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 .
Examiner’s Note
To help the reader, examiner notes in this detailed action claim language is in bold, strikethrough limitations are not explicitly taught and language added to explain a reference mapping are isolated from quotations via square brackets.
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 judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more (see MPEP 2106).
Applying Step 1 of the MPEP § 2106, the instant application includes the following independent claims: Claim 1 is directed towards “A method for position determination by receiving GNSS signals using a GNSS receiver comprising a plurality of channels".
As such, claim 1 is/are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter:
Regarding Step 2A, prong 1 of the MPEP § 2106: claim 1 presents the following steps which
under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention, constitute an abstract idea and recite a mathematical process:
A method for position determination by receiving GNSS signals using a GNSS receiver comprising a plurality of channels, which can be connected in a data-conducting manner to a common Kalman filter to form a plurality of vector tracking loops such that each received GNSS signal can be processed in an iterative manner using a corresponding vector tracking loop while taking into account the measurements returned by the common Kalman filter, the method comprising: a) receiving GNSS signals; b) processing a received GNSS signal using a corresponding vector tracking loop such that the information contained in the GNSS signal is determined while taking into account a virtual value, wherein the virtual value is generated such that measurements to be returned by the common Kalman filter are aggregated to the virtual value for a predefined number of iterations; c) entering the information determined from the GNSS signal into the common Kalman filter; d) determining the position using the common Kalman filter based on the information determined from the GNSS signal; and e) repeating steps a) to d) for subsequent iterations.
Each of these steps can reasonably be performed by a general-purpose computer as indicated in Applicant’s specification (see para. 0072) and thus are reasonably mathematical concepts.
Regarding Step 2A, prong 2 of the MPEP § 2106: Claim 1 does not integrate the claimed abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 recites “determining the position using the common Kalman filter based on the information determined from the GNSS signal; and e) repeating steps a) to d) for subsequent iterations”
These limitations add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Regarding Step 2B of the MPEP § 2106: Claim 1 does not recite additional elements, taken individually and in combination, that result in the claim as a whole, amounting to an inventive concept. The claim consists entirely of computing and outputting data in the form of an aggregating solution; thus, the claim generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular mathematical calculation; and thus, fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than steps that would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. Claim 1 as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, merely requires an expression of a mathematical concept and performing mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). As such claim 1 does not integrate the abstract idea into an inventive concept.
Claims 2-13, when taken both individually and in combination, are directed to the judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more. Each of the additional cited claims add limitations can be performed by a general-purpose computer using math. As such, claims 2-13 as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, merely requires an expression of a mathematical concept and performing mathematical calculations, with or without a simple calculator (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Finally, claims 2-13 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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(s) 1-16 is/are 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "can be" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "can be"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
However, in the interest of compact prosecution and for the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret ‘can be’ as ‘is’.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8-11, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexander (US 20070252754) in view of Abbott et al. (US PAT 6516021 hereinafter Abbott).
Regarding claim 1, Alexander teaches A method for position determination by receiving GNSS signals using a GNSS receiver comprising a plurality of channels (0006 “A GPS navigator determines position with time-of-arrival measurements. The navigator correlates a replica of each satellite's code with the received satellite's signal.”), which can be connected in a data-conducting manner to a common Kalman filter to form a plurality of vector tracking loops such that each received GNSS signal can be processed in an iterative manner using a corresponding vector tracking loop while taking into account the measurements returned by the common Kalman filter, the method comprising (0015 “The navigation filter outputs vehicle trajectory and IMU error estimates to the navigation processor to close the multi-satellite tracking loop.”; 0019 “In one embodiment, a Kalman filter is used to implement the navigation filter”):
a) receiving GNSS signals (fig 1);
b) processing a received GNSS signal using a corresponding vector tracking loop such that the information contained in the GNSS signal is determined (0021 “The replica signals are mixed with the GPS carrier and code signals in a phase de-rotation and correlation process to produce in-phase (I) and quadrature-phase (Q) measurements”; 0016 “every GPS satellite tracking loop includes the navigation filter, each satellite is integrated with the IMU and other tracked satellites”)
c) entering the information determined from the GNSS signal into the common Kalman filter (Abstract “range rate and range acceleration residual measurements to a navigation Kalman filter.”);
d) determining the position using the common Kalman filter based on the information determined from the GNSS signal (0036 “Navigation state errors from the Kalman filter 105 are provided to a navigation processor block 106. Navigation estimates are based on dead reckoning in which the receiver position and velocity are propagated based on the current estimate of acceleration, velocity and position.”); and
e) repeating steps a) to d) for subsequent iterations (fig 1).
Alexander does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Abbott teaches
while taking into account a virtual value, wherein the virtual value is generated such that measurements to be returned by the common Kalman filter are aggregated to the virtual value for a predefined number of iterations (7:24-30 “The Kalman prefilter uses all measurement I and Q samples from all in-view GPS satellites between integration Kalman filter epochs to compress that sampled information into summary measurement residuals that are provided to the large integration Kalman filter during each major cycle.”; 15:2-7 “This near real time Kalman prefilter operation enables the processing of the Is and Qs samples in a near optimal and robust manner. The Kalman prefilter 46 can batch process all the I and Q samples over the one-second epoch interval for robust processing.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings Abbott with the teachings of Alexander. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve the accuracy (Abbott 16:10-30). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Abbott merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular aggregation features. Since both Abbott and Alexander disclose similar GPS systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, the cited prior art teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein:
in step b), the virtual value is regenerated after a predefined number of iterations have been performed on the vector tracking loop (Alexander 0104 “At discrete time intervals (e.g., one second intervals in one embodiment), the navigation filter generates new estimates of the vehicle trajectory and dead reckoning-based error estimates, which through the navigation equations, run each of the satellite's NCOs. This causes the phase error states defined above to change. Therefore, the phase error estimator must be reinitialized after each navigation filter cycle.”).
Regarding claim 4, the cited prior art teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein:
in step b), the virtual value is reaggregated when the information determined from the GNSS signal reaches a predefined threshold (Abbot 4:1-11 “If the tracking loop error builds beyond a certain threshold value, the loop is deemed to be out of lock and pseudorange and pseudorange rate measurements are not made until the loop reacquires lock. This out of lock condition is due to the nonlinearity of the correlation process and the use of linear loop designs that are only valid for small error conditions. If the loop loses lock, the received signal must then be reacquired. The reacquisition search process requires higher received signal strength than the tracking process, so when there is a marginal signal-to-noise situation for tracking, the loop may never reacquire lock.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings Abbott with the teachings of Alexander. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve the accuracy (Abbott 16:10-30). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Abbott merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular aggregation features. Since both Abbott and Alexander disclose similar GPS systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 5, the cited prior art teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein:
in step b), the measurements to be returned for each vector tracking loop are aggregated to a virtual value separately from one another for an individual number of iterations (Abbot 4:12-17
“A GPS receiver has multiple channels, one for each satellite tracked. Each GPS channel has a respective code tracking loop and carrier tracking loop that operates independently of each other. Hence, one tracking loop may lose lock due to a low signal-to-noise ratio even though other GPS channels are being normally tracked.).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings Abbott with the teachings of Alexander. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve the accuracy (Abbott 16:10-30). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Abbott merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular aggregation features. Since both Abbott and Alexander disclose similar GPS systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, the cited prior art teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein:
in step b), the measurements to be returned for multiple vector tracking loops are aggregated to virtual values and processed together in the common Kalman filter (Abbot 18:6-12 “The high-rate Kalman prefilter 46 is preferably a recursive or a least squares batch processor that compresses all the high-rate measurement residuals at m hertz from all N satellites in view into one smoothed measurement residual vector that is processed by the integration Kalman filter 48 at the desired one hertz rate”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings Abbott with the teachings of Alexander. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve the accuracy (Abbott 16:10-30). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Abbott merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular aggregation features. Since both Abbott and Alexander disclose similar GPS systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, the cited prior art teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the information determined from the GNSS signal comprises a Doppler frequency and/or code phase (Alexander 0021 “The replica signals are mixed with the GPS carrier and code signals in a phase de-rotation and correlation process to produce in-phase (I) and quadrature-phase (Q) measurements.”).
Regarding claim 9, the cited prior art teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the vector tracking loop is designed as a vector frequency lock loop, vector delay lock loop, or vector phase lock loop (Abbot 2:60-65 “Frequency lock loops are also used for the carrier tracking and sometimes are used in combination with phase lock loops to improve robustness.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings Abbott with the teachings of Alexander. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve the accuracy (Abbott 16:10-30). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Abbott merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular circuitry. Since both Abbott and Alexander disclose similar GPS systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 10, the cited prior art teaches A control device for the GNSS receiver, which device is configured to perform a method according to claim 1 (Alexander 0036 “Navigation state errors from the Kalman filter 105 are provided to a navigation processor block 106. Navigation estimates are based on dead reckoning in which the receiver position and velocity are propagated based on the current estimate of acceleration, velocity and position.”).
Regarding claim 11, the cited prior art teaches A computer program for performing a method according to claim 1 (Alexander 0013 “It sends estimates to the navigation processor, which computes navigation estimates. The navigation estimates are projected along each satellite's line of sight for tracking loop aiding. This configuration is called a tightly coupled system.”).
Regarding claim 12, the cited prior art teaches A machine-readable storage medium on which the computer program according to claim 11 is stored (Alexander 0013 “It sends estimates to the navigation processor, which computes navigation estimates. The navigation estimates are projected along each satellite's line of sight for tracking loop aiding. This configuration is called a tightly coupled system.”).
Regarding claim 13, the cited prior art teaches A geolocation system for a vehicle, which system is configured to perform a method according to claim 1 (Alexander Abstract “The system contains an Advanced Tightly Coupled (ATC) tracking processor which accepts early, late, and on-time I and Q data from the GPS signal tracker and outputs vehicle to satellite range, range rate and range acceleration residual measurements to a navigation Kalman filter.”).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexander (US 20070252754) in view of Abbott et al. (US PAT 6516021 hereinafter Abbott) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Diesel (US 20020109628).
Regarding claim 2, the cited prior art teaches The method according to claim 1,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Diesel teaches
wherein: in step b), the measurements to be returned are aggregated to the virtual value for two to ten iterations (Diesel 0149 “wherein: in step b), the measurements to be returned are aggregated to the virtual value for two to ten iterations”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings Kennedy with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve operational reliability through the use of a plurality of Kalman filters (Diesel 0003). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Diesel merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing. Since both Diesel and the cited prior art disclose similar GPS systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexander (US 20070252754) in view of Abbott et al. (US PAT 6516021 hereinafter Abbott) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Kennedy et al. (US 20130265193 hereinafter Kennedy).
Regarding claim 7, the cited prior art teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein:
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Abbott teaches
in step b), the measurements to be returned are aggregated to a virtual value according to a mean value, a median, or an extreme value (0021 “The improvements in navigation determination using the LMS (least mean square) method to the common use of EKF (extended Kalman filter) techniques is one example of this phenomena. The improvements in tracking loops from individual SV Costas carrier frequency tracking and delay lock code phase tracking to vector tracking using EKF is another example”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings Kennedy with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve the accuracy of the navigation determination (Kennedy 0003, 0021). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Kennedy merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing. Since both Kennedy and the cited prior art disclose similar GPS systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to application’s disclosure:
Wang et al. (US 20070118286) discloses “An Ultra-Tightly Coupled GPS-inertial navigation system for use in a moving agile platform includes a range residual extractor that uses best curve fitting of a third order polynomial for estimating range residual. The curve-fitted residual is used to update an error Kalman filter. The error Kalman filter includes correction for navigation solution, and IMU and GPS parameters. The navigation solution together with GPS parameter corrections are used in a Tracking Predictor to generate high-sampling-rate carrier and code replicas. The curve-fitting error covariance indicates signal to noise ratio for the tracked GPS signal and may be used for early indication of interference or jamming. (See abstract)”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571) 272-3896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, William Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648