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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of claims
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejection.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 USC § 103 Rejection.
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 1-19 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 Claims 1, 8 and 15:
It is not clear how a “numerical overlap region” is determined for two values. Normally one discusses two ranges overlapping, not two values. This could refer to the range between the two values, but the Examiner assumes the recited first and second calibration values is not single values, they are each a range of values whose overlap determines the “numerical overlap region”.
It is not clear how to define the “second calibration value” in claim 1. The language “based on the first calibration value and a second calibration value that was determined for the first building or a second building” is confusing. Is the second calibration value the same as the first calibration value but determined for a different building? Or is the second calibration value the next calibration value in time? The Examiner assumes that the second calibration value is the value determined from the second building’s height. From the drawings (Figs. 3A and 3B) the second calibration value is point 310b which corresponds to the building 302B of Fig. 3B, that is, the second calibration value corresponds to the second building.
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gum (WO2016138405), hereinafter Gum in view of Dormody et al., (US Pat.20210389204), hereinafter Dormody.
Regarding Claim 1, Gum discloses a method comprising:
determining a first estimated position of a computing device (para [004], where mobile device may be determined to be located on a particular floor of a building using one or more wireless signal-based positioning techniques. In particular scenarios, it may be desirable to provide estimated locations of a mobile device to include an altitude level component );
determining, based on the first estimated position, that the computing device is inside a first building (para [007], where a mobile device may resolve an altitude level component of its location (e.g., as being on a particular floor of a building));
collecting first atmospheric pressure measurements inside the first building using a barometric pressure sensor of the computing device (para [007], where a mobile device may resolve an altitude level component of its location (e.g., as being on a particular floor of a building) by obtaining atmospheric pressure measurements using an onboard barometer and comparing such to a reference atmospheric pressure. However, atmospheric pressure tends to change overtime, and hence a reference atmospheric pressure (local to the mobile device));
identifying a height of the first building (Fig. 2, different altitude levels, para [0064], where a suspended bridge 207 is shown as connecting buildings 206 and 208 at an altitude level that is higher than ground level 202);
determining a first calibration value based on the height of the [first building] /floor and the first atmospheric pressure measurements (para [005], where calibration values used to calibrate the barometric air pressure sensor of the mobile device can be determined by measuring a height difference between an estimated altitude reported by the mobile device and a known reference height…, known reference height may be the height of a terrain retrieved from a terrain database, or a floor height when the mobile device is indoors, along with an estimated offset above the ground or floor that represents the mobile device being held by a user); (para [0095], where calibrate the sensor based, at least in part, on the expected measurement drift rate of the barometric pressure sensor and an expected change in altitude between discrete vertical levels of the building, e.g., determine calibration based on the pressure and altitude of the vertical levels of the building corresponds to the measurable heights divisions within a building).
Gum does not disclose: height of the first building; determining a combined calibration value based on the first calibration value and a second calibration value that was determined for the first building or a second building, the combined calibration value corresponding to a numerical overlap region of the first calibration value and the second calibration value; and calibrating the barometric pressure sensor using the combined calibration value.
Dormody discloses determining a combined calibration value based on the first calibration value and a second calibration value that was determined for the first building or a second building (Fig. 7, # 704 and 706 buildings, para [0069], where server 102 combines the calibration results of each of the previously determined calibration results 120 or of the adjusted previously determined calibration results (or selects from among the calibration results thereof) to obtain a “combined calibration result” (as described in more detail below with respect to FIG. 14), Abstract, where calibration results are weighted and combined to determine a combined calibration result. The calibration value for calibrating the sensor is selected from the calibration results, the combined calibration results, or the current calibration value based on a selection criteria), the combined calibration value corresponding to a numerical overlap region of the first calibration value and the second calibration value (Fig. 7, para [0078], where 2D location area 708 includes an area outside of the buildings 704 and 706 as well as areas within the buildings 704 and 706, as indicated by shaded partially overlapping areas 710 and 712); and
calibrating the barometric pressure sensor using the combined calibration value (Abstract, where results for calibrating a barometric pressure sensor based on data received from a device containing the sensor are determined and stored in a table. The table is updated based on rules regarding a relationship between each calibration result and a current calibration value. The calibration results are weighted and combined to determine a combined calibration result. The calibration value for calibrating the sensor is selected from the calibration results, the combined calibration results, or the current calibration value based on a selection criteria).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to combine calibration values as taught by Dormody into Gum in order to more improve measurement accuracy, consistency, and utility across multiple zones.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to determine calibration based on the building height in order to improve measurement accuracy, consistency, and utility across multiple zones.
