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 .
Remarks
The present Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 7/15/2025. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the present application. This Action is made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 7/15/2026 has been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the Examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moeglein et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0037775 A1) (as disclosed in Applicant’s IDS, hereinafter Moeglein) in view of Matthews (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0202357 A1) (hereinafter Matthews).
Regarding claim 17, Moeglein discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions, the computer-executable instructions, when executed on one or more processors of one or more electronic devices, cause the one or more processors to (Figure 2 and paragraphs 0071 and 0072 disclose it will be apparent from this description that aspects of the present invention may be embodied, at least in part, in software. That is, the techniques may be carried out in a computer system or other data processing system in response to its processor executing sequences of instructions contained in memory, such as ROM 207, volatile RAM 205, non-volatile memory 206, cache 204 or a remote storage device. In various embodiments, hardwired circuitry may be used in combination with software instructions to implement the present invention. Thus, the techniques are not limited to any specific combination of hardware circuitry and software nor to any particular source for the instructions executed by the data processing system. In addition, throughout this description, various functions and operations are described as being performed by or caused by software code to simplify description. However, those skilled in the art will recognize what is meant by such expressions is that the functions result from execution of the code by a processor, such as the processor 203. A machine readable medium can be used to store software and data which when executed by a data processing system causes the system to perform various methods of the present invention. This executable software and data may be stored in various places including for example ROM 207, volatile RAM 205, non-volatile memory 206 and/or cache 204 ):
receive information from a plurality of user equipment (UE) that have observed a beacon including at least raw global navigation satellite system (GNSS) measurements for the plurality of UE and round-trip time (RTT} measurements for the plurality of UE by the beacon (Figure 6 and paragraph 0052 disclose the mobile station obtains measurements based on SPS signals (e.g. measurements of SPS pseudoranges and extraction of SPS ephemeris information from SPS signals) and wireless transmissions (e.g. range measurements). The mobile station may transmit: i) the measurements; ii) the range to the access point antenna; and, iii) the identity of the access point antenna to the location server. Paragraph 0051 discloses range information (e.g., round trip time or signal traveling time between an access point and the mobile station). Figure 4 and paragraphs 0042 and 0043 disclose servers 413 and 415 maintain the almanac data for wireless networks A and B respectively. This almanac data may simply be, in one exemplary implementation, a database listing a latitude and longitude for each wireless access point which is specified by an identification information (e.g. MAC address or cell tower identifier, etc.). Servers 411, 413 and 415 may be implemented as a single server program, or different server programs in a single data processing system); and
provide, from a beacon database, a position of the beacon to one or more of the plurality of UE, wherein the position of the beacon is determined based on the corrected GNSS position fix and the RTT measurement of the at least one of the plurality of UE (Paragraph 0048 discloses in one embodiment of the present invention, the location of the mobile station is determined at the location server using the information communicated from the mobile station and then transmitted back to the mobile station. Alternatively, the position calculation can be performed at the mobile station using assistance information from the location server (e.g., Doppler frequency shifts for in view satellites, positions and coverage areas of access points, differential GPS data, altitude aiding information). Figure 6 and paragraph 0052 disclose the mobile station may transmit: i) the measurements; ii) the range to the access point antenna; and, iii) the identity of the access point antenna to the location server, which calculates the position of the mobile station using the measurements and which stores the range measurements (e.g. R.sub.1, R.sub.2 and R.sub.3 and the corresponding positions (e.g. L.sub.1, L.sub.2, and L.sub.3). When a number of data points are available, each of which data points correlates the position of a mobile station and the range from the mobile station to the access point antenna, the location server determines the position of the access point antenna).
Moeglein does not explicitly disclose obtain, from a Real Time Kinematic (RTK) correction service, RTK correction information for the raw GNSS measurements of at least one of the plurality of UE; determine a corrected GNSS position fix for the at least one of the plurality of UE using the raw GNSS measurements and the RTK correction information.
In analogous art, Matthews discloses obtain, from a Real Time Kinematic (RTK) correction service, RTK correction information for the raw GNSS measurements of at least one of the plurality of UE (Paragraph 0040 discloses the system 38 may receive GNSS correction information from a GNSS data source, such as differential GNSS or real time kinematic (RTK) information);
determine a corrected GNSS position fix for the at least one of the plurality of UE using the raw GNSS measurements and the RTK correction information (Paragraphs 0034 and 0040 disclose the position determining device 42 may be a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver, such as a device configured to receive signals from one or more positioning systems such as the United States' global positioning system (GPS) and/or the Russian GLONASS system, and to determine a location of the machine using the received signals. The system 38 may receive GNSS correction information from a GNSS data source, such as differential GNSS or real time kinematic (RTK) information, and use the correction information to correct geographic position information derived from signals detected by the position determining component 42).
It 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 to incorporate determining a position of a machine using GPS or GLONASS measurements and the RTK correction information, as described in Matthews, with receiving measurements based on SPS signals for UEs and range information (e.g., round trip time) between the UEs and a access point, as described in Moeglein, because doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Combining determining a position of a machine using GPS or GLONASS measurements and the RTK correction information of Matthews with receiving measurements based on SPS signals for UEs and range information (e.g., round trip time) between the UEs and a access point of Moeglein was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Matthews.
