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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks/Arguments and amended claims, filed 12/29/2025 with respect to claims 1-20, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10, 12-14, and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, 35 U.S.C. § 102 and under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is withdrawn. Furthermore, the Objection to Title is withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art reference(s) SHENG et al., CN 104075713 A, and previously disclosed prior art reference(s) GAVRILETS, FRANCE, WEIGL and LI. The grounds for rejection in view of amended claims are provided below.
Status of Application
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-11, and 13-20, are amended.
No claims are withdrawn from consideration.
No claims are cancelled.
No claims are added.
Claims 1, 10, and 16, are independent claims.
Claims 1-20 will be examined.
This Final Office action is in response to the “Applicant Arguments/Remarks” and “Amended Claims” dated 12/29/2025.
Claim Interpretation
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three-prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office reviewed the claims for terms containing limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f), and no terms are being interpreted as such.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 10, 16, and 18, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GAVRILETS, US 20200386551, herein further known as Gavrilets, in view of SHENG et al., CN 104075713 A, herein further known as Sheng.
Regarding claim 1, Gavrilets discloses determining a location of a vehicle (¶¶ [0005-0008], absolute position, [0015-0026], absolute position), comprising: obtaining at the vehicle celestial measurement data at a current point in time from a celestial measurement system associated with the vehicle (¶¶ [0015], [0027-0028], [0033-0034], see also FIG. 1); obtaining at the vehicle, inertial measurement data from an inertial measurement system associated with the vehicle at or before the current point in time (¶ [0043], absolute positions in response to previous absolute position, movement, and time); and in response to obtaining the celestial measurement data: determining a Kalman gain based at least in part on the inertial measurement data (¶¶ [0045], [0047]); determining a celestial measurement error (¶ [0064]) based at least in part on a relationship between the celestial measurement data at the current point in time and a prior estimate of the celestial measurement data for the current point in time (¶ [0063]); determining a current estimated error associated with the location of the vehicle based at least in part on a prior estimated error associated with the location, the Kalman gain and the celestial measurement error (¶¶ [0043], [0045], [0047], [0063-0064); and determining an updated estimate of a current geographic location of the vehicle based at least in part on the current estimated error and a prior estimated location of the vehicle (¶¶ [0015], [0027], [0029], measurement update, [0036], known geographic data to determine the data for use by the navigation system), wherein an action related to operation of the vehicle is performed based on the updated estimate of the current geographic location (¶¶ [0027], absolute position of the aircraft 22, [0036], absolute position of the aircraft 22 with positioning adjustment).
However, Gavrilets does not explicitly state a noise associated with the inertial measurement system, a relationship between the celestial measurement data and a location of the vehicle, and an uncertainty associated with the celestial measurement data.
Sheng teaches a noise associated with the inertial measurement system, a relationship between the celestial measurement data and a location of the vehicle, and an uncertainty associated with the celestial measurement data (¶ [0019], and claim 1).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Gavrilets the a noise associated with the inertial measurement system, a relationship between the celestial measurement data and a location of the vehicle, and an uncertainty associated with the celestial measurement data as taught by Sheng.
One would be motivated to modify Gavrilets in view of Sheng for the reasons stated in Sheng abstract more robust system and method which greatly improves the combined navigation system filtering the convergence speed, and can accurately estimate the gyro constant value drift and improve the precision of the combined navigation system, can be used in any combination including astronomical and navigation system inertia.
Regarding claim 10, all limitations have been examined with respect to the method in claim 1. The apparatus taught/disclosed in claim 10 can clearly perform the methods of claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 16, all limitations have been examined with respect to the method in claim 1. The apparatus taught/disclosed in claim 16 can clearly perform the methods of claim 1. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 18, Gavrilets discloses all elements of claim 1 above..
Gavrilets discloses further celestial measurement system comprises at least one imaging device to capture image data comprising one or more celestial objects from the current vantage point of the vehicle (¶¶ [0034-0036]).
Claim(s) 3, 12, and 17, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Gavrilets, and Sheng, in view of FRANCE, US 20140022539, herein further known as France.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Gavrilets, and Sheng, disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
However, Gavrilets does not explicitly state celestial measurement data comprises at least one of a polarimetric heading and an estimated yaw angle based on atmospheric polarization measurement data.
France teaches celestial measurement data comprises at least one of a polarimetric heading and an estimated yaw angle based on atmospheric polarization measurement data (¶ [0100]).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Gavrilets the celestial measurement data comprises an estimated yaw angle based on atmospheric polarization measurement data as taught by France.
One would be motivated to modify Gavrilets in view of France for the reasons stated in France paragraph [0005], more robust method and system for accurate navigation information without reliance on GNSS or other external devices or systems.
Regarding claim 12, all limitations have been examined with respect to the method in claim 3. The apparatus taught/disclosed in claim 12 can clearly perform the methods of claim 3. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 17, all limitations have been examined with respect to the method in claim 3. The apparatus taught/disclosed in claim 17 can clearly perform the methods of claim 3. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3 above.
Claim(s) 4-6, 13, and 19, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Gavrilets, and Sheng, in view of WEIGL et al., US 7835826, herein further known as Weigl.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Gavrilets, and Sheng, disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
However, Gavrilets does not explicitly state celestial measurement error comprises determining an estimated yaw angle difference based at least in part on a relationship between an estimated yaw angle for the vehicle at the current point in time based on the celestial measurement data and a prior estimate of a yaw angle for the vehicle at the current point in time; and determining the current estimated error comprises determining the current estimated error based at least in part on a product of the Kalman gain and the estimated yaw angle difference.
Weigl teaches state celestial measurement error comprises determining an estimated yaw angle difference (column 4, line 65- 67, determine the spacecraft yaw angle 52) based at least in part on a relationship between an estimated yaw angle for the vehicle at the current point in time based on the celestial measurement data (column 4, line 65 through column 5, line 1) and a prior estimate of a yaw angle for the vehicle at the current point in time; and determining the current estimated error comprises determining the current estimated error based at least in part on a product of the Kalman gain and the estimated yaw angle difference (column 4, line 59 through column 6, line 28).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Gavrilets the state celestial measurement error comprises determining an estimated yaw angle difference based at least in part on a relationship between an estimated yaw angle for the vehicle at the current point in time based on the celestial measurement data and a prior estimate of a yaw angle for the vehicle at the current point in time; and determining the current estimated error comprises determining the current estimated error based at least in part on a product of the Kalman gain and the estimated yaw angle difference as taught by Weigl.
One would be motivated to modify Gavrilets in view of Weigl for the reasons stated in Weigl column 2, lines 30-35, more robust method and improved attitude determination system for yaw-steering spacecraft, such as those in a highly inclined orbit configuration, that can automatically estimate and compensate for gyro scale factor and misalignment errors without interruption of the spacecraft mission.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Gavrilets, and Sheng, disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
However, Gavrilets does not explicitly the celestial measurement data comprises solar position measurement data comprising a current angle between the vehicle and the Sun ; and determining the celestial measurement error comprises determining an estimated heading difference based at least in part on a relationship between the current angle at the current point in time and a prior estimate of an angle between the vehicle and the Sun for the current point in time; and determining the current estimated error comprises determining the current estimated error based at least in part on a product of the Kalman gain and the estimated heading difference.
Weigl teaches the celestial measurement data comprises solar position measurement data comprising a current angle between the vehicle and the Sun (column 7, lines 1-40); and determining the celestial measurement error comprises determining an estimated heading difference based at least in part on a relationship between the current angle at the current point in time and a prior estimate of an angle between the vehicle and the Sun for the current point in time (column 4, line 35 through column 5, line 1); and determining the current estimated error comprises determining the current estimated error based at least in part on a product of the Kalman gain and the estimated heading difference (column 4, line 59 through column 6, line 28).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Gavrilets the celestial measurement data comprises solar position measurement data comprising a current angle between the vehicle and the Sun ; and determining the celestial measurement error comprises determining an estimated heading difference based at least in part on a relationship between the current angle at the current point in time and a prior estimate of an angle between the vehicle and the Sun for the current point in time; and determining the current estimated error comprises determining the current estimated error based at least in part on a product of the Kalman gain and the estimated heading difference as taught by Weigl.
One would be motivated to modify Gavrilets in view of Weigl for the reasons stated in Weigl column 2, lines 30-35, more robust method and improved attitude determination system for yaw-steering spacecraft, such as those in a highly inclined orbit configuration, that can automatically estimate and compensate for gyro scale factor and misalignment errors without interruption of the spacecraft mission.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Gavrilets, Sheng, and Weigl, disclose all elements of claim 5 above.
Gavrilets discloses further angle comprises at least one of an azimuth and an elevation (¶ [0027].
Regarding claim 13, all limitations have been examined with respect to the method in claims 5 and 6. The apparatus taught/disclosed in claim 13 can clearly perform the methods of claim claims 5 and 6. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale as claim claims 5 and 6 above.
Regarding claim 19, all limitations have been examined with respect to the method in claims 5 and 6. The apparatus taught/disclosed in claim 19 can clearly perform the methods of claim claims 5 and 6. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale as claim claims 5 and 6 above.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 14, and 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Gavrilets, and Sheng, in view of LI, US 20240401953, herein further known as Li.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Gavrilets, and Sheng, disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
Gavrilets discloses further celestial measurement data indicative of a current attitude of the vehicle based on captured image data for a plurality of celestial objects (¶ [0034]).
However, Gavrilets does not explicitly state obtaining an astronomical quaternion.
Li teaches obtaining the celestial measurement data comprises obtaining an astronomical quaternion indicative of a current attitude of the vehicle based on captured image data for a plurality of celestial objects (¶ [0034]).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Gavrilets the obtaining an astronomical quaternion indicative of a current attitude of the vehicle based on captured image data for a plurality of celestial objects as taught by Li.
One would be motivated to modify Gavrilets in view of Li for the reasons stated in Li paragraph [0005], more robust system and method to determine latitude and longitude without using signals from satellites with high accuracy and the availability at relatively low-cost.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Gavrilets, Sheng, and Li disclose all elements of claim 7 above.
Gavrilets discloses further determining the celestial measurement error (¶ [0034]) comprises determining an estimated attitude difference based at least in part on a relationship between the current attitude of the vehicle at the current point in time (¶¶ [0029-0030], [0034], [0043], absolute positions in response to previous absolute position, movement, and time absolute position includes its position, attitude, as well as other states) and a prior estimate of an attitude of the vehicle for the current point in time (¶ [0043], absolute positions in response to previous absolute position, movement, and time, and absolute position includes its position, attitude, as well as other states); and determining the current estimated error (¶ [0063]) comprises determining the current estimated error (¶ [0063]) based at least in part on a product of the Kalman gain (¶¶ [0045-0047], and the estimated attitude difference (¶ [0043]).
Furthermore, Li teaches determining the celestial measurement error (¶ [0028], calibrate the error parameters).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Gavrilets the determining the celestial measurement error as taught by Li.
One would be motivated to modify Gavrilets in view of Li for the reasons stated in Li paragraph [0005], more robust system and method to determine latitude and longitude without using signals from satellites with high accuracy and the availability at relatively low-cost.
Regarding claim 14, all limitations have been examined with respect to the method in claim 7. The apparatus taught/disclosed in claim 14 can clearly perform the methods of claim 7. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 20, all limitations have been examined with respect to the method in claim 7. The apparatus taught/disclosed in claim 20 can clearly perform the methods of claim 7. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 9, 11, and 15, are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
It should be noted that this is in view of the prior art only. The claim rejections under 35 USC § 101, which are detailed above, must be overcome before a notice of allowance can be considered.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 Terry Buse whose telephone number is (313)446-6647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 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, Scott Browne can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/TERRY C BUSE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666