Regarding Claim 2, Gum and Dormody disclose the method of claim 1, Gum does not disclose:
wherein determining the combined calibration value further comprises:
determining a first low end and a first high end of the first calibration value;
determining a second low end and a second high end of the second calibration value;
determining the numerical overlap region as having a low overlap end equal to the higher value of the first low end and the second low end and a high overlap end equal to the lower value of the first high end and the second high end; and
determining the combined calibration value as having a combined calibration offset value equal to a midpoint of the numerical overlap region and having a combined calibration confidence value equal to half of an extent of the numerical overlap region.
Dormody discloses determining a first low end and a first high end of the first calibration value (Fig. 16, where vertical line1602 (1606 Fig. 17) with low and high end of calibration value);
determining a second low end and a second high end of the second calibration value (Fig.16, and 17, where vertical line 1604 (1608 Fig. 17) with low and high end of calibration value);
determining the numerical overlap region as having a low overlap end equal to the higher value of the first low end and the second low end and a high overlap end equal to the lower value of the first high end and the second high end (from the fig. 17 the 1606 will overlaps the 1608, where overlapping values of the 1606 have a higher values of the lower overlapping region and higher overlapping region comprising lower values of the 1608); and
determining the combined calibration value as having a combined calibration offset value equal to a midpoint of the numerical overlap region and having a combined calibration confidence value equal to half of an extent of the numerical overlap region (Fig. 18, the overlapping area for 1802 and 1804, the middle points of the both overlaps graphs is same calibration value and different times, the middle point of the graph calibration value corresponds to the midpoint).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to provide determining the numerical overlap region as taught by Dormody for the calibration values corresponding to the different building of Gum in order to more improve measurement accuracy, consistency, and utility across multiple zones.
Regarding Claim 3, Gum and Dormody disclose the method of claim 1, Gum does not disclose: wherein determining the combined calibration value further comprises:
determining a first calibration offset value and a first calibration confidence value of the first calibration value; determining a first low end of the first calibration value equal to the first calibration confidence value subtracted from the first calibration offset value and a first high end of the first calibration value equal to the first calibration confidence value added to the first calibration offset value; determining a second calibration offset value and a second calibration confidence value of the second calibration value; determining a second low end of the second calibration value equal to the second calibration confidence value subtracted from the second calibration offset value and a second high end of the second calibration value equal to the second calibration confidence value added to the second calibration offset value; determining the numerical overlap region as having a low overlap end equal to the second low end and a high overlap end equal to the first high end; and determining the combined calibration value as having a combined calibration offset value equal to a midpoint between the low overlap end and the high overlap end and having a combined calibration confidence value equal to the low overlap end subtracted from the combined calibration offset value.
Dormody discloses the determining a first calibration offset value and a first calibration confidence value of the first calibration value (claim 2, Fig. 16, 1602, where A0 + B0, where A0 is the offset value and B0 is confidence value);
determining a first low end of the first calibration value equal to the first
calibration confidence value subtracted from the first calibration offset value and a first
high end of the first calibration value equal to the first calibration confidence value added to the first calibration offset value (Fig. 16, para [0113], where calibration value vs. time graphs 1602-1608 in FIG. 16, the new calibration result (A.sub.1+/−B.sub.1) is accepted if the calibration offset thereof A.sub.1 lies within the range of the current calibration value A0+/−B0, e.g., the B0 corresponds to the first calibration confidence values which is subtract form the first calibration offset value A0; for the Fig. 16 the high end will be corresponds to the A0+B0);
determining a second calibration offset value and a second calibration confidence
value of the second calibration value (claim 2, Fig. 16, #1604, where A1 + B1, where A1 is the offset value and B1 is confidence value);
determining a second low end of the second calibration value equal to the second
calibration confidence value subtracted from the second calibration offset value and a
second high end of the second calibration value equal to the second calibration
confidence value added to the second calibration offset value (Fig. 16, see for 1604: A0+/−B0);
determining the numerical overlap region as having a low overlap end equal to the
second low end and a high overlap end equal to the first high end (Fig. 18, para [0115], where graphs 1802-1808 in FIG. 18, the new calibration result (A1+/−B1) is accepted if the ratio of the overlap between the current calibration value (A0+/−B0) and the new calibration result (A1+/−B1) to the length of the new confidence interval is greater than or equal to an overlap threshold (for example, 0.8), e.g., low end equal with overlapping second low end); and
determining the combined calibration value as having a combined calibration
offset value equal to a midpoint between the low overlap end and the high overlap( para [0017], where 1) a smallest uncertainty of the combined calibration result and the current calibration value, 2) the smallest uncertainty of the combined calibration result and the current calibration value that is less than an uncertainty threshold value, 3) a highest priority calibration technique of a plurality of calibration techniques used to determine the combined calibration result and the current calibration value, or 4) a median calibration value of the combined calibration result and the current calibration value.);
and having a combined calibration confidence value equal to the low overlap end
subtracted from the combined calibration offset value (From the Fig. 16 we can determine the 1606 high end overlapping with low end of 1608, where corresponds to the A0-B0).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to determine the midpoint between the low overlap end and the high overlap end in order to improve the accuracy, stability, and reliability of instrument.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to provide combined calibration value as having a combined calibration offset value, as taught by Dormody into Gum in order to more improve measurement accuracy, consistency, and utility across multiple zones.
Regarding Claim 4, Gum and Dormody disclose the method of claim 1, Gum does not disclose wherein determining the combined calibration value further comprises:
determining that the numerical overlap region is less than or equal to a minimum overlap threshold value; increasing a first calibration confidence value of the first calibration value and a second calibration confidence value of the second calibration value by a scaling factor to generate a first adjusted calibration confidence value of the first calibration value and a second adjusted calibration confidence value of the second calibration value; determining an adjusted numerical overlap region based on the first adjusted calibration confidence value and the second adjusted calibration confidence value; and determining the combined calibration value based on the adjusted numerical overlap region.
Dormody discloses determining that the numerical overlap region is less than or equal to a minimum overlap threshold value (Fig. 18, para [0115], where the new calibration result (A.sub.1+/−B.sub.1) is accepted if the ratio of the overlap between the current calibration value (A.sub.0+/−B.sub.0) and the new calibration result (A.sub.1+/−B.sub.1) to the length of the new confidence interval is greater than or equal to an overlap threshold (for example, 0.8));
increasing a first calibration confidence value of the first calibration value and a
second calibration confidence value of the second calibration value to generate a first adjusted calibration confidence value of the first calibration value and a second adjusted calibration confidence value of the second calibration value (para [0068], where server adjusts the previously determined calibration results 120 based on their respective ages to obtain “adjusted previously determined calibration results”. This update generally increases the value of each confidence interval to produce an “adjusted confidence interval”); and
determining an adjusted numerical overlap region based on the first adjusted
calibration confidence value and the second adjusted calibration confidence value
(para [0115], where by calibration value vs. time graphs 1802-1808 in FIG. 18, the new calibration result (A.sub.1+/−B.sub.1) is accepted if the ratio of the overlap between the current calibration value (A.sub.0+/−B.sub.0) and the new calibration result (A.sub.1+/−B.sub.1) to the length of the new confidence interval is greater than or equal to an overlap threshold (for example, 0.8)).
determining the combined calibration value based on the adjusted numerical
overlap region(para [0115], where by calibration value vs. time graphs 1802-1808 in FIG. 18, the new calibration result (A.sub.1+/−B.sub.1) is accepted if the ratio of the overlap between the current calibration value (A.sub.0+/−B.sub.0) and the new calibration result (A.sub.1+/−B.sub.1) to the length of the new confidence interval).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to use the scaling factor for adjusting calibration confidence value as taught by Dormody in order to provide proportional adjustment tool that ensures consistency, enables flexible size changes, simplifies comparisons, and supports efficient computation
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to combined calibration value as taught by Dormody into Gum in order to more improve measurement accuracy, consistency, and utility across multiple zones.
Regarding Clam 5, Gum and Dormody disclose the method of claim 1, Gum does not disclose: wherein determining the combined calibration value further comprises:
determining that the first calibration value and the second calibration value completely overlap; and
determining that the combined calibration value is whichever of the first
calibration value and the second calibration value has a smaller calibration confidence
value.
Dormody discloses determining that the first calibration value and the second calibration value completely overlap (Fig. 18, #1804 completely overlap 1802 graph); and
determining that the combined calibration value is whichever of the first
calibration value and the second calibration value has a smaller calibration confidence
value (para [0017], where 1) a smallest uncertainty of the combined calibration result and the current calibration value, 2) the smallest uncertainty of the combined calibration result and the current calibration value that is less than an uncertainty threshold value).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to provide the combined calibration value is whichever of the first calibration value and the second calibration value has a smaller calibration confidence value, as taught by Dormody into Gum in order to improve calibration accuracy, increase confidence in estimates, detect bias, and produce more robust, informative calibration outputs by leveraging information from multiple sources.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to provide the combined calibration value is whichever of the first calibration value and the second calibration value has a smaller calibration confidence value, as taught by Dormody into Gum in order to improve calibration accuracy, increase confidence in estimates, detect bias, and produce more robust, informative calibration outputs by leveraging information from multiple sources.
Regarding Clam 6, Gum and Dormody disclose the method of claim 1, Gum does not disclose: wherein determining the combined calibration value further comprises:
determining a first calibration confidence value of the first calibration value; determining a second calibration confidence value of the second calibration value; determining that the first calibration value and the second calibration value completely overlap with respect to the first calibration confidence value and the second calibration confidence value; determining that the second calibration confidence value is smaller than the first calibration confidence value; and determining that the combined calibration value is second calibration value.
Dormody discloses determining a first calibration confidence value of the first calibration value (para [0115], where 1802-1808 in FIG. 18, the new calibration result (A.sub.1+/−B.sub.1) is accepted if the ratio of the overlap between the current calibration value (A.sub.0+/−B.sub.0) and the new calibration result (A.sub.1+/−B.sub.1));
determining a second calibration confidence value of the second calibration value (1802-1808 in FIG. 18, the new calibration result (A.sub.1+/−B.sub.1) is accepted if the ratio of the overlap between the current calibration value (A.sub.0+/−B.sub.0) and the new calibration result (A.sub.1+/−B.sub.1), e.g., new calibration values is second calibration value);
determining that the first calibration value and the second calibration value
completely overlap with respect to the first calibration confidence value and the second
calibration confidence value (Fig. 18 where overlap area and length of new confidence interval, from the Fig. 18, the 1804 completely overlap the 1802 graph);
determining that the second calibration confidence value is smaller than the first
calibration confidence value (Fig. 18, where 1802 confidence interval smaller than 1804 confidence interval); and
determining that the combined calibration value is second calibration value (Fig. 18, para [0069], where server 102 combines the calibration results of each of the previously determined calibration results 120 or of the adjusted previously determined calibration results (or selects from among the calibration results thereof) to obtain a “combined calibration result” (as described in more detail below with respect to FIG. 14), for the Fig. 18, the 1804 interval has a middle calibration point(value), which is second calibration value).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to provide completely overlap with respect the first calibration value and the second calibration value, as taught by Dormody into Gum in order to improve robustness, consistency, and interpretability of calibration results.
Regarding Clam 7, Gum and Dormody disclose the method of claim 1, further Gum discloses comprising:
determining a second estimated position of the computing device (para [004], where mobile device may be determined to be located on a particular floor of a building using one or more wireless signal-based positioning techniques. In particular scenarios, it may be desirable to provide estimated locations of a mobile device to include an altitude level component);
determining, based on the second estimated position, that the computing device is
inside the second building (para [007], where a mobile device may resolve an altitude level component of its location (e.g., as being on a particular floor of a building));
collecting second atmospheric pressure measurements inside the second building
using the barometric pressure sensor of the computing device(para [007], where a mobile device may resolve an altitude level component of its location (e.g., as being on a particular floor of a building) by obtaining atmospheric pressure measurements using an onboard barometer and comparing such to a reference atmospheric pressure. However, atmospheric pressure tends to change overtime, and hence a reference atmospheric pressure (local to the mobile device));
identifying a height of the second building (Fig. 2, different altitude levels, para [0064], where a suspended bridge 207 is shown as connecting buildings 206 and 208 at an altitude level that is higher than ground level 202); and
determining the second calibration value based on the height of the [second
building]/floor and the second atmospheric pressure measurements(para [005], where calibration values used to calibrate the barometric air pressure sensor of the mobile device can be determined by measuring a height difference between an estimated altitude reported by the mobile device and a known reference height…, known reference height may be the height of a terrain retrieved from a terrain database, or a floor height when the mobile device is indoors, along with an estimated offset above the ground or floor that represents the mobile device being held by a user); (para [0095], where calibrate the sensor based, at least in part, on the expected measurement drift rate of the barometric pressure sensor and an expected change in altitude between discrete vertical levels of the building, e.g., determine calibration based on the pressure and altitude of the vertical levels of the building corresponds to the measurable heights divisions within a building).
Gum does not disclose: height of the first building; and second position of the computing device; second measurements.
Dormody discloses second position of the computing device (Fig. 7, # 718, para [0078], where he user and user device 104 may be outside the buildings 704 and 706 (e.g., at 714), inside the first building 704 on any floor thereof (e.g., at 716), or inside the second building 706 on any floor thereof (e.g., at 718)); second measurements(Fig. 7, # 718, para [0079], where user device 104 happened to collect and send the data packet 112 when the altitude thereof is unambiguous (e.g., outside on flat terrain with no location area overlapping a building), e.g., second position).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to provide user second position of the computing device, as taught by Dormody into Gum in order to more improve measurement accuracy, consistency, and utility across multiple zones.
Regarding Clam 8, Gum and Dormody disclose a method comprising:
determining a of estimated positions of a computing device;
determining, based the of estimated positions, each time that the
computing device is inside respective buildings of a plurality of buildings;
collecting a of atmospheric pressure measurements when inside the
respective buildings of the plurality of buildings using a barometric pressure sensor of the computing device;
determining of calibration values based on the heights of the buildings
and the atmospheric pressure measurements;
determining a combined calibration value based on the of calibration
values, the combined calibration value corresponding to a numerical overlap region of the plurality of calibration values; and
calibrating the barometric pressure sensor using the combined calibration value, as recited in claim 1.
Gum does not disclose the plurality of estimated position of a computed device; collecting plurality of atmospheric pressure measurement and plurality of calibration values.
Claim 8 comprising similar steps of the claim 1, accept all the determination and collecting steps performed based on the plurality of estimated position of a computed device, plurality of pressure measurement and plurality of calibration values.
