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 .
Application Status
This Non-Final action is in response to applicant’s amendments of 02/26/2026. Claims 1-20 are examined and pending. Claims 1-2, 9, 16-17, and 19-20 are currently amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference(s) applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 15-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitt et al (US 20230027369) in view of Lin (US 20030149528 A1) in view of Ewert (US 20190339083 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Schmitt discloses a device comprising: two or more sensors (see at least [0019]); and one or more processors coupled to a memory and configured to: obtain first sensor data from a first sensor of the two or more sensors (see at least {0019], “a first pipeline may determine location based on LiDAR data”); obtain second sensor data from a second sensor of the two or more sensors (see at least [0019], “a second may determine location based on radar data”); determine a first position estimate of the device based on the first sensor data (see at least {0019], “a first pipeline may determine location based on LiDAR data”); determine a second position estimate of the device based on the second sensor data (see at least [0019], “a second may determine location based on radar data”); provide input data to a filter based on the first position estimate and the second position estimate to determine an inferred location of the device (see at least [0078-0079] and [0094], “both the LiDAR and radar localization processes 502 and 504 may implement Monte Carlo localization based on the respective data”) and control navigation of the device based, at least in part, on the inferred location (see at least [0099], “the vehicle 102 may issue an urgent notification to a human operator, slow in speed, pull to a safe location (e.g., a shoulder), or a combination thereof. In this way, if localization fails for a sufficient period, safety of passengers, the vehicle, and nearby people and objects can be ensured. The routine 600 then ends at block 64”).
However, Schmitt do not specifically disclose providing the input data based on the first position estimate and the second position estimate to a filter to determine confidence value associated with the inferred location.
Lin teaches providing the input data based on the first position estimate and the second position estimate to a filter to determine confidence value associated with the inferred location (see at least [0022], [0026-0028], [0043], [0053], [0097-0098], [0101-0103], [0114], and [0142-0147]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Schmitt, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Lin of providing the input data based on the first position estimate and the second position estimate to a filter to determine confidence value associated with the inferred location. This would be done to improve the estimation of the weighting factors for high-precision of location calculations (see Ewert para 0014).
Schmitt as modified by Lin do not specifically teach wherein the input data is based on a first weighting applied to the first position estimate and a second weighting applied to the second position estimate, and wherein at least one of the first weighting or the second weighting is adjusted based on a confidence value from a prior determination by the filter.
Ewert teaches wherein the input data is based on a first weighting applied to the first position estimate and a second weighting applied to the second position estimate (see at least [0018-0021], [0025-0027], [0032-0036], [0046-0051], and [0055-0068]), and wherein at least one of the first weighting or the second weighting is adjusted based on a confidence value from a prior determination by the filter (see at least [0018-0021], [0025-0027], [0032-0036], [0046-0051], and [0055-0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Schmitt as modified by Lin, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Ewert wherein the input data is based on a first weighting applied to the first position estimate and a second weighting applied to the second position estimate, and wherein at least one of the first weighting or the second weighting is adjusted based on a confidence value from a prior determination by the filter. This would be done to improve location estimates accuracy by providing a more stabilized altitude and heading solution (see Lin para 0002).
With respect to claim 9, Schmitt discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to use an inferred location from a prior determination by the filter as a pseudo-sensor input for a subsequent determination (see at least [0078-0079] and [0094]).
With respect to claim 10, Schmitt discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to generate an indication of whether a global positioning satellite signal is reliable (see at least [0020-0022] and [0026]).
With respect to claim 11, Schmitt discloses a receiver configured to receive signals from one or more other devices (see at least [0058-0059] and [0069]).
With respect to claim 15, Schmitt discloses wherein the two or more sensors includes one or more of: an inertial measurement unit (IMU), an inter-communication device, a RSSI sensor, a camera, or a combination thereof (see at least [0041] and [0054]).
With respect to claims 16 and 19, they are method claims that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective device claims 1 and 9. As such, claims 16 and 19 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective device claims 1 and 9 and are incorporated herein.
With respect to claim 20, it is a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective device claim 1. As such, claim 20 is rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective device claim 1and is incorporated herein.
Claims 2-8 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitt et al (US 20230027369) in view of Lin (US 20030149528 A1) in view of Shuman et al (US 20220350030 A1).
With respect to claim 2, Schmitt as modified by Lin do not specifically teach wherein the first weighting and the second weighting are stored as configuration settings.
Shuman teaches wherein the first weighting and the second weighting are stored as configuration settings (see at least [0076-0077], [0099], and [0156]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Schmitt as modified by Lin, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Fan wherein the first weighting and the second weighting are stored as configuration settings. This would be done to provide reliable locations and thus increase safety related of applications (operating a vehicle) (see Shuman para 0002-0003).
With respect to claim 3, Schmitt as modified by Lin do not specifically teach wherein the configuration settings are user specified or automatically generated.
Shuman teaches wherein the configuration settings are user specified or automatically generated (see at least [0076-0077], [0099], and [0156]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Schmitt as modified by Lin, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Fan wherein the configuration settings are user specified or automatically generated. This would be done to provide reliable locations and thus increase safety related of applications (operating a vehicle) (see Shuman para 0002-0003).
With respect to claim 4, Schmitt as modified by Lin do not specifically teach wherein the configuration settings are based on an operational activity associated with the device or an operating environment associated with the device.
Shuman teaches wherein the configuration settings are based on an operational activity associated with the device or an operating environment associated with the device (see at least [0076-0077], [0099], and [0156]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Schmitt as modified by Fan, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Fan wherein the configuration settings are based on an operational activity associated with the device or an operating environment associated with the device. This would be done to provide reliable locations and thus increase safety related of applications (operating a vehicle) (see Shuman para 0002-0003).
With respect to claim 5, Schmitt as modified by Lin do not specifically teach wherein the configuration settings modify state parameters of the filter.
Shuman teaches wherein the configuration settings modify state parameters of the filter (see at least [0076-0077], [0099], and [0156]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Schmitt as modified by Lin, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Fan wherein the configuration settings modify state parameters of the filter. This would be done to provide reliable locations and thus increase safety related of applications (operating a vehicle) (see Shuman para 0002-0003).
With respect to claim 6, Schmitt as modified by Lin do not specifically teach wherein the configuration settings are based, at least in part, on a planned swarm movement pattern of the device and one or more other devices.
Shuman teaches wherein the configuration settings are based, at least in part, on a planned swarm movement pattern of the device and one or more other devices (see at least [0076-0077], [0099], and [0156]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Schmitt as modified by Lin, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Fan wherein the configuration settings are based, at least in part, on a planned swarm movement pattern of the device and one or more other devices. This would be done to provide reliable locations and thus increase safety related of applications (operating a vehicle) (see Shuman para 0002-0003).
With respect to claim 7, Schmitt discloses wherein the planned swarm movement pattern is a formation or collective movement of the device and the one or more other devices (see at least[0029-0030], [0055], and [0067]), wherein the input data is further based on received movement data from the one or more other devices (see at least[0029-0030], [0055], [0067], [0079], and [0094]), and wherein the movement data is indicative of a position estimate within the formation of each of the one or more other devices or movements of each of the one or more other devices associated with the collective movement (see at least[0029-0030], [0055], [0067], [0079], and [0094]).
With respect to claim 8, Schmitt discloses wherein the planned swarm movement pattern is indicative of independent movements associated with each of the one or more other devices (see at least[0029-0030], [0055], [0067], [0079], and [0094]), and wherein the input data is further based on movement data indicative of a position estimate for individual ones of the one or more other devices (see at least[0029-0030], [0055], [0067], [0079], and [0094]), and wherein a de-emphasized weighting is associated with each position estimate (see at least[0029-0030], [0055], [0067], [0079], and [0094]).
With respect to claims 17 and 18, they are method claims that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective device claims 2 and 4. As such, claims 17 and 18 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective device claims 2 and 4 and are incorporated herein.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitt et al (US 20230027369) in view of Lin (US 20030149528 A1) in view of Mellick et al (US 7181,247 B1).
With respect to claim 12, Schmitt as modified by Lin do not specifically disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) based on the received signals; and determine relative positions of the device and each of the one or more other devices based on the RSSI and known signal transmission parameters.
Mellick teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) based on the received signals (see at least [Col. 6 line 45-Col. 7 line 33]); and determine relative positions of the device and each of the one or more other devices based on the RSSI and known signal transmission parameters (see at least [Col. 6 line 45-Col. 7 line 33], [Col. 11 lines 30-49], and [Col. 12 lines 26-56]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Schmitt as modified by Lin, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Mellick wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) based on the received signals; and determine relative positions of the device and each of the one or more other devices based on the RSSI and known signal transmission parameters. This would be done create a seamless, globally referenced positioning system in which it accounts for different areas and where signals are being spoofed (SEE Mallick Col. 1 lines 19-34).
With respect to claim 13, Schmitt as modified by Lin do not specifically disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive a first signal from a second device, wherein the first signal indicates a first RSSI of a signal received from the device; based on the first signal, determine a first estimate of a first distance from the second device to the device; receive a second signal from a third device, wherein the second signal indicates a second RSSI of a signal received from the second device; and based on the second signal determine a second estimate of a second distance from the second device to the third device.
Lin teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive a first signal from a second device, wherein the first signal indicates a first RSSI of a signal received from the device; based on the first signal (see at least [Col. 6 line 45-Col. 7 line 33], [Col. 11 lines 30-49], and [Col. 12 lines 26-56]), determine a first estimate of a first distance from the second device to the device (see at least [Col. 6 line 45-Col. 7 line 33], [Col. 11 lines 30-49], and [Col. 12 lines 26-56]); receive a second signal from a third device (see at least [Col. 6 line 45-Col. 7 line 33], [Col. 11 lines 30-49], and [Col. 12 lines 26-56]), wherein the second signal indicates a second RSSI of a signal received from the second device (see at least [Col. 6 line 45-Col. 7 line 33], [Col. 11 lines 30-49], and [Col. 12 lines 26-56]); and based on the second signal determine a second estimate of a second distance from the second device to the third device (see at least [Col. 6 line 45-Col. 7 line 33], [Col. 11 lines 30-49], and [Col. 12 lines 26-56]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Schmitt as modified by Lin, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Mellick wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive a first signal from a second device, wherein the first signal indicates a first RSSI of a signal received from the device; based on the first signal, determine a first estimate of a first distance from the second device to the device; receive a second signal from a third device, wherein the second signal indicates a second RSSI of a signal received from the second device; and based on the second signal determine a second estimate of a second distance from the second device to the third device. This would be done create a seamless, globally referenced positioning system in which it accounts for different areas and where signals are being spoofed (SEE Mallick Col. 1 lines 19-34).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitt et al (US 20230027369) in view of Lin (US 20030149528 A1) in view of Ewert (US 20190339083 A1) in view of Peng et al (US 2024).
With respect to claim 14, Schmitt as modified by Lin and Ewert do not specifically teach wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine an angle of arrival of the received signals; based on the angle of arrival, determine an estimate of angle of each of the one or more other devices with respect to the device; and based on the estimate of angle, determine an estimate of position of each of the one or more other devices.
Peng teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine an angle of arrival of the received signals (see at least [0072] and [0074-0076]), based on the angle of arrival, determine an estimate of angle of each of the one or more other devices with respect to the device (see at least [0072] and [0074-0076]); and based on the estimate of angle, determine an estimate of position of each of the one or more other devices (see at least [0072] and [0074-0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Schmitt as modified by Lin and Ewert, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Peng wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine an angle of arrival of the received signals; based on the angle of arrival, determine an estimate of angle of each of the one or more other devices with respect to the device; and based on the estimate of angle, determine an estimate of position of each of the one or more other devices. This would be done to improve the performance and accuracy of a positioning engine (PE) by configuring the positioning engine to receive feedback from a navigation application (see Peng para 0091).
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground of rejection presented in the office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLA A KHALED whose telephone number is (571)272-9174. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00 Am-5:00, every other Friday 8:00A-5:00AM.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDALLA A KHALED/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights