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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 57-64 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/15/2026.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The broadest reasonable interpretation of method claims 1-9 and 19-28 requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.
The step recited in claim 1 line 11-13 is not required to be performed unless it has been determined in lines 8-10 that the position estimate for the terminal will be improved, and the step recited in claim 1 lines 14-17 is not required to be performed unless it has been determined in lines 8-10 that the position estimate for the terminal will not be improved. The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 therefore requires only one of these steps.
The step recited in claim 19 line 12-14 is not required to be performed unless it has been determined in lines 9-11 that the position estimate for the terminal will be improved, and the step recited in claim 19 lines 15-17 is not required to be performed unless it has been determined in lines 9-11 that the position estimate for the terminal will not be improved. The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 19 therefore requires only one of these steps.
See MPEP 2111.04 II and Ex parte Schulhauser.
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 1-18 and 39-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1 lines 6-7 and corresponding portions of claims 10, 39, and 48, “the differential corrections generated by the reference station that are broadcast by the DGNSS server” lack clear antecedent basis in the claim. The claims previously recite only “wirelessly connecting with a differential Global Navigation Satellite System (DGNSS) server to receive differential corrections generated by a reference station for GNSS signals”.
The remaining claims are dependent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co.v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert, denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) See MPEP 2123.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-11, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ogawa (EP 1857830 B1, cited on IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Ogawa teaches a method performed by a terminal for positioning (15, Fig. 3; para. [0039] “rover station 15”), the method comprising:
wirelessly connecting with a differential Global Navigation Satellite System (DGNSS) server (para. [0046] “a communication setup request... is transmitted from the rover station 15 to the server 9 through the communication network 10... the server 9 authenticates... and permits the rover station 15 to log-in”; para. [0030] “RTK-GPS survey system... comprises a server”, where RTK is a type of DGNSS) to receive differential corrections generated by a reference station for GNSS signals (para. [0032] “one of the observational stations is used as a base station that transmits correction data” and “at least one of the rest of the observational stations is used as a rover station that receives the correction data”; para. [0058] “The rover station receives the correction data of the base station that are requested through the server 9”);
receiving GNSS signals from a plurality of GNSS satellite vehicles (para. [0056] “While receiving the radio waves from the artificial satellite Sa, the rover station performs positioning by itself”);
receiving the differential corrections generated by the reference station that are broadcast by the DGNSS server (para. [0058] “The rover station receives the correction data of the base station that are requested through the server 9”);
determining whether a position estimate for the terminal will be improved using the GNSS signals and the differential corrections relative to using the GNSS signals without the differential corrections (para. [0084] “An operation program, which calculates the satellite number passing the noise interference area Z3' and the time zone thereof from the coming information (history information) of the artificial satellite Sa, is incorporated in the control unit 13 of the rover station” and para. [0085] “the rover station will not perform the RTK survey using the radio waves from the artificial satellite passing the noise interference area Z3', even if the correction information transmitted from a selected base station contains the radio waves from an artificial satellite passing the noise interference area Z3'”, where the decision not to use radio waves from satellites passing the noise interference area even if correction information is available is a decision that the position estimate will not be improved by the corrections relative to using the GNSS signals alone);
determining a position for the terminal based on the GNSS signals and the differential corrections in response to a determination that the position estimate for the terminal will be improved (para. [0086], esp. “a precise RTK survey can be realized by using only good quality correction data”, where the determination of good quality correction data amounts to a determination that the position estimate will be improved); and
stopping the use of differential corrections broadcast by the DGNSS server and determining the position for the terminal based on the GNSS signals without the differential corrections in response to a determination that the position estimate for the terminal will not be improved (para. [0085] “the rover station will not perform the RTK survey using the radio waves from the artificial satellite passing the noise interference area Z3', even if the correction information transmitted from a selected base station contains the radio waves from an artificial satellite passing the noise interference area Z3'”; para. [0086], esp. “using only good quality correction data”, where the determination that the correction data is not of good quality amounts to a determination that the position estimate will not improved).
Regarding claim 10, in addition to what has already been discussed with respect to claim 1, Ogawa teaches a terminal configured for positioning, comprising:
a wireless transceiver configured to wirelessly communicate with entities in a wireless network (12, Fig. 4);
a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receiver (11, Fig. 4);
at least one memory (para. [0058] “memory of the control unit 13”);
at least one processor coupled to the wireless transceiver, the GNSS receiver and the at least one memory (para. [0058] “processing device of the control unit 13”).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Ogawa teaches wherein stopping the use of the differential corrections comprises continuing to receive the differential corrections broadcast by the DGNSS server and not using the differential corrections for determining the position for the terminal (para. [0086] “even if the correction information transmitted from the selected base station contains the radio waves from the artificial satellite passing the noise interference area Z3’, it is possible to estimate in advance the correction information containing high noises... As a result, a precise RTK survey can be realized using only good quality correction data” indicates that ifferential corrections are received but not used).
Regarding claims 3-6, the steps of stopping the use of the differential corrections by disconnecting from the DGNSS server, and reconnecting at a later time, are only performed in response to a determination that the position estimate for the terminal will not be improved (see claim 1 lines 8-10 and 14-17 as discussed above in Claim Interpretation). The broadest reasonable interpretation of claims 3-6 therefore does not require these steps. See MPEP 2111.04 II and Ex parte Schulhauser.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Ogawa teaches wherein determining whether the position estimate for the terminal will be improved using the GNSS signals and the differential corrections relative to using the GNSS signals without the differential corrections is based on at least one of a distance between the terminal and the reference station, a determination that the terminal is located in a tunnel, garage, or indoors, an indication of multipath components in the GNSS signals, an indication of signal jamming of the GNSS signals, an indication of a signal to noise ratio of the GNSS signals (para. [0084] “S/N ratio area information”), or a combination thereof.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Ogawa teaches wherein determining whether the position estimate for the terminal will be improved using the GNSS signals and the differential corrections relative to using the GNSS signals without the differential corrections is based on environmental conditions of a current position of the terminal (the “S/N ratio area information” taught in para. [0084] is based on environmental conditions resulting in multipath as per para. [0082]).
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 39, 40, 45, 48, 49, and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa (EP 1857830 B1, cited on IDS) in view of Fiedelak (US 20070236388 A1).
Regarding claim 39, Ogawa teaches a method performed by a terminal for positioning (15, Fig. 4; para. [0039] “rover station 15”), the method comprising:
wirelessly connecting with a differential Global Navigation Satellite System (DGNSS) server (para. [0046] “a communication setup request... is transmitted from the rover station 15 to the server 9 through the communication network 10... the server 9 authenticates... and permits the rover station 15 to log-in”; para. [0030] “RTK-GPS survey system... comprises a server”, where RTK is a type of DGNSS) to receive differential corrections generated by a reference station for GNSS signals (para. [0032] “one of the observational stations is used as a base station that transmits correction data” and “at least one of the rest of the observational stations is used as a rover station that receives the correction data”; para. [0058] “The rover station receives the correction data of the base station that are requested through the server 9”);
receiving GNSS signals from a plurality of GNSS satellite vehicles (para. [0056] “While receiving the radio waves from the artificial satellite Sa, the rover station performs positioning by itself”);
receiving the differential corrections generated by the reference station that are broadcast by the DGNSS server (para. [0058] “The rover station receives the correction data of the base station that are requested through the server 9”);
sending to the DGNSS server position information comprising at least the GNSS signals (para. [0059] “The positioning data acquired by the satellite positioning device used as the rover station are transmitted to the centralized analysis and processing unit 19A through the server 9”);
determining a position for the terminal based on the GNSS signals without the differential corrections (para. [0085] “the rover station will not perform the RTK survey using the radio waves from the artificial satellite passing the noise interference area Z3', even if the correction information transmitted from a selected base station contains the radio waves from an artificial satellite passing the noise interference area Z3'” and para. [0086], esp. “using only good quality correction data”, implying that the position is determined based on the GNSS signals without at least some of the differential corrections).
Ogawa does not teach the terminal for positioning receiving from the DGNSS server an indication to stop using the differential corrections.
Fiedelak, in analogous art (abstract), teaches a DGNSS reference station (mobile reference station 46, Fig. 1 and para. [0018]) providing differential correction data (“correction data” paras. [0009]-[0010]) to a terminal for positioning (position-finding signal receiver 40, Fig. 1 and para. [0018]), and the terminal receiving an indication from the reference station to stop using the differential corrections (paras. [0009]-[0010], esp. para. [0010] “The error signal can be used in order to terminate the transmission of the correction data by the reference station” and “the error signal can be transmitted via the transmission unit and the radio antenna. An operator... can in this way be informed virtually immediately of a possible error or fault... and can himself take further measures”, where the error signal is an indication to stop using the corrections).
In view of Fiedelak, it would have been obvious to modify Ogawa by the terminal receiving from the DGNSS server an indication to stop using the differential corrections in order to inform the terminal of a possible error or fault and allow the terminal to take further measures. This is a matter of using of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way is an exemplary rationale that supports a conclusion of obviousness, see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
Regarding claim 48, in addition to what has already been discussed with respect to claim 38, Ogawa teaches a terminal configured for positioning, comprising:
a wireless transceiver configured to wirelessly communicate with entities in a wireless network (12, Fig. 4);
a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receiver (11, Fig. 4);
at least one memory (para. [0058] “memory of the control unit 13”);
at least one processor coupled to the wireless transceiver, the GNSS receiver and the at least one memory (para. [0058] “processing device of the control unit 13”).
Regarding claims 40 and 49, when Ogawa is modified in view of Fiedelak as discussed above, the indication to stop using the differential corrections comprises an indication to not use the differential corrections for determining the position for the terminal. Also see Fiedelak Fig. 3 104 ‘yes’ and 114 “ignore further correction signals”.
Regarding claims 45 and 54, Fiedelak teaches receiving from the DGNSS server an indication to begin using the differential corrections again after receiving the indication to stop using the differential corrections; and using the differential corrections again in response to the indication to begin using the differential corrections again (para. [0028] “The automatic steering process can however now be continued ... with correction data once the reference station 46 has been moved back to the intended position, and this position has been confirmed by an input by means of an interface (not shown) which is connected to the processor 50”, where the continuing of automatic steering with correction data implies that the transmission of the correction data signal has resumed, and the receipt of the transmitted correction signal is itself an indication to begin using the differential corrections again).
It would have been obvious to further modify Ogawa in view of Fiedelak in order provide for continued use of the differential corrections after an error or fault has been resolved. This is a matter of using of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way is an exemplary rationale that supports a conclusion of obviousness, see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 12-15, 17, 41-44, 46, 47, 50-53, 55, and 56 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 19-38 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claims 19 and 29, the closest prior art (Ogawa EP 1857830 B1, cited on IDS) teaches [NOTE: limitations not taught by Ogawa are lined through] a method performed by a differential Global Navigation Satellite System (DGNSS) server (9 and 19A, Fig. 3) for positioning a terminal (rover station 15, Fig. 3), the method comprising:
connecting with the terminal (para. [0046] “a communication setup request... is transmitted from the rover station 15 to the server 9 through the communication network 10... the server 9 authenticates... and permits the rover station 15 to log-in”) to provide the terminal with differential corrections generated by a reference station for GNSS signals (para. [0058] “The rover station receives the correction data of the base station that are requested through the server 9”);
receiving position information from the terminal comprising at least GNSS signals received by the terminal (para. [0059] “The positioning data acquired by the satellite positioning device used as the rover station are transmitted to the centralized analysis and processing unit 19A through the server 9”);
receiving differential corrections generated by the reference station for the GNSS signals (para. [0058] “The correction data of the base station selected by the rover station are delivered to the rover station through the server 9”, indicating that the corrections have been received at the server);
In addition, Johnson (US 20170227648 A1) teaches a DGNSS server ceasing broadcast of GPS corrections for faulty satellites (para. [0050] “differential corrections”; para. [0055] “If the ephemeris uncertainty for one or more of the satellites 51, 52, 53, or 54 in view of the first ground subsystem 501 exceeds the preselected threshold, the processor 130 ceases broadcasting the correction data for the effected satellite”), and Fiedelak (US 20070236388 A1) teaches a mobile reference station transmitting differential correction data, the mobile reference station terminating the transmission in case of error, and transmitting an error signal to indicate the error to a user (paras. [0009]-[0010]).
However the prior art does not teach or make obvious, in combination with the other claimed features, the server:
determining whether a position estimate for the terminal will be improved using the GNSS signals and the differential corrections relative to using the GNSS signals without the differential corrections;
broadcasting to the terminal the differential corrections generated by the reference station for the GNSS signals in response to a determination that the position estimate for the terminal will be improved; and
sending to the terminal an indication to stop using the differential corrections in response to a determination that the position estimate for the terminal will not be improved.
Ogawa’s terminal obtains the differential corrections (para. [0058] “The rover station receives the correction data of the base station that are requested through the server 9”) and decides locally whether they would improve the position estimate based on S/N ratio area information (see paras. [0084]-[0086] as discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 10). Modifying Ogawa as claimed would require the server to decide if the differential corrections would improve the position estimate of the terminal, instead of the terminal, and then broadcast the corrections to the terminal or send an indication to the terminal to stop using the corrections accordingly. This modification would add complexity to Ogawa’s method with no clear advantage.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Rowson (US 6067484 A) teaches halting the broadcast of differential corrections when a difference between a known receiver position and a receiver position computer using the differential corrections exceeds a threshold (3:60-67).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSI J GALT whose telephone number is (571)270-1469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM - 5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, WILLIAM KELLEHER can be reached at (571)272-7753. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CASSI J GALT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648