
The method according to claim 11, wherein the substitute correction data describes runtime, orbit, clock, code bias, ionosphere, and/or troposphere errors of the GNSS signals (Lie et al. “In one embodiment, in step S201 the receiver or relative position estimator 124 models or estimates one or more biases selected from the group comprising: a bias (e.g., initial position bias) in the initial position of the receiver, a temporal change in receiver clock bias (over time) with respect to a reference time (e.g., satellite system time), or a temporal change in atmospheric propagation delay bias (over time) between a receiver and a respective satellite with respect to a reference time.” – p. 45, lines 15-20).
Regarding claim 13 (New), Lie et al. discloses:
The method according to claim 1, further comprising:
determining a position of the mobile device based on the substitute correction data (Lie et al. “The relative position estimator or the reference frame compensator offsets the estimated relative position in the relative position mode (after loss of RTK correction signal) by the determined reference frame bias to avoid a jump or discontinuity in the relative position estimates. In certain embodiments, chained relative position vectors and time-varying atmospheric bias estimation supports operation in the relative positioning mode for arbitrary long periods after loss of the RTK correction signal, even if the RTK correction signal is not restored. – p. 2, lines 8-18).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lie et al. (WO 2017/004047 A1, cited by applicant in IDS dated 20 SEP 2023, previously relied upon by the examiner) in view of Kelley et al. (US 2014/0253369 A1, cited by applicant in IDS dated 20 SEP 2023, previously relied upon by the examiner) and Mueller et al. (US 5,323,322, previously relied upon by the examiner).
Regarding claim 5 (Currently Amended), Lie et al. discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Lie et al. has been struck-through]
The method according to claim 2, wherein the extrapolation is carried out (Lie et al. “the relative position estimator 124 comprises an initial bias estimator 534, an atmospheric bias estimator 536 (e.g., time-varying tropospheric estimator) and a receiver clock bias estimator 527, and a continuity module 545.” p. 40, lines 30-32)
Kelley et al. discloses:
wherein the wherein the extrapolation is carried out is carried out using (Kelley et al. polynomials represent the trends in the nonce, or correction, values over time - ¶ [0096]; “The expansion of polynomials may be executed according to polynomial principles known in the art.” - ¶ [0110]; the parameters include orbital almanacs, orbital ephemerides, atmospheric parameters, meteorological data - ¶ [0063]-[0069]).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Kelley et al. into the invention of Lie et al. Both Lie et al. and Kelley et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose transmitting GNSS correction data to mobile devices. Lie et al. discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein the extrapolation is carried out. However, Lie et al. fails to explicitly disclose using polynomials. This feature is disclosed by Kelley et al. where “The expansion of polynomials may be executed according to polynomial principles known in the art…” (Kelley et al. ¶ [0110]). The combination of Lie et al. and Kelley et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to use parametric models in order to transmit the essential error correction information to without using excessive bandwidth (Kelley et al. ¶ [0011]).
However, Lie et al. as modified by Kelley et al. fails to explicitly disclose that the polynomials are Lagrange polynomials.
Mueller et al. discloses:
using Lagrange polynomials (Mueller et al. “The differential equations describing the orbit errors in Keplerian element form are the Lagrange Planetary Equations.” – Col. 21, lines 46-48).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Mueller et al. into the invention of Lie et al. as modified by Kelley et al. to yield the invention of claim 5 above. Lie et al., Kelley et al. and Mueller et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose transmitting GNSS correction data to mobile devices. Lie et al. as modified by Kelley et al. discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the extrapolation is carried out using polynomials. However, Lie et al. as modified by Kelley et al. fails to explicitly disclose the polynomials are Lagrange polynomials. This feature is disclosed by Mueller et al. where “The differential equations describing the orbit errors in Keplerian element form are the Lagrange Planetary Equations.” (Mueller et al. Col. 21, lines 46-48). The combination of Lie et al., Kelley et al. and Mueller et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to estimate orbit errors with good accuracy and reduce computational load at various key points (Mueller et al. Col. 22, lines 6-25).
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 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 NAOMI M WOLFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-3929. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 4:30 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, Resha Desai can be reached at (571)270-7792. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
NAOMI M. WOLFORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/N.M.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 3648
5 JUN 2026
/RESHA DESAI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights