DETAILED ACTION
America Invents Act
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 USC §119(a)-(d) and 35 USC §371, for which papers have been placed of record in the file.
This application, filed 26-June-2024, is a nation stage entry of WIPO/PCT application PCT/EP2022/088044, filed 29-December-2022.
This application also claims priority from French application FR2114635, filed 29-December-2021.
Therefore, this application is accorded a prima facie effective filing date of 29-December-2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement IDS#1 submitted 26-June-2024 (5 references) has been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Preliminary Amendment
The present Office Action is based upon the original patent application filed on 26-June-2024 as modified by the preliminary amendment PA#1 filed on the same date.
Claims 1-14 are now pending in the present application.
Claim Objections
Objection is made to claims 1-3, 10, 11 and 14 because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-3, 10, 11 and 14 recite the term “time stamp”, where the conventional and usual meaning of the term as metadata associated with a measurement item or event occurrence (or collection thereof). The use of this term as recited in the claimed method renders the method unclear. The intended meaning, as best understood by the Examiner, is as a measurement time or point, where a given time interval comprises a plurality of defined times when positioning signals are received, and for each measurement time, time intervals during which the signal is considered early, prompt (on time) or late. Prior art examination of the claims will assume this meaning.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112(b)
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 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 USC §112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 USC §112(f):
(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 USC §112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 USC §112(f) 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 USC §112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 USC §112(f) 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 USC §112(f) 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 USC §112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. These claim limitations are: a “first unit” recited in claims 1 and 6-11, and a “second unit” and in claims 1, 4 and 11-13.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 USC §112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If the Applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 USC §112(f) the Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid interpretation under 35 USC §112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid interpretation under 35 USC §112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 USC §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 1-13 are rejected under 35 USC §112(b) as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 4 and 6-13 recite the limitation “first unit” and/or “second limitation” which invokes 35 USC §112(f). The written description, however, fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification describes these elements as “configured to” perform various functions, but fails to describe structures for providing these functions. This renders the claims reciting these elements indefinite, and these claims are rejected under 35 USC §112(b).
The Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 USC §112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 USC §132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 USC §132(a)).
If the Applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 USC §132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2, 3 and 5 are rejected, at least because they each depend from a rejected claim.
Claim 2 recites “obtain a temporal distance” [line 9] and “determine a temporal distance” [line 13] where it is unclear whether these are the same or different elements rendering the claim unclear and indefinite. It is assumed that a “temporal distance” is a time difference.
Claim 2 recites “the possible position” and “the maximum correlation result” [line 4] for which there is no clear antecedent. The claim also recites “each position” [line 7], “each possible position” [line 10] and ‘the/said possible position” [line 13, 15, 17] where the relationship is unclear.
Claim 2 appears to provide two alternative methods for determining common error, but the claim does not clearly differentiate the steps for each, wherein the final clause/step [line 15-17] appears to apply to both.
Claim 6 recites “the elementary likelihood” for which there is no antecedent, and for which the meaning is unclear.
Claim 12 as presently amended depends from itself, rendering the claim indefinite. The claim will be assumed to depend from claim 1 for the purpose of prior art examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
The following is a quotation of 35 USC §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 of this title, 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 USC §102 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 USC §102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 USC §102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as unpatentable over Revol (United Stated Patent Application Publication # US 2022/0135096 A1).
Consider claim 1: A positioning device configured to determine the location of a vehicle from positioning signals broadcasted by at least one constellation of satellites, the vehicle being stationary or moving on the roads of a given network, Revol discloses a method and system for determining the point location of a stopped vehicle on a storage track, using received GNSS satellite signals and a plurality of virtual beacons [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1-3; Para. 0001, 0003, 0017-0018; Claim 13], the positioning device comprising:
a first unit configured, at a given measurement time, to determine a plurality of possible current positions of the vehicle and to determine a plurality of time stamps, the plurality of time stamps being determined within a given time interval, an on-board device (174) comprising a GNSS receiver (182) and processing unit (184) which, in an initialization phase (206) possible positions of virtual beacons corresponding to possible vehicle track locations, and associated with synchronization reset times, are determined [Fig. 2-3; Para. 0087-0090, 0095-0097; Claim 1-2], the first unit being further configured to:
generate, for each possible current position of the vehicle, local replicas of positioning signals, each of the local replicas being associated with an early, a prompt and a late point of each time stamp of the plurality of time stamps and with a satellite in view of the at least one constellation of satellites; wherein, during the initialization a second set of hypothesis data is generated based on a plurality of synchronization reset times, and in a second step (208), replica GNSS signals are generated for each of the times for each of the possible locations [Fig. 3; Para. 0097-0099; Claim 1-2];
receive, at each time stamp of the plurality of time stamps, positioning signals broadcasted by at least three satellites in view of the at least one constellation of satellites; wherein in the second step (208) the GNSS receiver receives the real GNSS signals from multiple satellites (exemplary 3) at the plurality of synchronization reset times [Fig. 3; Para. 0098, 0100; Claim 1-2];
process, for each possible current position of the vehicle, for each time stamp of the plurality of time stamps, and for each satellite in view, a correlation function between a received positioning signal and the corresponding generated local replica at the early, prompt and late points; wherein multi-satellite elementary correlations between replica and real GNSS signals are determined and for each position a correlation is generated as a quadratic sum of the elemental correlations (also step (318) [Fig. 3-4; Para. 0100-0101, 0111; Claim 2-3]; and
a second unit configured to:
for each satellite, use the correlation results to determine a common error to all the satellites, for each satellite, each position and each time stamp, determine a corrected correlation result using the said common error and the early, prompt and late points of the correlation results, wherein the quadratic summation process serves to remove or mitigate various errors [Fig. 3-4; Para. 0108-0110, 0130-0134],
determine, for each possible current position of the vehicle, multi-satellite likelihoods, each of the multi-satellite likelihoods being determined for a given time stamp from the quadratic sum of the corrected correlation results; wherein, (step 210) likelihoods are determined for each position at each time Fig. 3-4; Para. 0101, 0106-0113],
determine a most likely position and a most likely time stamp among the plurality of possible current positions and among the plurality of time stamps, respectively, by comparing the multi-satellite likelihoods; and a fourth step (212), wherein the processing unit determines the position of the virtual beacon and the reset time for which the multidimensional correlation or likelihood function is maximum, this position and time being the most probable position of the virtual beacon and the most probable synchronization correction for the parking place of the train [Fig. 3; Para. 0102; Claim 1].
Revol does not explicitly disclose times for as early, prompt and late, but does disclose use of a plurality of times covering an uncertainty domain, which may be understood to encompass a range including early and late times [Para. 0093].
Revol discloses a muti-satellite GNSS network using satellites visible from a particular beacon [Para. 0108-0109] and does not explicitly disclose at least three, but suggests an exemplary three [SAT(i, j, k)].
Revol discloses a vehicle device comprising a GNSS receiver, and electronic processor and associated memory, and does not disclose a specific first unit and second unit for performing particular process steps. This, however, is an obvious variant, according to well-known principle of distributed computing, as would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention, where a computational task may be performed by a single processor, or by a plurality of processors with the same effect and result, and where such process distribution may be made to allow use of available or off-shelf processors and components.
Consider claim 3 and as applied to claim 1: The positioning device of claim 1, wherein processing, for each possible current position of the vehicle and for each time stamp of the plurality of time stamps, a correlation function between a received positioning signal and the corresponding generated local replica at an early, prompt and late point comprises accumulating a plurality of correlations results computed within a given time interval around the said early, prompt and late points of the time stamp. Revol discloses evaluation of GNSS position signals for each of a plurality of [visible] satellites, for each of a plurality of virtual beacons (Bek) (each representing a potential parking position), for each of a plurality of times (tk) (time stamp), as a quadratic sum to evaluate a correlation with each parking position [Fig. 7; Para. 0020, 0067, 0101, 0109, 0130, 0140; Claim 3].
Consider claim 4 and as applied to claim 1: The positioning device of claim 1, wherein it further comprises a cartographic database comprising position information of the roads of the given network, the second unit being further configured to determine the section of road the vehicle is on by accessing the cartographic database and using the determined most likely position. Revol discloses that the device comprised a database of topographical data (184), wherein, during the initialization first step, possible positions are determined, corresponding to track locations (exemplary train) as determined from the database of topographical data [Fig. 2-3; Para.0088; Claim 5].