Dormody discloses the plurality position of a computed device (Fig.7, # 718, para [0078], where user and user device 104 may be outside the buildings 704 and 706 (e.g., at 714), inside the first building 704 on any floor thereof (e.g., at 716), or inside the second building 706 on any floor thereof (e.g., at 718));
plurality of pressure measurement and plurality of calibration values (Fig. 1, # 108, 110, Para [0079], where calibrate the barometric pressure sensor 108 against a reference network of known pressure sensors; Fig. 7, para [00127], where the transmitters and the mobile device may be located at different altitudes or depths that are inside or outside various natural or manmade structures (e.g. buildings)…each transmitter and mobile device may include atmospheric sensors (e.g., a pressure and temperature sensors) for generating measurements of atmospheric conditions (e.g., pressure and temperature)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to provide plurality of position, plurality of atmospheric pressure measurement and plurality of calibration values, as taught by Dormody into determination and calibration steps of the Gum in order to more improve measurement accuracy, consistency, and utility across multiple zones.
Regarding Claims 9 and 16, Gum and Dormody disclose the method of claim 8/ the method of claim 15, wherein:
Gum does not disclose: the numerical overlap region is based on a highest low end of the calibration values.
Dormody discloses:
the numerical overlap region (Fig. 18, para [0115], where the ratio of the overlap (indicated by the shaded area) to the length of the new confidence interval (indicated by the extent of the error bars for A.sub.1+/−B.sub.1) is relatively small, e.g., less than ratio 0.8 is calculated based on the overlap area to the total area covered by both shapes together (union area)) is based on a highest low end of the calibration values (See Fig. 16, 1606 where highest low end) and a lowest high end of the calibration values(Fig. 16 # 1608, where lowest high end overlapping the highest low end of 1606).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to provide the numerical overlap region, as taught by Dormody into Gum in order to improve calibration accuracy, increase confidence in estimates, detect bias, and produce more robust, informative calibration outputs by leveraging information from multiple sources.
Regarding Claims 10 and 17, Gum and Dormody disclose the method of claim 8/ the method of claim 15, wherein:
Gum does not disclose the numerical overlap region represents a greatest overlap of the calibration values.
Dormody discloses the numerical overlap region represents a greatest overlap of the calibration values (Fig. 18, para [0115], where the ratio of the overlap (indicated by the shaded area) to the length of the new confidence interval (indicated by the extent of the error bars for A.sub.1+/−B.sub.1) is relatively small).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to provide the greatest overlap of the calibration values, as taught by Dormody into Gum in order to improve improves accuracy, reduces errors, and increases confidence in the results, making it a key goal in calibration processes.
Regarding Claims 11 and 18, Gum and Dormody disclose the method of claim 8/ the method of claim 15, wherein determining the combined calibration value further comprises:
Gum does not disclose:
determining calibration offset values and calibration confidence values of the plurality of calibration values;
determining respective low ends of the calibration values and respective high ends of the plurality of calibration values based on the calibration offset values and the calibration confidence values of the plurality of calibration values;
determining the numerical overlap region having a low overlap end based on the low ends of the calibration values and a high overlap end based on the high ends of the calibration values; and
determining the combined calibration value as having a combined calibration offset value equal to a midpoint between the low overlap end and the high overlap end and having a combined calibration confidence value equal to the low overlap end subtracted from the combined calibration offset value.
Dormody discloses determining calibration offset values and calibration confidence values of the plurality of calibration values(claim 2, Fig. 16, 1602, where A0 + B0, where A0 is the offset value and B0 is confidence value; # 1604 A1 +-B1);
determining respective low ends of the calibration values and respective high ends of the plurality of calibration values based on the calibration offset values and the calibration confidence values of the plurality of calibration values (para [0064], where confidence interval, when applied to the calibration offset, provides a “potential error range” (e.g., error bars) below and above the calibration offset of the calibration result or the calibration value…for a calibration result or calibration value of 100+/50 Pa, where the confidence is measured to be 1 sigma standard deviation (68%), this means that there is a 68% confidence level that the calibration would fall within the range between 50 and 150 Pa. (Other percent confidence levels may alternatively be used.) For figures with error bars, the confidence interval would be half the length of the entire error bar, so in this example, the error bar would be 150−50=100 Pa long, e.g., 50 Pa is low ends and 150 Pa is a high ends); and
determining the numerical overlap region having a low overlap end based on the low ends of the calibration values and a high overlap end based on the high ends of the calibration values (para [0081], where one overlapping building, there are only two floors of the overlapping building above ground, the upper floor areas are 100 m2, and the upper floors are separated by 3 meters, then the probability of the user device 104 being located at 1 m is 200/(200+100+100)=0.5, the probability of the user device 104 being at 4 m is 100/(200+100+100)=0.25, and the probability of the user device 104 being at 7 m is 100/(200+100+100)=0.25. Therefore, the 90% range of likely altitude is 1 m to 7 m, and since the median of the distribution is 2.5 m, the likely altitude is 2.5 with an asymmetric altitude confidence interval of +4.5 to −1.5 m. Alternatively, we can report the likely altitude to be the middle of the confidence interval range and report 4+/−3 m. If the measured altitude due to the measured pressure of the barometric pressure sensor 108 reads 20 m, then the calibration value is 20−(4+/−3) or 16+/−3 m (or (4+/−3)−20=−16+/−3, e.g., the low ends corresponds to the -16+/-3, the high ends corresponds to the 20-(4+/-3); and
determining the combined calibration value as having a combined calibration offset value equal to a midpoint between the low overlap end and the high overlap end and having a combined calibration confidence value equal to the low overlap end subtracted from the combined calibration offset value (para [0081], where the 90% range of likely altitude is 1 m to 7 m, and since the median of the distribution is 2.5 m, the likely altitude is 2.5 with an asymmetric altitude confidence interval of +4.5 to −1.5 m).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to provide combined calibration values, as taught by Dormody into Gum in order to improve improves accuracy, reduces errors, and increases confidence in the results, making it a key goal in calibration processes.
Regarding Claims 12 and 19, Gum and Dormody disclose the method of claim 11/ the method of claim 15, wherein:
Gum does not disclose the low overlap end is based on a highest low end of the low ends of the calibration values; and
the high overlap end is based on a lowest high end of the high ends of the calibration values.
Dormody discloses the low overlap end is based on a highest low end of the low ends of the calibration values (para [0081], where then the calibration value is 20−(4+/−3) or 16+/−3 m (or (4+/−3)−20=−16+/−3, depending on the positive/negative sign convention of the calibration definition)); and
the high overlap end is based on a lowest high end of the high ends of the calibration values (para [0081], where then the calibration value is 20−(4+/−3) or 16+/−3 m (or (4+/−3)−20=−16+/−3, depending on the positive/negative sign convention of the calibration definition)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to provide low overlap and high overlap ends, as taught by Dormody into Gum in order to improve improves accuracy at endpoints.
Regarding Claim 13, Gum and Dormody disclose the method of claim 12, wherein:
Gum does not disclose the low overlap end is equal to the highest low end of the low ends of the calibration values; and
the high overlap end is equal to the lowest high end of the high ends of the calibration values.
Dormody discloses the low overlap end is equal to the highest low end of the low ends of the calibration values(see Fig. 19 (accept), where high overlap end is equal to the lowest of the high ends); and
the high overlap end is equal to the lowest high end of the high ends of the calibration values (see Fig. 19 (accept), where high overlap end is equal to the lowest of the high ends).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to provide low overlap end is equal to the highest low ends and high overlap ends equal to the lowest high, as taught by Dormody into Gum in order to improve accuracy at endpoints.
Regarding Claim 14, Gum and Dormody disclose the method of claim 12, wherein:
Gum does not disclose the low overlap end is set by a low end percentage value from the highest low end of the low ends of the calibration values; and
the high overlap end is set by a high end percentage value from the lowest high end of the high ends of the calibration values.
Dormody discloses the low overlap end is set by a low end value from the highest low end of the low ends of the calibration values (from the Fig. 16, the lowest end form the low ends is 1604 graphs); and
the high overlap end is set by a high end value from the lowest high end of the high ends of the calibration values (Fig. 16 , where highest end value is 1608 form the heist graphs).
Dormody does not disclose the percentage value.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to provide percentage value into calibration error value range, as taught by Dormody in order to improves clarity, enables cross-scale comparisons, aligns with uncertainty analysis standards.
Regarding Claim 15, Gum discloses a method comprising: determining a plurality of estimated positions of a computing device(para [004], where mobile device may be determined to be located on a particular floor of a building using one or more wireless signal-based positioning techniques. In particular scenarios, it may be desirable to provide estimated locations of a mobile device to include an altitude level component);
collecting a plurality of atmospheric pressure measurements at the plurality of estimated positions using a barometric pressure sensor of the computing device(para [007], where a mobile device may resolve an altitude level component of its location (e.g., as being on a particular floor of a building) by obtaining atmospheric pressure measurements using an onboard barometer and comparing such to a reference atmospheric pressure. However, atmospheric pressure tends to change overtime, and hence a reference atmospheric pressure (local to the mobile device));
determining a plurality of horizontal uncertainty regions corresponding to the plurality of estimated positions (Fig. 18 and 19, para [0069], where selection criteria may be based on any appropriate criteria found to be relevant, such as 1) a smallest uncertainty (confidence interval) in the (adjusted) previously determined calibration results, 2) the smallest uncertainty (confidence intervals));
determining a plurality of terrain distributions corresponding to the plurality of horizontal uncertainty regions (para [0078], where building and terrain calibration technique 214 is described with reference to Figs. 7-9, where shows a simplified diagram of an example terrain with buildings 700 for use in this calibration technique shown in FIG. 8, in accordance with some embodiments. For this example, a terrain 702; para [0080], where the possible 3D positions of the user device can be defined as: on the terrain outside the buildings 704 and 706 (plus some additional height held above the ground), and on any floor within either building 704 or 706);
(para [0091], where if the terrain flatness metric within the 2D location area of the user device 104 is about +/−1 m 95% of the time (about +/−12 Pa in pressure difference), and if the pressure data indicates a pressure value that is about 50 Pa off the known accurate pressure data from the reference pressure sensor, then the calibration result can be defined as 50 Pa+/−12 Pa);
determining a plurality of calibration values based on the plurality of terrain distributions and the atmospheric pressure measurements(para [0091], where at 1008, the server 102 looks up the terrain data for the location area indicated by the location data for the user device 104 and the location of the known accurate reference pressure sensor); (para [0058], where calibration techniques generally include a “barometric pressure sensor make and model” calibration technique 208, a “device ID” calibration technique 210, a “device make and model” calibration technique 212, a “building and terrain” calibration technique 214);
Gum does not disclose:
determining a combined calibration value based on the plurality of calibration values, the combined calibration value corresponding to a numerical overlap region of the plurality of calibration values; and
calibrating the barometric pressure sensor using the combined calibration value.
Dormody discloses determining a combined calibration value based on the plurality of calibration values, the combined calibration value corresponding to a numerical overlap region of the plurality of calibration values (Fig. 7, # 704 and 706 buildings, para [0069], where server 102 combines the calibration results of each of the previously determined calibration results 120 or of the adjusted previously determined calibration results (or selects from among the calibration results thereof) to obtain a “combined calibration result” (as described in more detail below with respect to FIG. 14), Abstract, where calibration results are weighted and combined to determine a combined calibration result. The calibration value for calibrating the sensor is selected from the calibration results, the combined calibration results, or the current calibration value based on a selection criteria); and
calibrating the barometric pressure sensor using the combined calibration value(Abstract, where results for calibrating a barometric pressure sensor based on data received from a device containing the sensor are determined and stored in a table. The table is updated based on rules regarding a relationship between each calibration result and a current calibration value. The calibration results are weighted and combined to determine a combined calibration result. The calibration value for calibrating the sensor is selected from the calibration results, the combined calibration results, or the current calibration value based on a selection criteria).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicants' invention was made to combined calibration value as taught by Dormody into Gum in order to more improve measurement accuracy, consistency, and utility across multiple zones.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KALERIA KNOX whose telephone number is (571)270-5971. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571)2722302. 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.
/KALERIA KNOX/
Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights