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 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “estimating, by the computing system, the position of the first receiver relative to the plurality of receivers in accordance with the time domain recursive filtering” which is indefinite, because it is unclear what parameters or results of the time domain recursive filtering are being considered such that the estimation is done “in accordance” with said filtering. The filtering operation is merely a high level mathematical operation and is not necessarily indicative of the results or outcome of said filtering, or even the nature of said results or outcome. Therefore, it is unclear how exactly the filtering, or the results of said filtering on the measurement data, is being used to further the estimating step. Claims 11 and 20 are likewise rejected. Claim 3 is likewise rejected for the recitation of “performing the time domain recursive filtering in accordance with the image data.” Dependent claims 2, 4-10, and 12-19 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the first set of measurements and each of the plurality of sets of measurements comprise image data for the corresponding receiver indicating an orientation of the corresponding receiver, and wherein performing the time domain recursive filtering includes performing the time domain recursive filtering in accordance with the image data” which is indefinite. It is unclear how, as a practical matter, image data for the corresponding receiver can include “data indicating distances between the first receiver and a plurality of satellites” as required by claim 1, from which claim 3 depends. Images alone may contain enough information to deduce a distance or orientation between two objects, provided both objects are in the images and the images are captured from two different angles. However, it is unclear to say that the images include data separate from the image itself that would contain such information, nor has Applicant disclosed a way for capturing the receivers and satellites in the same image. It is further unclear how image data can be subject to time domain recursive filtering, or what it means to perform time domain recursive filtering subject to image data. Claim 4 is likewise rejected, as it is unclear how data related to orientation, temperature, air pressure, acceleration, or sound, in isolation, can be used to determine a distance between a receiver and a satellite.
Claim 11 recites “the processing circuitry configured to: obtain a first set of measurements…” which is indefinite, because it is unclear how the processing circuitry alone, without the benefit of instructions programmed into an operably connected memory, can possibly be configured to do something so specific. Short of applicant inventing the processor itself, Applicant’s claimed processor is an off-the-shelf processor that can only carry out instructions from memory. The processor alone, by nature, can only be configured to do what virtually every other processor can also do. Applicant should clarify the link between the processor and instructions or programs stored on the memory. Dependent claims 12-19 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 15 recites “wherein the time domain recursive filtering is configured to: apply a Kalman filter…” which is indefinite, because the time domain recursive filtering is a generic mathematical operation, not a claim element having structure, and so it cannot logically be claimed as being “configured” to do any particular thing in the same way that a structural element can be configured. Dependent claim 16 fails to cure the deficiency.
Claim 16 recites “wherein the Kalman filter comprises a plurality of states…” which is indefinite, because the Kalman filter is a pure software or mathematical operation and therefore necessarily lies outside the scope of the apparatus claim of claim 15, from which claim 16 depends. Therefore, the Kalman filter itself cannot be further limited because it is not a physical object, but merely a mathematical operation of which the computing system is capable of performing.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites “performing, by the computing system, a time domain recursive filtering in accordance with the first set of measurements for the first receiver and the plurality of sets of measurements, wherein the time domain recursive filtering produces at least one set of double difference float ambiguities, each double difference float ambiguity in the set of double difference float ambiguities being averaged over a period of time” which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, is understood as mathematical calculations to filter and sort data, which falls under the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Furthermore, claim 1 recites “estimating, by the computing system, the position of the first receiver relative to the plurality of receivers in accordance with the time domain recursive filtering” which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, includes limitations of comparing data as well as identifying problems/solutions to the comparison which all can reasonably be performed using the human mind/with pen and paper and thus fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 includes the limitations of “obtaining, by a computing system, a first set of measurements for the first receiver, wherein the first set of measurements includes data indicating distances between the first receiver and a plurality of satellites” and “obtaining, by the computing system, a plurality of sets of measurements for a plurality of receivers, wherein each set of measurements of the plurality of sets of measurements includes data indicating distances between a corresponding receiver of the plurality of receivers and the plurality of satellites” which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, adds insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering telemetry data regarding distance measurements between receivers and satellites and sending the data over a network. Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”).
Independent claims 11 and 16 are substantially similar to claim 1 and are thus rejected using the same rationale as presented above. Claims 11 and 16 do include the additional limitations of “a computing system comprising processing circuitry and memory” and “computer-readable storage media comprising instructions”, however, as generally recited are interpreted as generic computer components for implementing the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. For instance, claims 2-6, 9-10, 12-16, and 18-19 recite various additional mathematical limitations which, analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, is understood as mathematical calculations to filter and sort data, which falls under the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 7-8 and 17 include the additional limitation of, “at least one of the first set of measurements and the plurality of sets of measurements comprises single-frequency measurements” and “the computing system comprises one of the first receiver or a remote computing system” which, analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, generally links the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment or field of use of process automation systems (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering telemetry data regarding distance measurements between receivers and satellites and sending the data over a network. Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-12, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Strus et al. (US 7,961,145 B1), hereinafter Strus.
Regarding claim 1, Strus discloses a method for estimating a position of a first receiver (abstract, regarding a method and apparatus for estimating relative position in a global navigation satellite system), the method comprising:
obtaining, by a computing system, a first set of measurements for the first receiver, wherein the first set of measurements includes data indicating distances between the first receiver and a plurality of satellites (col. 3, lines 15-20, regarding the receivers 102 send their code measurements and carrier phase measurements to the computing device 108 over the network 106; the computing device 108 uses these measurements to estimate the relative position of a rover receiver relative to a reference receiver; fig. 1);
obtaining, by the computing system, a plurality of sets of measurements for a plurality of receivers, wherein each set of measurements of the plurality of sets of measurements includes data indicating distances between a corresponding receiver of the plurality of receivers and the plurality of satellites (see again col. 3, lines 15-20);
performing, by the computing system, a time domain recursive filtering in accordance with the first set of measurements for the first receiver and the plurality of sets of measurements (col. 3, lines 51-53, regarding in step 208, the computing device 108 performs time domain recursive filtering and estimates the double difference float ambiguities; fig. 2), wherein the time domain recursive filtering produces at least one set of double difference float ambiguities (see again col. 3, lines 51-53), each double difference float ambiguity in the set of double difference float ambiguities being averaged over a period of time (col. 4, lines 23-26, regarding the double difference float ambiguities estimated in step 208 are known to be constant over time; thus, the Kalman filter averages the double difference ambiguities over time); and
estimating, by the computing system, the position of the first receiver relative to the plurality of receivers in accordance with the time domain recursive filtering (col. 4, lines 61-67 and col. 5, lines 1-3, regarding although the method 200 is described within the context of a single rover and a single reference, the system 100 and method 200 can be generalized such that each receiver 102 broadcasts its code and carrier measurements over a central network 106; additional receivers 102 that wish to navigate relative to particular receiver 102 then subscribe to the data broadcast from the particular receiver 102 and calculate a relative solution; in this way, a mesh is established whereby relative positioning can be performed among any pair of receivers 102 in the mesh).
Regarding claim 2, Strus discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the first set of measurements and one or more of the plurality of sets of measurements comprise data indicating one or more of time, angle, and range information for communications between the corresponding receiver and a base station of a mobile network (col. 2, lines 60-63, regarding the receivers 102 perform code range and carrier phase range measurements from the timing and satellite orbital position information in the code component 112 and the digital data), and wherein performing the time domain recursive filtering includes performing the time domain recursive filtering in accordance with the data indicating the one or more of time, angle, and range information (see again col. 3, lines 51-53).
Regarding claim 5, Strus discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the time domain recursive filtering comprises applying a Kalman filter to the first set of measurements for the first receiver and the plurality of sets of measurements (see again col. 4, lines 23-26).
Regarding claim 6, Strus discloses the invention in claim 5, and further discloses wherein the Kalman filter comprises a plurality of states, the plurality of states comprising: a velocity of the first receiver relative to the plurality of receivers, the position of the first receiver relative to the plurality of receivers, and the set of double difference float ambiguities computed from the first set of measurements and the plurality of sets of measurements (see col. 3, lines 56-62).
Regarding claim 7, Strus discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein at least one of the first set of measurements and the plurality of sets of measurements comprises single-frequency measurements (col. 2, lines 14-18, regarding embodiments of the invention can be used in single-frequency GNSS receivers to obtain the same relative accuracy that is achieved by more expensive dual-frequency receivers).
Regarding claim 8, Strus discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the computing system comprises one of the first receiver or a remote computing system (see again col. 3, lines 15-20).
Regarding claim 9, Strus discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the performing the time domain recursive filtering comprises: performing a code averaging for a code component of the first set of measurements and the plurality of sets of measurements over a common period of time (col. 2, lines 34-39, regarding the code component 112 has a superimposed digital data stream that contains information about the satellite ephemeris, clock bias terms, and other data; the combination of the information in the code component 112 and the digital data allows the receivers 102 to compute the positions of the broadcasting satellites 104).
Regarding claim 10, Strus discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses the invention further comprising: removing one or more effects of noise in at least one measurement of the first set of measurements or the plurality of sets of measurements, wherein the removing involves performing a computation that weighs multipath signals from the plurality of satellites based on a speed of at least one of the corresponding receiver (see col. 3, lines 65-67 and col. 4, lines 1-11).
Regarding claim 11, Strus discloses a computing system comprising processing circuitry and memory (abstract, regarding a method and apparatus for estimating relative position in a global navigation satellite system), the processing circuitry configured to:
obtain, by a computing system, a first set of measurements for the first receiver, wherein the first set of measurements includes data indicating distances between the first receiver and a plurality of satellites (col. 3, lines 15-20, regarding the receivers 102 send their code measurements and carrier phase measurements to the computing device 108 over the network 106; the computing device 108 uses these measurements to estimate the relative position of a rover receiver relative to a reference receiver; fig. 1);
obtain, by the computing system, a plurality of sets of measurements for a plurality of receivers, wherein each set of measurements of the plurality of sets of measurements includes data indicating distances between a corresponding receiver of the plurality of receivers and the plurality of satellites (see again col. 3, lines 15-20);
perform, by the computing system, a time domain recursive filtering in accordance with the first set of measurements for the first receiver and the plurality of sets of measurements (col. 3, lines 51-53, regarding in step 208, the computing device 108 performs time domain recursive filtering and estimates the double difference float ambiguities; fig. 2), wherein the time domain recursive filtering produces at least one set of double difference float ambiguities (see again col. 3, lines 51-53), each double difference float ambiguity in the set of double difference float ambiguities being averaged over a period of time (col. 4, lines 23-26, regarding the double difference float ambiguities estimated in step 208 are known to be constant over time; thus, the Kalman filter averages the double difference ambiguities over time); and
estimate, by the computing system, the position of the first receiver relative to the plurality of receivers in accordance with the time domain recursive filtering (col. 4, lines 61-67 and col. 5, lines 1-3, regarding although the method 200 is described within the context of a single rover and a single reference, the system 100 and method 200 can be generalized such that each receiver 102 broadcasts its code and carrier measurements over a central network 106; additional receivers 102 that wish to navigate relative to particular receiver 102 then subscribe to the data broadcast from the particular receiver 102 and calculate a relative solution; in this way, a mesh is established whereby relative positioning can be performed among any pair of receivers 102 in the mesh).
Regarding claim 12, Strus discloses the invention in claim 11, and further discloses wherein the first set of measurements and one or more of the plurality of sets of measurements comprise data indicating one or more of time, angle, and range information for communications between the corresponding receiver and a base station of a mobile network (see again col. 2, lines 60-63), and wherein to perform the time domain recursive filtering the computing system is configured to: perform the time domain recursive filtering in accordance with the data indicating the one or more of time, angle, and range information (see again col. 3, lines 51-53).
Regarding claim 15, Strus discloses the invention in claim 11, and further discloses wherein the time domain recursive filtering is configured to: apply a Kalman filter to the first set of measurements for the first receiver and the plurality of sets of measurements (see again col. 4, lines 23-26).
Regarding claim 16, Strus discloses the invention in claim 15, and further discloses wherein the Kalman filter comprises a plurality of states, the plurality of states comprising: a velocity of the first receiver relative to the plurality of receivers, the position of the first receiver relative to the plurality of receivers, and the set of double difference float ambiguities computed from the first set of measurements and the plurality of sets of measurements (see col. 3, lines 56-62).
Regarding claim 17, Strus discloses the invention in claim 11, and further discloses wherein the computing system comprises one of the first receiver or a remote computing system (see again col. 3, lines 15-20).
Regarding claim 18, Strus discloses the invention in claim 11, and further discloses wherein to perform the time domain recursive filtering the computing system is configured to: perform a code averaging for a code component of the first set of measurements and the plurality of sets of measurements over a common period of time (see again col. 2, lines 34-39).
Regarding claim 19, Strus discloses the invention in claim 11, and further discloses wherein the computing system is further configured to: remove one or more effects of noise in at least one measurement of the first set of measurements or the plurality of sets of measurements, wherein to remove the one or more effects of noise the computing system is further configured to: perform a computation that weighs multipath signals from the plurality of satellites based on a speed of at least one of the corresponding receiver (see col. 3, lines 65-67 and col. 4, lines 1-11).
Regarding claim 20, Strus discloses computer-readable storage media comprising instructions (abstract) that, when executed by processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to:
obtain, by a computing system, a first set of measurements for the first receiver, wherein the first set of measurements includes data indicating distances between the first receiver and a plurality of satellites (col. 3, lines 15-20, regarding the receivers 102 send their code measurements and carrier phase measurements to the computing device 108 over the network 106; the computing device 108 uses these measurements to estimate the relative position of a rover receiver relative to a reference receiver; fig. 1);
obtain, by the computing system, a plurality of sets of measurements for a plurality of receivers, wherein each set of measurements of the plurality of sets of measurements includes data indicating distances between a corresponding receiver of the plurality of receivers and the plurality of satellites (see again col. 3, lines 15-20);
perform, by the computing system, a time domain recursive filtering in accordance with the first set of measurements for the first receiver and the plurality of sets of measurements (col. 3, lines 51-53, regarding in step 208, the computing device 108 performs time domain recursive filtering and estimates the double difference float ambiguities; fig. 2), wherein the time domain recursive filtering produces at least one set of double difference float ambiguities (see again col. 3, lines 51-53), each double difference float ambiguity in the set of double difference float ambiguities being averaged over a period of time (col. 4, lines 23-26, regarding the double difference float ambiguities estimated in step 208 are known to be constant over time; thus, the Kalman filter averages the double difference ambiguities over time); and
estimate, by the computing system, the position of the first receiver relative to the plurality of receivers in accordance with the time domain recursive filtering (col. 4, lines 61-67 and col. 5, lines 1-3, regarding although the method 200 is described within the context of a single rover and a single reference, the system 100 and method 200 can be generalized such that each receiver 102 broadcasts its code and carrier measurements over a central network 106; additional receivers 102 that wish to navigate relative to particular receiver 102 then subscribe to the data broadcast from the particular receiver 102 and calculate a relative solution; in this way, a mesh is established whereby relative positioning can be performed among any pair of receivers 102 in the mesh).
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.
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:
a) Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b) Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c) Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d) Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3-4 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strus et al. (US 7,961,145 B1), hereinafter Strus.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Strus discloses the invention in claims 1 and 11, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the first set of measurements and each of the plurality of sets of measurements comprise image data for the corresponding receiver indicating an orientation of the corresponding receiver, and wherein performing the time domain recursive filtering includes performing the time domain recursive filtering in accordance with the image data.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the invention such that the measurements comprise image data, since the equivalence of image data and other generic types of data for their use in the ranging art and the selection of any known equivalents to image data would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. The purpose would be to ensure that the claimed method can be performed using a variety of different types of ranging data.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Strus discloses the invention in claims 1 and 11, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the first set of measurements and each of the plurality of sets of measurements comprise data indicating one or more of orientation, temperature, air pressure, acceleration, or sound associated with the corresponding receiver, and wherein performing the time domain recursive filtering includes performing the time domain recursive filtering in accordance with the data indicating the one or more of the temperature, air pressure, acceleration, and sound of the receiver.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the invention such that the measurements comprise one or more of orientation, temperature, air pressure, acceleration, or sound, since the equivalence of such data and other generic types of data for their use in the ranging art and the selection of any known equivalents to such data would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. The purpose would be to ensure that the claimed method can be performed using a variety of different types of ranging data.
Conclusion
The cited references made of record in the contemporaneously filed PTO-892 form and not relied upon in the instant office action are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and may have one or more of the elements in Applicant’s disclosure and at least claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADY W FRAZIER whose telephone number is (469)295-9263. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm CT.
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.
/BRADY W FRAZIER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648