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 .
Continued Examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 9, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Non-Final Office action is responsive to the Request for Continued Examination filed on April 14, 2026 (hereafter “Response”). The amendments to the claims are acknowledged and have been entered.
Claims 12, 14, 20, and 21 are now amended.
Claims 12, 14, and 18–24 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
The Office objects to the form of claims 12, 20, and 21 for tacking several limitations about the assessment module (or its corresponding steps, in the case of claims 20 and 21) onto the end of each claim, causing the driving assistance limitation to separate the assessment module’s limitations from their initial introduction much higher in the claim.
This results in a narrative of the claims that is confusing and difficult to follow, because all three claims switch from the assessment of signal integrity to the following step of controlling the driving assistance function, but then suddenly resume discussion of the signal integrity assessment after the driving assistance function, despite this being a step that occurs before controlling the driving assistance function.
Therefore, to resolve the informality, claims 12, 20, and 21 should be amended as follows (assuming all limitations will be kept with the next amendment):
12. (Currently Amended) A system for controlling a driving assistance function, comprising:
a GNSS receiver module configured to:
receive GNSS signals, and
provide information relating to a quality of currently available GNSS signals;
an assessment module configured to use a lookup table to determine, based on the information provided, a signal integrity status which relates to the usability of the currently available GNSS signals for controlling the driving assistance function
by comparing a plurality of signal quality indicators contained in the information provided and/or derived therefrom with respective threshold values stored in the lookup table,
wherein the signal quality indicators include a number of currently available GNSS satellites, a phase tracking loss, and a horizontal and/or vertical reduction in accuracy, and
wherein the lookup table:
maps combinations of a plurality of ranges of the signal quality indicators, which are defined by the threshold values, to one of a plurality of nominal states; and
assigns a signal integrity status to each of the nominal states; and
a control module configured to control the driving assistance function based on the signal integrity status of the currently available GNSS signals.
20. A computer-implemented method for controlling a driving assistance function, comprising
providing information relating to a quality of currently available GNSS signals;
using a lookup table to determine a signal integrity status of the currently available GNSS signals based on the information provided, wherein the signal integrity status relates to the usability of the currently available GNSS signals for controlling the driving assistance function
by comparing a plurality of signal quality indicators contained in the information provided and/or derived therefrom with respective threshold values stored in the lookup table, wherein the signal quality indicators include a number of currently available GNSS satellites, a phase tracking loss, and a horizontal and/or vertical reduction in accuracy, and
wherein the lookup table:
maps combinations of a plurality of ranges of the signal quality indicators, which are defined by the threshold values, to one of a plurality of nominal states; and
assigns a signal integrity status to each of the nominal states; and
controlling the driving assistance function based on the signal integrity status of the currently available GNSS signals.
21. (the language of claim 21 is substantially similar to claim 20, and therefore, similar amendments are proposed)
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 12, 14, 18, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they include embodiments that are pure software per se.
Specifically, claims 12, 14, 18, 19, and 22 recite a system with three required modules, and according to the Applicant’s specification, “[t]he term module (and other similar terms such as unit, subunit, submodule, etc.) in the present disclosure may refer to a software module, a hardware module, or a combination thereof.” (Spec. ¶ 46). Therefore, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the scope of claims 12, 14, 18, 19, and 22 is such that they include embodiments of pure software per se. Software, on its own, does not fall within any of the four categories listed in 35 U.S.C. § 101, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 20 and 21 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 applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 20 and 21 are indefinite because each claim lacks antecedent basis for “the assessment module” (which was likely copied language from claim 12).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claim(s) 12, 18, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0036653 A1 (“Huseinovic”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0339396 A1 (“Turunen”).
Claim 12
Huseinovic teaches:
A system for controlling a driving assistance function, comprising
“FIG. 1 shows a schematic representation of a system 200 for control assistance of a vehicle 201.” Huseinovic ¶ 50.
a GNSS receiver module configured to: receive GNSS signals,
“In the specific embodiment shown, vehicle 201 includes at least one GNSS antenna 217, which is configured to receive GNSS signals 203 of at least one navigation satellite 205 of a global navigation satellite system.” Huseinovic ¶ 51.
and provide information relating to a quality of currently available GNSS signals;
“Quality parameters 206, 207, 208, which are provided, for example, by a measurement engine of the vehicle motion positioning sensor (VMPS) of vehicle 201, are thereupon determined for received GNSS signals 203.” Huseinovic ¶ 52.
an assessment module configured to use a lookup table to determine, based on the information provided, a signal integrity status which relates to the usability of the currently available GNSS signals for controlling the driving assistance function;
“A driving state 209 of vehicle 201 is ascertained thereafter based on ascertained quality parameters 206, 207, 208 and in particular based on particular values 211 of quality parameters 206, 207, 208 of received GNSS signals 203. For this purpose, values 211 of quality parameters 206, 207, 208 of received GNSS signals 203 are compared to corresponding reference values of stored, previously known reference value clusters 213, 214, each reference value cluster 213, 214 representing an individual driving state 209.” Huseinovic ¶ 52.
“Correspondingly determined reference value clusters 213, 214 or the association linked thereto with particular driving states 209 may be stored, for example, in a corresponding database,” Huseinovic ¶ 56, and therefore, the plurality of clusters fall within the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “lookup table.” Moreover, notwithstanding the database, the clusters logically fall within the scope of the claimed lookup table because each cluster is a collection (i.e., a row in the table) of threshold values for the multiple different parameters of the GNSS signals, and each cluster of threshold values corresponds to a respective driving state 209.
and a control module configured to control the driving assistance function based on the signal integrity status of the currently available GNSS signals.
“Furthermore, a control assistance function is provided based on driving state 209 ascertained in this way. The control assistance function may provide, for example, determining a signal integrity of received GNSS signals 203 based on ascertained driving state 209 and providing this signal integrity to a navigation module, for example, the vehicle motion positioning sensor (VMPS).” Huseinovic ¶ 58.
wherein the determination of the signal integrity status by means of the assessment module comprises:
comparing a plurality of signal quality indicators contained in the information provided and/or derived therefrom with respective threshold values stored in the lookup table;
“To determine the current driving state in which vehicle 201 is situated during the active control of vehicle 201, currently recorded values 211 of quality parameters 206, 207, 208 of GNSS signals 203 received during the navigation of vehicle 201 are compared to the particular reference values of previously known and stored reference value clusters 213, 214.” Huseinovic ¶ 57.
wherein the lookup table: maps combinations of a plurality of ranges of the signal quality indicators, which are defined by the threshold values, to one of a number of nominal states;
“Reference value clusters 213, 214 may each include a plurality of reference values of quality parameters 206, 207, 208.” Huseinovic ¶ 53.
and assigns a signal integrity status to each of the nominal states;
“Driving state 209 represented by particular reference value cluster 213, 214 is identified here as the current driving state of vehicle 201.” Huseinovic ¶ 57.
Claim 12 further specifies that “the signal quality indicators include a number of currently available GNSS satellites, a phase tracking loss, and a horizontal and/or vertical reduction in accuracy.” In contrast, Husenovic only discloses that its quality parameters 206–208 may include “a signal strength, a signal-to-noise ratio, and a signal frequency of received GNSS signals 203.” Huseinovic ¶ 60.
However, this difference between Huseinovic was an obvious one at the time of the claimed invention, because the number of currently available GNSS satellites, phase tracking loss, and HDOP or VDOP were all well-known recognized indicators of GNSS signal quality in the art.
As one example, Turunen teaches a GNSS error recovery technique that uses “GNSS measurement quality indicators,” including, among other things, “loss-of-lock detection” (number of available GNSS satellites) and “phase lock time” (phase tracking loss), Turunen ¶ 20, as well as a “posterior error probability distribution” that defines the need for protection levels in different directions, “including directions with vertical components as well as horizontal components” (horizontal and/or vertical reduction of accuracy). Turunen ¶ 72.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to supplement the quality parameters 206–208 in Husenovic’s table with the additional GNSS measurement quality indicators suggested by Turunen. One would have been motivated to supplement the quality parameters with the additional GNSS measurement quality indicators because “in autonomous driving applications, it is crucial for the ADAS to determine when the uncertainty in the position of a vehicle becomes too large in order to avoid dangerous or incorrect navigation instructions being provided to the vehicle.” Turunen ¶ 4.
Claim 14
Huseinovic and Turunen teach the system according to claim 12, wherein the signal quality indicators further include:
code noise;
“[T]he GNSS measurement quality indicator(s) may comprise one or more of: carrier-to-noise density, carrier-to-noise density variability . . . [and] code lock time.” Turunen ¶ 20.
phase noise;
“[T]he GNSS measurement quality indicator(s) may comprise one or more of . . . carrier phase variance” and “phase lock time.” Turunen ¶ 20. “In addition to these measurements, the GNSS receiver may additionally provide measurement quality indicators, which may include . . an estimate of the carrier phase and pseudorange variances,” and indicators of “cycle slip.” Turunen ¶ 45.
an interference indicator which indicates a degree of multipath interference and/or unintentional interference.
“[T]he GNSS measurement quality indicator(s) may comprise . . . multipath deviation.” Turunen ¶ 20. “For example, there may be a large expected error in a range measurement . . . if the multipath deviation of the signal is large.” Turunen ¶ 45.
Claim 18
Huseinovic and Turunen teach the system according to claim 12, wherein the control module is further configured to:
weigh an influence of the GNSS signals when controlling the driving assistance function based on the signal integrity status of the currently available GNSS signals.
Depending on the breadth of the term “weigh,” there are two different disclosures in Huseinovic that fall within the scope of “weigh[ing]” an influence of the GNSS signals.
If “weigh” refers to strictly a mathematical weight, Huseinovic’s disclosure of the control assistance function prompting “a correction of the position determination by the navigation module,” Huseinovic ¶ 58, falls within the scope of this limitation, because the weight of the GNSS-derived position is necessarily devalued by the presence of an offset term in the correction. That is, an uncorrected GNSS-derived position necessarily has more weight in a navigation solution than an uncorrected GNSS-derived position offset by a correction, because the latter must share some of its weight with whatever value is provided as the correction.
On the other hand, if “weigh” refers to a broader, more abstract sense of the word (i.e., the extent to which the GNSS signals are called into question), Huseinovic further discloses that the “ascertained driving state 209 may be provided as independent information to [] the vehicle controller . . . so that driving state 209 ascertained in this way may be taken into consideration in the control of the vehicle.” Huseinovic ¶ 58.
The ascertained driving state 209 falls within the broad scope of “signal integrity status” because the ascertained driving state 209 is “based on ascertained quality parameters 206, 207, 208 and in particular based on particular values 211 of quality parameters 206, 207, 208 of received GNSS signals 203.” Huseinovic ¶ 52.
Claim 19
Huseinovic teaches the system according to claim 12,
wherein the control module is further configured, during degradation of the signal integrity status of the currently available GNSS signals, to change] the driving assistance function.
Huseinovic discloses several different “control assistance function[s]” that may be “provided based on driving state 209 ascertained in this way,” Huseinovic ¶ 58, i.e., the driving state 209 ascertained in the manner described in the rejection of claim 1. Two particularly relevant control assistance functions include the following: “ascertained driving state 209 may be provided as independent information to both the vehicle controller of the vehicle and also the driver of the vehicle, so that driving state 209 ascertained in this way may be taken into consideration in the control of the vehicle.” Huseinovic ¶ 58 (emphasis added).
In other words, Huseinovic teaches providing the information about the degraded signal to both the driver and the vehicle’s controller to allow either or both to compensate, but does not explicitly anticipate an actual degradation of the driving assistance function.
In addition, Turunen explicitly teaches:
the control module is further configured, during degradation of the signal integrity status of the currently available GNSS signals, to degrade the driving assistance function.
Turunen instructs the person of ordinary skill to change the “protection level” currently set in a self-driving vehicle based on the GNSS quality indicators. Turunen ¶ 56. Crucially, “[t]he protection level can be used to determine when to alert a user of a navigation system that the navigation system is unable to provide a sufficiently precise position estimate for the user,” Turunen ¶ 8, in which case, “the ADAS controlling the vehicle may be forced . . . to return full control to the driver.” Turunen ¶ 4.
Claims 20 and 21
Claim 20 is directed to the exact same method that the system of claim 12 performs as part of its normal operation, and is therefore rejected over the same findings and rationale as provided above for claim 12. See MPEP § 2112.02; see also Huseinovic ¶¶ 64–71 (describing the operations of the prior art system in the form of a method flowchart).
Claim 21 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising exactly the same instructions that are stored in the respective modules of the system of claim 12. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected over the same findings and rationale as provided above for claim 12. See also Huseinovic ¶¶ 84–85 (explicitly disclosing the known system in the form of a computer program product 300).
Claim 22
Huseinovic teaches the system according to claim 18,
wherein weighting the influence of the GNSS signals is performed relative to information
“The corresponding signal integrity may furthermore be taken into consideration in the navigation of the vehicle based on the received GNSS signals, in that GNSS signals having lower integrity are taken into consideration with lower prioritization.” Huseinovic ¶ 42.
Huseinovic does not explicitly anticipate that the weighting is relative to information from a camera, radar, or lidar—it merely teaches that poor quality GNSS signals should receive less weight than higher quality GNSS signals in the navigation solution.
Turunen, however, teaches a vehicle navigation system, including for motor vehicles on the ground that weighs the influence of the GNSS signals when controlling a self-navigation function, based on the signal integrity status of the currently available GNSS signals,
wherein weighting the influence of the GNSS signals is performed relative to information from at least one of a camera, radar, or lidar.
Specifically, Turunen instructs the person of ordinary skill to change the “protection level” currently set in a self-driving vehicle based on the GNSS quality indicators, Turunen ¶ 56, which “can be used to determine when to alert a user of a navigation system that the navigation system is unable to provide a sufficiently precise position estimate for the user.” Turunen ¶ 8. Under these degraded circumstances, “the ADAS controlling the vehicle may be forced to rely on other sensors to determine the position of the vehicle.” Turunen ¶ 4.
Claims 23 and 24
The additional limitations recited in claims 23 and 24 are substantially similar to those recited in claim 22, and are therefore rejected over the same findings and rationale as provided above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin R. Blaufeld whose telephone number is (571)272-4372. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am - 4:00pm ET.
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, James K Trujillo can be reached at (571) 272-3677. 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.
Justin R. Blaufeld
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2151
/Justin R. Blaufeld/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
Prosecution Insights