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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 USC 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Claim Interpretation
The preamble of claim 1 is interpreted by the Office as a positive limitation on the claims. It is noted that the body of claim 1, in line 5, recites "the navigation module", which refers back to "a navigation module" in the preamble of claim 1, line 2. According to In re Fought, 2019 USPQ2d 422062: "We have repeatedly held a preamble limiting when it serves as antecedent basis for a term appearing in the body of a claim.".
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kleeman '735 (US 2021/0033735 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Kleeman '735 discloses an operating method for determining navigation data based on global navigation satellite system GNSS data in a navigation module (130, Fig. 4; ¶38; ¶46) [in the embodiment when mobile receiver 110 is integrated with computing system 130 (¶38, lines 7-8)], the method comprising the following steps:
receiving the GNSS data (Fig. 4; ¶38; ¶41) [where GNSS data is received by mobile 110/130 from GNSS satellites and reference stations 120/121];
determining navigation data (¶46) with the GNSS data using stored parameters saved in a memory of the navigation module (135, Fig. 4; ¶58) which were ascertained from the GNSS data with at least one filter (¶69) [where outliers were filtered out/removed];
extracting a criterion from the navigation data or from another data source, which identifies a special situation in which a reception of the GNSS data is influenced by an error situation which is at least secondarily constant or has at least a constant component (¶47) [where a change in satellites in view of the receiver is a criterion, determined by extracting the signals of the received GNSS satellite signals, which identifies a special situation (e.g. a new satellite has appeared from over the horizon) which is an error situation (GNSS correction is initiated to correct the errors of the new satellite), where the error situation is at least secondarily constant or has at least a constant component (the satellites being received in addition to the new satellite remain the same as before)]; and
performing updates and/or corrections of the stored parameters with the at least one filter for subsequent determinations of the navigation data (¶56) [for example, when a new satellite appears from over the horizon, the corrections need to be updated to include corrections for the new satellite],
wherein at least for parts of the stored parameters, which in principle change more slowly during operation than other parts of the stored parameters, the update and/or correction is slowed down or suspended (¶33-34) [where the ionospheric delay, which changes more slowly than clock error, is updated more slowly than clock error].
Kleeman '735 fails to explicitly disclose the update and/or correction is slowed down or suspended when the extracted criterion indicates the special situation.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would recognize that in the special situation of when signals from a newly visible satellite are received, corrections for the newly visible satellite need to be added to the set of corrections (updating the set of corrections), but for the satellites that continue to be received, there is no need to do anything other than continue the normal process of correcting them at the appropriate time (e.g. as detailed in ¶34). In other words, for parameters that change slowly, such as the ionospheric delays of the satellites that continue to be received, there is no need to update those parameters outside of the normal schedule.
The use of common sense in the obviousness analysis is endorsed by KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385.
In regard to claim 2, Kleeman '735 further discloses the special situation is a situation in which unfavorable environmental conditions for the reception of the GNSS data are present as an error situation (¶47).
In regard to claim 3, Kleeman '735 further discloses the updating and/or correction of the stored parameters is carried out using the GNSS data (Fig. 4; ¶41) [where GNSS data from the reference station is used to generate/update the corrections of the stored parameters].
In regard to claim 4, Kleeman '735 further discloses updated parameters and/or update parameters for the stored parameters are retrieved from an external source (¶41).
Kleeman '735 fails to explicitly disclose the stored parameters are regularly retrieved.
The Office takes Official Notice that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it well known before the effective filing date of the invention to retrieve parameters from a reference station regularly. It would make sense to include this feature in the invention of Kleeman '735 since Kleeman '735 uses the parameters to determine corrections regularly (¶34).
In regard to claim 5, Kleeman '735 further discloses for determining the criterion the special situation is determined in a start phase of the navigation module (¶47) [where a new satellite appearing from over the horizon can occur during a start phase when a navigation module and/or associated receiver is turned on, or at any other time].
Kleeman '735 fails to explicitly disclose it is determined whether a start phase of the navigation module is present.
The Office takes Official Notice that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it well known before the effective filing date of the invention for a navigation module to determine whether a start phase of the navigation module is present in order to perform steps that are required when a navigation module and/or associated receiver is turned on, such as obtaining ephemeris from the navigation message of the received satellite (¶39 of Kleeman '735).
In regard to claim 6, Kleeman '735 further discloses the criterion is defined to describe the special situation describing a static scenario of operation of the navigation module (¶47) [where the criteria is that a predetermined time is reached, where this is a special scenario because there are a plurality of other times when a predetermined time is not reached (e.g. if a predetermined time is every second on the second mark, 1 ms after the second mark, 2 ms after the second mark, 33 ms after the second mark, 444 ms after the second mark, etc., are times when corrections/updated corrections are not initiated), where this is a static scenario since the corrections/updated corrections are not initiated by a change (e.g. the trigger initiation in ¶47), but by the normal operation of the navigation module].
In regard to claim 8, Kleeman '735 further discloses the stored parameters are ascertained using a main filter (¶26) [where a Kalman filter is used], and the updates and/or corrections are performed by a separate filter which is separate from the main filter (¶53) [where a PPP filter is used].
In regard to claim 9, Kleeman '735 further discloses at least the main filter and/or the separate filter is a Kalman filter (¶26).
In regard to claim 10, Kleeman '735 further discloses the separate filter is slowed down when the special situation is detectable based on the extracted criterion (¶33-34; ¶53).
In regard to claim 11, Kleeman '735 further discloses the navigation module is configured to carry out the method (130, Fig. 4; ¶46).
In regard to claim 12, Kleeman '735 further discloses a computer program product is set up to carry out the method (¶135).
In regard to claim 13, Kleeman '735 further discloses the computer program product is stored on a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium (¶135).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kleeman '735 as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Cooper (US 2021/0116581 A1) in view of Sun (US 2015/0142311 A1).
Kleeman '735 fails to discloses, to determine the criterion, a speed is first determined at which the navigation module moves and the special situation is detected when the speed is below a threshold value.
Cooper teaches applying corrections more often in an urban canyon (¶17, lines 4-12; ¶26, lines 1-8; ¶90).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the accuracy of the determined position of the mobile device.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that determined position is determined with a greater accuracy.
Sun teaches determining that a mobile device is in an urban canyon when the speed is below a threshold value {305 to 309 to 311 to 303, Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to implement the determination of when the mobile device is in an urban canyon in Cooper in order to increase the accuracy of the determined position of the mobile device.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that it is determined when a mobile device is in an urban canyon and a more accurate position of the mobile device is determined.
In the combination, the criterion on whether to update the correction occurs when a speed is determined and detected to be below a threshold value.
The following reference(s) is/are also found relevant:
Integrated Mapping Ltd (How GPS Works), which teaches that a GNSS device performs various steps when turned on (section Startup, p. 2-3).
Schuchman (US 5,365,450 A), which teaches further information about GNSS device startup (col. 1-2).
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, which provides the definition of "special".
Applicant is encouraged to consider these documents in formulating their response (if one is required) to this Office Action, in order to expedite prosecution of this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on p. 5, with respect to the objection(s), have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection(s) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments on p. 5, with respect to the 35 USC 112 rejection(s), have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection(s) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments on p. 6-10, with respect to the prior rejection(s) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that what Kleeman discloses is "normal use" rather than a "special situation". However, the Office interprets "special situation" as it is used in the claim, i.e., a "situation in which a reception of the GNSS data is influenced by an error situation which is at least secondarily constant or has at least a constant component". The claim language does not require the situation to be rare or unusual. Neither the claims nor the disclosure define "special" to mean rare or unusual. While "special" can mean rare or unusual (definition 1 of "special" in The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language), "special" can also me specific or particular (definition 2 of "special" in The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, where a special type of paint is a particular type of paint, and where someone who gets special satisfaction from volunteer work could do volunteer work every day). As another example, a single-frequency GNSS receiver is a special case of a GNSS receiver. A dual-frequency GNSS receiver is a special case of a GNSS receiver. Both single-frequency GNSS receivers and dual-frequency GNSS receivers are common.
Applicant argues "The Office Action does not identify a corresponding 'error situation' having the 'constant' aspect.". However, the Office Action specifically identifies both. See the following image that comes directly from the previous Office Action:
PNG
media_image1.png
218
996
media_image1.png
Greyscale
If applicant does not believe that the cited error situation is an "error situation" or the cited constant component is a "constant" component, then applicant can explain why.
Applicant argues "the Office Action proposed updating or correcting parameters more quickly for a new satellite than for the already visible satellites". However, this is not correct. In ¶47, Kleeman states:
"The GNSS corrections can be updated at predetermined times (e.g., 1 s, 5 s, 10 s, 30 s, 60 s, 2 min, 5 min, 10 min, 20 min, 30 min, 60 min, 2 hr, 4 hr, 8 hr, 12 hr, 24 hr, etc.), responsive to a trigger (e.g., change in weather, change in temperature, change in mobile receiver position, change in satellites in view of the receiver, etc.), manually (e.g., responsive to a user request for updated corrections), and/or with any suitable timing. The GNSS corrections can be associated with a validity period, wherein the GNSS corrections can be invalid outside of the validity period (e.g., and must be refreshed), or permanently valid.".
Here, Kleeman discloses an embodiment of updating the GNSS corrections at both predetermined times and response to a trigger (i.e. based on the "and/or" in the first sentence, the first two options can be selected). In the modification, only the GNSS corrections for the new satellite are updated when the satellite constellation changes. Thus, fewer updates of the corrections for the satellites that remain in view occur. Updates for satellites that were previously in view only occur at the predetermined times, not when new satellites enter into view. Thus, the updating for satellites that were previously in view are slowed down relative to updating them both at the predetermined time and during a change in the satellites in view of the receiver (where "slowing down" is a relative term and the Office specifically identifies what the updating is being slowed down relative to). The special situation where the updating is slowed down is when a trigger for error correction is caused by a change in satellites in view of the receiver.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image2.png
44
630
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
620
1066
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, just because the rejection outlines why the limitation is well known, i.e. there are steps that are required when a navigation module and/or associated receiver
is turned on", does not mean that what is outlines is not well known.
Conclusion
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 Fred H. Mull whose telephone number is 571-272-6975. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from approximately 9-5:30 Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 https://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.
Fred H. Mull
Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/F. H. M./
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648