DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, “identifying one or more devices as a line-of-sight (LOS) devices” should read “identifying one or more devices as line-of-sight (LOS) devices” or the like in order to ensure grammatical comprehension.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 “A method of assessing a quality of a position estimate for a user equipment” which is indefinite, because it is unclear if the position estimate is an estimate of the position of the user equipment as calculated by the user equipment itself, if the position estimate can take or form or nature (e.g., “30 meters north of the barn” vs. an exact grid position or longitude/latitude), or if the position estimate is an estimate of the position of some other device that is calculated by the user equipment. In other words, it is unclear what is performing the estimate and what device’s position is being estimated. Claims 8 and 15 are likewise rejected, and dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 1 recites “identifying one or more devices as a line-of-sight (LOS) devices based on a classification of one or more measurements of one or more signals from the one or more devices as being LOS measurements” which is indefinite, because it is unclear what the LOS devices have a line of sight relative to, e.g., the user equipment or some other unclaimed equipment or device. By definition, line of sight requires a device a both ends of the “line” and in this case, the other end of the line is not clear or undefined. Claims 8 and 15 are likewise rejected, and dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 1 recites “determining one or more LOS postfit residuals for each LOS device based on the position estimate for the UE and the LOS measurements from the LOS device” which is indefinite, because the nature of the position estimate is so broad as to encompass position estimates that would not be compatible with a calculation that includes the LOS measurements. For example, a POSITA would understand that the position estimate must necessarily be based on the same grid or coordinate system as the LOS measurements in order to have value in combining them to calculate the LOS postfit residuals. However, the claim encompasses embodiments of the position estimate that would apparently not be compatible with the LOS measurements, e.g., an “eyeball” measurement or a simple compass direction. Claims 8 and 15 are likewise rejected, and dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the one or more LOS postfit residuals represent one or more differences between one or more estimated distances between each LOS device and the UE and one or more actual range measurements for each LOS device” which is indefinite for two reasons. First, it is unclear where the “one or more estimated distances” is coming from, whether they are being received or calculated. Second, it is unclear if the “one or more actual range measurements” are the same as, or discrete from, the “one or more measurements” referenced in claim 1.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the calculating of the quality metric is independent of a positioning algorithm used to determine the position estimate for the UE” which is indefinite, because it appears to contradicts claim 1, from which claim 5 depends, which requires the position estimate to calculate the postfit residuals, which are in turn used to determine the quality metric.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the calculating of the quality metric is independent of factors selected from a group consisting of pseudorange weights modeling and a postfit residual covariance matrix” which is indefinite for two reasons. First, “the calculating of the quality metric” lacks proper antecedent basis because in claim 1, the quality metric is determined, not calculated. Second, the claim language appears to ignore the possibility, and seeming necessity, that only a single “factor” is selected from the list, rather than a plurality of factors.
Claim 8 recites “the one or more processors being configured to: identify one or more devices as a line-of-sight (LOS) device based on a classification of one or more measurements of one or more signals, from the one or more devices and received by the receiver, as being LOS measurements” which is indefinite for two reasons. First, because it is unclear how the processor can be configured to identify one or more devices, etc., without requiring specific instructions or programming, i.e., configured to follow the subsequent steps without programming and simply based on structure alone. Furthermore, it is unclear how the processor being communicatively coupled to the memories is relevant to the claim. Second, because it is unclear how the processor has access to signals received by the receiver when there is not necessarily any operative coupling between the receiver and the processor. Dependent claims 9-14 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 10 recites “identify one or more second SVs” which is indefinite for lack of proper antecedent basis. Claim 17 is likewise rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
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 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghinamo (US 2013/0265191 A1) in view of Khider et al. (US 2022/0066041 A1), hereafter Khider.
Regarding claim 1, Ghinamo discloses a method of assessing a quality of a position estimate for a user equipment (UE) (abstract, regarding a method of determining a geographic position of a user terminal including a receiver of signals of a global navigation satellite system), comprising:
determining one or more LOS postfit residuals for each LOS device based on the position estimate for the UE and the LOS measurements from the LOS device (para. [0020], regarding when the number of different satellite transmitter signals received by a GPS receiver is higher than the number of unknown variables in the mathematical system of equations to be solved for calculating the GPS fix, the quality of the calculated GPS fix can be assessed by conducting a statistical test (so-called “integrity test”) on the post-fit residuals, which are the differences between the measured pseudo-range values and the expected pseudo-range values calculated on the basis of the obtained GPS fix); and
determining a quality metric for the position estimate for the UE based on the one or more LOS postfit residuals corresponding to the LOS devices (para. [0020], regarding the integrity test checks whether the sum of the squares of the post-fix residuals, normalized to the hypothesized variance of the pseudo-range measurements, is less than a preset threshold, that depends on the degrees of freedom).
Ghinamo does not appear to specifically disclose identifying one or more devices as a line-of-sight (LOS) devices based on a classification of one or more measurements of one or more signals from the one or more devices as being LOS measurements.
However, Khider is in the field of processing signal paths for receiving estimated locations (abstract) and teaches identifying one or more devices as a line-of-sight (LOS) devices based on a classification of one or more measurements of one or more signals from the one or more devices as being LOS measurements (para. [0067], regarding the ray launcher 230 is configured to determine one or more candidate signal paths 232 that may correspond to a signal path received by the receiver 114; for each candidate signal path 232, the ray launcher 230 may also generate path characteristics 234; some examples of path characteristics 234 includes path type (e.g., line of sight or reflected), attenuation along the candidate signal path 232, excess path length 24, a sum of the scattering angles along the candidate signal path 232, and other scattering information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Ghinamo to include identifying one or more devices as a line-of-sight (LOS) devices based on a classification of one or more measurements of one or more signals from the one or more devices as being LOS measurements as taught by Khider, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure that only NLOS devices are properly excluded from the calculations (see Khider, para. [0067]).
Regarding claim 2, Ghinamo as modified discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the one or more LOS postfit residuals represent one or more differences between one or more estimated distances between each LOS device and the UE and one or more actual range measurements for each LOS device (para. [0087], regarding these stations broadcast the difference between the measured satellite pseudo-ranges and actual (internally computed) pseudo-ranges, and the receivers may correct their pseudo-range measurements by the same amount).
Regarding claim 3, Ghinamo as modified discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses the invention further comprising: identifying one or more second devices as a non-LOS device based on a second classification of one or more second measurements from the one or more second devices as being non-LOS measurements (see again Khider, para. [0067]).
Regarding claim 5, Ghinamo as modified discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the calculating of the quality metric is independent of a positioning algorithm used to determine the position estimate for the UE (see again para. [0020]).
Regarding claim 6, Ghinamo as modified discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the determining of the one or more LOS postfit residuals is independent of one or more position estimate uncertainty values corresponding to the position estimate for the UE (see again para. [0020]).
Regarding claim 7, Ghinamo as modified discloses the invention in claim 6, and further discloses wherein the calculating of the quality metric is independent of factors selected from a group consisting of pseudorange weights modeling and a postfit residual covariance matrix (see again para. [0020]; Examiner notes that Ghinamo makes no mention of a postfit residual covariance matrix).
Regarding claim 8, Ghinamo discloses a user equipment (UE) (abstract), comprising:
a receiver (GPS receiver/processor unit 210; fig. 2);
one or more memories (inherent); and
one or more processors communicatively coupled to the one or more memories (control and processing unit 215; fig. 2), the one or more processors being configured to:
determine one or more LOS postfit residuals for each LOS device based on a position estimate for the UE and the LOS measurements from the LOS device (see again para. [0020]); and
determine a quality metric for the position estimate for the UE based on the one or more LOS postfit residuals corresponding to the LOS devices (see again para. [0020]).
Ghinamo does not appear to specifically disclose identify one or more devices as a line-of-sight (LOS) device based on a classification of one or more measurements of one or more signals, from the one or more devices and received by the receiver, as being LOS measurements.
However, Khider teaches the processor configured to identify one or more devices as a line-of-sight (LOS) device based on a classification of one or more measurements of one or more signals, from the one or more devices and received by the receiver, as being LOS measurements (para. [0067], regarding the ray launcher 230 is configured to determine one or more candidate signal paths 232 that may correspond to a signal path received by the receiver 114; for each candidate signal path 232, the ray launcher 230 may also generate path characteristics 234; some examples of path characteristics 234 includes path type (e.g., line of sight or reflected), attenuation along the candidate signal path 232, excess path length 24, a sum of the scattering angles along the candidate signal path 232, and other scattering information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Ghinamo such that the processor is configured to identify one or more devices as a line-of-sight (LOS) device based on a classification of one or more measurements of one or more signals, from the one or more devices and received by the receiver, as being LOS measurements as taught by Khider, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure that only NLOS devices are properly excluded from the calculations (see Khider, para. [0067]).
Regarding claim 9, Ghinamo as modified discloses the invention in claim 8, and further discloses wherein the one or more LOS postfit residuals represent one or more differences between one or more estimated distances between each LOS device and the UE and one or more actual range measurements for each LOS device (see again para. [0087]).
Regarding claim 10, Ghinamo as modified discloses the invention in claim 8, and further discloses wherein the processor-readable instructions further comprise processor-readable instructions to cause the one or more processors: identify one or more second SVs as a non-LOS device based on a second classification of one or more second measurements from the one or more second devices as being non-LOS measurements (see again Khider, para. [0067]).
Regarding claim 12, Ghinamo as modified discloses the invention in claim 8, and further discloses wherein the processor-readable instructions to cause the one or more processors to calculate the quality metric are independent of a positioning algorithm used to determine the position estimate for the UE (see again para. [0020]).
Regarding claim 13, Ghinamo as modified discloses the invention in claim 8, and further discloses wherein the processor-readable instructions to cause the one or more processors to determine the one or more LOS postfit residuals are independent of one or more position estimate uncertainty values corresponding to the position estimate for the UE (see again para. [0020]).
Regarding claim 14, Ghinamo as modified discloses the invention in claim 13, and further discloses wherein the processor-readable instructions to cause the one or more processors to calculate the quality metric is independent of factors selected from a group consisting of pseudorange weights modeling and a postfit residual covariance matrix (see again para. [0020]; Examiner notes that Ghinamo makes no mention of a postfit residual covariance matrix).
Regarding claim 15, Ghinamo discloses a user equipment (UE) (abstract), comprising:
means for determining one or more LOS postfit residuals for each LOS device based on the position estimate for the UE and the LOS measurements from the LOS device (see again para. [0020]); and
means for determining a quality metric for the position estimate for the UE based on the one or more LOS postfit residuals corresponding to the LOS devices (see again para. [0020]).
Ghinamo does not appear to specifically disclose means for identifying one or more devices as a line-of-sight (LOS) device based on a classification of one or more measurements of one or more signals from the one or more devices as being LOS measurements.
However, Khider teaches means for identifying one or more devices as a line-of-sight (LOS) device based on a classification of one or more measurements of one or more signals from the one or more devices as being LOS measurements (para. [0067], regarding the ray launcher 230 is configured to determine one or more candidate signal paths 232 that may correspond to a signal path received by the receiver 114; for each candidate signal path 232, the ray launcher 230 may also generate path characteristics 234; some examples of path characteristics 234 includes path type (e.g., line of sight or reflected), attenuation along the candidate signal path 232, excess path length 24, a sum of the scattering angles along the candidate signal path 232, and other scattering information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Ghinamo to include means for identifying one or more devices as a line-of-sight (LOS) device based on a classification of one or more measurements of one or more signals from the one or more devices as being LOS measurements as taught by Khider, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure that only NLOS devices are properly excluded from the calculations (see Khider, para. [0067]).
Regarding claim 16, Ghinamo as modified discloses the invention in claim 15, and further discloses wherein the one or more LOS postfit residuals represent one or more differences between one or more estimated distances between each LOS device and the UE and one or more actual range measurements for each LOS device (see again para. [0087]).
Regarding claim 17, Ghinamo as modified discloses the invention in claim 15, and further discloses the invention further comprising: means for identifying one or more second SVs as a non-LOS device based on a second classification of one or more second measurements from the one or more second devices as being non-LOS measurements (see again Khider, para. [0067]).
Regarding claim 19, Ghinamo as modified discloses the invention in claim 15, and further discloses wherein the means for calculating of the quality metric are independent of a positioning algorithm used to determine the position estimate for the UE (see again para. [0020]).
Regarding claim 20, Ghinamo as modified discloses the invention in claim 15, and further discloses wherein the means for determining of the one or more LOS postfit residuals are independent of one or more position estimate uncertainty values corresponding to the position estimate for the UE (see again para. [0020]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 11, and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Specifically, the prior art does not appear to teach the combined limitations of the claims, which are all substantially identical.
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