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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 4: “when executed by the processor carry steps of the method” is ungrammatical.
Claim 19 line 1: “a state of an object a device” is ungrammatical.
Claim 20 lines 15-16: “a subset of the GNSS measurement” should be amended to read “a subset of the GNSS measurement data” as recited in claim 19, or similar.
The remaining claims are dependent. Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The specification does not appear to provide antecedent basis for “each group includes a unique measurement model of the code measurements relationship to the state of the device” in claim 3.
The specification does not appear to provide antecedent basis for “switching the measurement models” in claim 6.
The specification does not appear to provide antecedent basis for “iteratively updating parameters of an inverse Wishart or inverse gamma distribution over the noise covariance matrix and its elements” in claim 10.
The specification does not appear to provide antecedent basis for “designating each of the satellite signals as being subject to outlier measurements based on an indicator function defined as a threshold on statistical mean, statistical mode, or statistical quantile functions of the estimated inverse Wishart or the inverse gamma distribution over the noise covariance matrix” in claim 11.
The specification does not appear to provide antecedent basis for “sporadic” in claim 18.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
In Fig. 3B, elements 331b and 333b are not described in the specification.
In Fig. 3B, element 301b, described in specification para. [0084] as comprising code measurements, is labeled with the symbol Φ, typically used for carrier phase measurements. Similarly, element 302b, described in para. [0084] as comprising carrier phase measurements, is labeled with the symbol P, typically used for pseudorange code measurements.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-20 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 lines 7-9 and corresponding portions of claims 19 and 20, the GNSS measurement data is recited as including “one or more of code measurements, carrier phase measurements and doppler measurements”, while lines 10-14 recite “executing multiple probabilistic estimators... wherein the multiple probabilistic estimators include a first estimator tracking the state of the device based on a first measurement model using the code measurements”. It is unclear how the “executing” step of lines 10-14 can be performed in embodiments where the GNSS measurement data does not include code measurements, but only carrier phase and/or doppler measurements.
Regarding claim 1 lines 18-20, the scope of “wherein the number of measurements in the first measurement model is smaller than the number of measurements in the second measurement model” cannot be clearly determined because it appears to contradict what is shown in Fig. 3B, where the first measurement model 310b and the second measurement model 320b both appear to receive the same number of measurements – 310b receives four carrier phase measurements 302b, while 320b receives four measurements 331b and 333b.
Regarding claim 3 lines 2-5, the scope of “grouping the code measurements of the satellite signals into multiple groups of measurements, each group includes a unique measurement model of the code measurements relationship to the state of the device, such that code measurements of each of the satellite signals belong to more than one group” cannot be clearly determined. It is unclear what it means for each group of measurements to include “a unique measurement model of the code measurements relationship to the state of the device”. The specification describes first and second estimators using first and second measurement models (e.g. para. [0021]), but does not appear to describe groups of code measurements including unique measurement models.
Regarding claim 4 line 3, the scope of “resulting in a different number of measurements in each measurement” cannot be clearly determined. It is unclear how each measurement can have a different number of measurements.
Regarding claim 5 lines 3-4, “resulting in the same number of measurements in each model” appears to contradict claim 1 lines 18-20 “wherein the number of measurements in the first measurement model is smaller than the number of measurements in the second measurement model”, making the claim scope unclear.
Regarding claim 7 line 3, “the differenced residuals of code measurements” lack antecedent basis in the claim.
Regarding claim 8 line 6, “the indicator signals” lack antecedent basis in the claim.
Regarding claim 9 lines 4-6, in “iteratively updating, until a termination condition is met, the predicted state estimate and noise covariance estimate with the measurement model processing the code measurements of the satellite signals” it is unclear what is meant by “with the measurement model processing the code measurements of the satellite signals” and how it relates to “iteratively updating... the predicted state estimate and noise covariance estimate”, and the specification does not appear to provide a clear description.
Regarding claim 9 lines 4-5, “the... noise covariance estimate” lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Regarding claim 10, the scope of “iteratively updating parameters of an inverse Wishart or inverse gamma distribution over the noise covariance matrix and its elements” cannot be clearly determined, as it is unclear how to update parameters of an inverse Wishart or inverse gamma distribution over a noise covariance matrix and the specification does not appear to provide any description of such updating.
Regarding claims 14-18, there is no antecedent basis for “The system of claim 1” or “The system of claim 13”, as claims 1 and 13 are directed to a method. Examiner will assume that the claims are meant to refer to the method of claims 1 and 13.
Regarding claim 14 “wherein the filter or the smoother includes in an approximate Gaussian filter or smoothers using explicit, exact, or statistical linearization techniques to resolve nonlinearities of the estimation model” is ungrammatical and its meaning cannot be clearly determined.
Regarding claim 15 line 4, “the multiple receivers” lack antecedent basis in the claim.
Regarding claim 16 lines 1-2, “the measurement models included in the first estimator” lack antecedent basis in the claim. Claim 1 appears to provide basis only for a single model included in the first estimator (lines 13-14 “a first estimator tracking the state of the device based on a first measurement model”).
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 1-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim 1 recites a method for tracking a state of a device based on transmission from a GNSS and is therefore a process.
Step 2A, Prong One – Recitation of a Judicial Exception
Claim 1 recites:
executing multiple probabilistic estimators concurrently tracking the state of the device using at least two measurement models relating the GNSS measurement data with the state of the device, wherein the multiple probabilistic estimators include a first estimator tracking the state of the device based on a first measurement model using the code measurements, and wherein the multiple probabilistic estimators include a second estimator tracking the state of the device based on a second measurement model using the GNSS measurement data masked by a binary mask blocking a subset of GNSS measurement data of a subset of the satellite signals based on values of coefficients of the binary mask, wherein the number of measurements in the first measurement model is smaller than the number of measurements in the second measurement model;
determining the values of coefficients of the binary mask based on outputs of the first estimator; and
determining the state of the device based on outputs of the second estimator.
These steps fall within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG because they comprise mathematical operations. Claim 1 therefore recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two – Practical Application
Claim 1 further recites:
the method based on transmission from a GNSS;
the method executed by a processor coupled with stored instructions;
collecting GNSS measurement data of satellite signals transmitted from multiple satellites, wherein the GNSS measurement data include one or more of code measurements, carrier phase measurements and doppler measurements of the satellite signals; and
outputting the state of the device determined by the second estimator.
However, the method being based on transmission from a GNSS is merely a general link to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claim does not include any steps for receiving or processing GNSS signals, but merely recites “collecting GNSS measurement data of satellite signals transmitted form multiple satellites”, which includes within its scope merely receiving the measurement data.
The processor comprises generic computer equipment that is merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. In performing the abstract idea the processor merely performs the generic computer functions of collecting data, performing calculations, and outputting results.
Collecting GNSS measurement data and outputting the determined state of the device are merely insignificant extra-solution activity.
The courts have found that a general link to a particular technological environment or field of use, generic computer equipment, and insignificant extra-solution activity do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d) I).
These elements therefore do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Step 2B – Inventive Concept
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the additional elements recited in the claim include a general link to a particular technological environment or field of use, generic computer equipment, and insignificant extra-solution activity. The courts have found that insignificant extra-solution activity and generic computer equipment do not amount to significantly more, i.e. they do not amount to an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.5 A). Claim 1 is therefore not patent eligible.
Claims 2-16 merely recite further details of the abstract idea without integrating it into a practical application or adding significantly more
Regarding claim 18, mounting to an aquatic buoy is considered a general link to a particular technological environment or field of use, and determining sporadic changes of water level based on the state of the device comprises a mathematical calculation, i.e. determining the difference between two states of the device, and is therefore merely further detail of the abstract idea without integration into a practical application or significantly more.
Claim 19 differs from claim 1 in reciting a system comprising a processor coupled with stored instructions. However a processor coupled with stored instructions is merely generic computer equipment that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more.
Claim 20 differs from claim 1 in reciting a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium embodying thereon a program executable by a processor. However a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium embodying thereon a program executable by a processor is merely generic computer equipment that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claim 1, the closest prior art (Zheng US 12219428 B2) teaches [NOTE: limitations not taught by Zheng are lined through] a method for tracking a state of a device based on transmissions from a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) (Fig. 5; 12:47 “GNSS”), wherein the method is executed by a processor coupled with stored instructions implementing the method (230, Fig. 2), wherein the stored instructions, when executed by the processor carry out steps of the method, comprising:
collecting GNSS measurement data of satellite signals transmitted from multiple satellites, wherein the GNSS measurement data include one or more of code measurements, carrier phase measurements and doppler measurements of the satellite signals (710, Fig. 7; 12:16-19 “The location measurements may also or instead include measurements of GNSS pseudorange, code phase, and/or carrier phase for the SVs”);
executing multiple probabilistic estimators concurrently tracking the state of the device using at least two measurement models relating the GNSS measurement data with the state of the device (730, Fig. 7; 910, 920, and 930, Fig. 9), wherein the multiple probabilistic estimators include a first estimator tracking the state of the device based on a first measurement model using the code measurements (910, Fig. 9; 12:16-19 “code phase”), and wherein the multiple probabilistic estimators include a second estimator tracking the state of the device based on a second measurement model (920 “KF with static process noise”, Fig. 9)
determining the state of the device based on outputs of the second estimator (740, 745, Fig. 7); and
outputting the state of the device determined by the second estimator (745, Fig. 7).
Berntorp (US 11644579 B2) teaches executing multiple probabilistic estimators concurrently tracking the state of a device using at least two measurement models (110g, 120g, Fig. 1G).
Mitsunaga (US 7623069 B2) teaches different numbers of measurements in different measurement models (Figs. 8A-B).
Lee (US 20120299770 A1) teaches creating satellite signal groups and selecting a low-error satellite signal group (Fig. 3).
However the prior art does not teach or make obvious, in combination with the other claim elements:
the second measurement model using the GNSS measurement data masked by a binary mask blocking a subset of GNSS measurement data of a subset of the satellite signals based on values of coefficients of the binary mask, wherein the number of measurements in the first measurement model is smaller than the number of measurements in the second measurement model; and
determining the values of coefficients of the binary mask based on outputs of the first estimator.
Similarly, in claims 19 and 20, the closest prior art (Zheng US 12219428 B2) teaches a system for tracking a state of an object a device based on transmissions from a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) (Fig. 5; 12:47 “GNSS”), the system comprising a processor coupled with stored instructions (230, Fig. 2), wherein the stored instructions, when executed by the processor cause the system to:
collect GNSS measurement data of satellite signals transmitted from multiple satellites, wherein the GNSS measurement data include one or more of code measurements, carrier phase measurements, and doppler measurements of the satellite signals (710, Fig. 7; 12:16-19 “The location measurements may also or instead include measurements of GNSS pseudorange, code phase, and/or carrier phase for the SVs”);
execute multiple probabilistic estimators concurrently tracking the position state of the object device using different measurement models connecting the GNSS measurement data with the state of the device (730, Fig. 7; 910, 920, and 930, Fig. 9), wherein the multiple probabilistic estimators include a first estimator tracking the position state of the object device based on a first measurement model using the code measurements (910, Fig. 9; 12:16-19 “code phase”), and wherein the multiple probabilistic estimators include a second estimator tracking the state of the device based on a second measurement model (920 “KF with static process noise”, Fig. 9)
determine the state of the device based on outputs of the second estimator (740, 745, Fig. 7); and
output the state of the device determined by the second estimator (745, Fig. 7).
However the prior art does not teach or make obvious, in combination with the other claim elements:
the second measurement model using the GNSS measurement data masked by a binary mask blocking a subset of the GNSS measurement data formed in a subset of the satellite signals based on values of coefficients of the binary mask, wherein the first measurement model is smaller than the second measurement model; and
determine the values of coefficients of the binary mask based on outputs of the first estimator.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSI J GALT whose telephone number is (571)270-1469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM - 5PM 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, WILLIAM KELLEHER can be reached at (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 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.
/CASSI J GALT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648