Therefore, it 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 to combine the teachings of Moeglein and Matthews to obtain the invention as specified in claim 17.
Regarding claim 19, as applied to claim 17 above, Moeglein, as modified by Matthews, further discloses wherein the beacons are Wi-Fi access points (APs) operating according to an Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.11 standard (Paragraph 0011 discloses the first wireless access point may operate in accordance with a standard for a wireless local area network (e.g., IEEE 802.11)).
Regarding claim 20, as applied to claim 17 above, Moeglein, as modified by Matthews, further discloses wherein the beacons are cellular base stations operating according to a 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) standard (Paragraph 0032 discloses a wireless access point may be considered to be a cell tower or a base station or other wireless transmitter or receiver which is coupled to a network of other nodes (for example, the wireless access point is coupled by wireless or wire line to the other nodes. Paragraph 0076 discloses in one embodiment of the present invention, communication transceiver section 305 is capable of being used with a number of different air interfaces (e.g., IEEE 802.11, Bluetooth, UWB, TD-SCDMA, IDEN, HDR, TDMA, GSM, CDMA, W-CDMA, UMTS, or other similar networks) for communication (e.g., through communication links 350 and 360)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Considering claim 18, the best prior art found during the prosecution of the present application, Moeglein and Matthews, fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the limitations of determining a horizontal positioning error (HPE) of the corrected GNSS position fix for the at least one of the plurality of UE, wherein the multi-lateration algorithm is further based on the HPE of the corrected GNSS position fix of the at least one of the plurality of UE in combination with and in the context of all of the other limitations in claim 18.
Claims 1-16 are allowed.
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Considering claims 1 and 12, the best prior art found during the prosecution of the present application, Moeglein and Matthews, fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the limitations of obtaining, by the cloud-based location platform from a Real Time Kinematic (RTK) correction service, RTK correction information for the raw GNSS measurements of at least one of the plurality of UE; and determining by the cloud-based location platform, a corrected GNSS position fix for the at least one of the plurality of UE using the raw GNSS measurements and the RTK correction information in combination with and in the context of all of the other limitations in claims 1 and 12.
Claims 2-11 and 13-16 are also allowed by virtue of their dependency on claims 1 and 12.
Any comments considered necessary by Applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 16 and 17 in the Remarks, Applicant argues that the cited portions of Matthews do not disclose the specific features of independent claim 1. While the Examiner alleged that Matthews discloses a "cloud-based location platform" obtaining RTK correction information and determining a corrected GNSS position fix, Matthews actually describes these operations as being performed locally by an onboard system of a mobile machine. Specifically, Matthews discloses that the "system 38" is an "electronic system of a mobile machine used in the agriculture and/or construction industries" (Matthews, paragraph [0033]). Matthews further discloses that the "position determining device 42" is located onboard this mobile machine (Id.). Because the "system 38" of Matthews is physically located on the mobile machine itself, Matthews does not disclose or suggest a "cloud-based location platform" that performs the operations of obtaining the RTK correction information and determining the corrected GNSS position fix for a user equipment. Accordingly, the combination of Moeglein and Matthews does not disclose or suggest at least the features of "obtaining, by the cloud-based location platform from a Real Time Kinematic (RTK) correction service, RTK correction information for the raw GNSS measurements of at least one of the plurality of UE," and "determining by the cloud-based location platform, a corrected GNSS position fix for the at least one of the plurality of UE using the raw GNSS measurements and the RTK correction information," as recited in independent claim 1. The remaining independent claims (i.e., claims 12 and 17) recite features similar to the features of independent claim 1 and are therefore allowable for similar reasons.
However, claim 17 does not include any reference to a "cloud-based location platform," which is the crux of Applicant’s arguments. Without any reference to the "cloud-based location platform" in claim 17, Matthews discloses obtain, from a Real Time Kinematic (RTK) correction service, RTK correction information for the raw GNSS measurements of at least one of the plurality of UE (Paragraph 0040 discloses the system 38 may receive GNSS correction information from a GNSS data source, such as differential GNSS or real time kinematic (RTK) information); and determine a corrected GNSS position fix for the at least one of the plurality of UE using the raw GNSS measurements and the RTK correction information (Paragraphs 0034 and 0040 disclose the position determining device 42 may be a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver, such as a device configured to receive signals from one or more positioning systems such as the United States' global positioning system (GPS) and/or the Russian GLONASS system, and to determine a location of the machine using the received signals. The system 38 may receive GNSS correction information from a GNSS data source, such as differential GNSS or real time kinematic (RTK) information, and use the correction information to correct geographic position information derived from signals detected by the position determining component 42).
Consequently, in view of the above reasons and having addressed each of Applicant’s arguments, the previous rejection is maintained and made FINAL by the Examiner.
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 MARK G. PANNELL whose telephone number is (303) 297-4245. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:00 am to 3:00 pm (Mountain Time).
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, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached on (571) 272-7915. 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.
/Mark G. Pannell/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642
Prosecution Insights