Consider claim 5 and as applied to claim 4: The positioning device of claim 4, wherein the cartographic database further comprises a representation of the surrounding environment of the roads of the given network. Revol discloses that the database of topographical data stores the topography of the tracks Vi and of the positions P(i) of the virtual beacons Be(i), where tracks, with respect to a train, is equivalent to roads for automobiles [Para. 0088]. Also see citations and analysis for claim 4, provided previously.
Consider claim 6 and as applied to claim 5: The positioning device of claim 5, wherein the first unit is further configured to access the cartographic database to determine one or more propagation characteristics of each of the received positioning signals, the first unit being further configured to exclude from the elementary likelihood computing one or more positioning signals on the basis of their propagation characteristics. Revol discloses “….improvement in sensitivity obtained by implementing the method for determining the point location of the virtual beacon, associated with knowledge of the topographical map of the parking positions, allows the performance of the detection of the starting track in terms of probability of false alarm and of probability of non-detection to be improved….” [Para. 0153], and where this improvement in sensitivity may be obtained by weighting and/or filtering satellite signals base on angle of incidence of the satellite signal with respect to the direction of movement [Fig. 7; Para. 0140-0142, 0148-0144].
Consider claim 7 and as applied to claim 1: The positioning device of claim 1, wherein the first unit is configured, when the vehicle is moving, to determine the plurality of possible current positions by using a PVT technique in conjunction with a plurality of positioning signals. Revol discloses the use of a PVT technique [Fig. 1; Para. 0068, 0080-0086].
Consider claim 8 and as applied to claim 5: The positioning device of claim 5, wherein the first unit is configured, when the vehicle is stationary on a parking road among a plurality of adjacent parking roads, to determine the plurality of possible current positions by assigning a possible current position to each of the adjacent parking roads. Revol discloses that possible parking positions for a stopped train position correspond to virtual beacons, each associated with a storage track. [Para. 0051-0055; Claim 1]
Consider claim 9 and as applied to claim 1: The positioning device of claim 1, wherein the first unit is further configured to determine the given time interval on the basis of a temporal integrity protection radius associated with the at least one constellation of satellites. Revol discloses that embodiments a temporal uncertainty domain may be determined based on a RAIM function to provide detection of errors or biases within a predetermined confidence level [Para. 0075-0076; Claim 5-6].
Consider claim 10 and as applied to claim 1: The positioning device of claim 1, wherein the first unit is further configured to determine the plurality of time stamps by regularly sampling during the given time interval. Revol discloses that “…the imprecision time range of the synchronization of the local clock is covered by the electronic processing unit by dividing in a predefined way said imprecision time range into time segments, respectively represented by synchronization reset times tk, k varying from 1 to Nk, with Nk designating the number of synchronization reset times in the imprecision time range….” [Para. 0021; Claim 5].
Consider claim 12 and as applied to claim 12: The positioning device of claim 12, wherein the second unit is configured to use a selection criterion to determine the final most likely position, the selection criterion being chosen among the following selection criteria:
the number of satellites per constellation involved in determining each most likely position, the final most likely position being determined using a maximum number of satellites in view; Revol discloses quadratic summation of based on the total number of visible satellites for each virtual beacon (Be(i)) [Para. 0034. 0108-0110], or
the duration of the given time interval, the final most likely position being determined using the constellation of satellites associated with the shortest given time interval. Revol also discloses that embodiments a temporal uncertainty domain may be determined based on a RAIM function to provide detection of errors or biases within a predetermined confidence level [Para. 0075-0077].
Consider claim 13 and as applied to claim 1: The positioning device of claim 1, wherein the second unit is further configured to generate an alert notification if it is unable to determine a most likely position of the vehicle within a predefined time interval. Revol discloses that in a case where a single solution cannot be isolated with sufficient confidence (no significant maximum) that an alarm may be generated [Para.0029, 0105; Claim 10].
Consider claim 14: A method for determining the location of a vehicle using positioning signals broadcasted by at least one constellation of satellites, Revol discloses a method and system for determining the point location of a stopped vehicle on a storage track, using received GNSS satellite signals and a plurality of virtual beacons [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1-3; Para. 0001, 0003, 0017-0018; Claim 13], the method comprising the steps of:
determining a plurality of possible current positions of the vehicle, and determining a plurality of time stamps within a given time interval; the method performed by an on-board device (174) comprising a GNSS receiver (182) and processing unit (184) which, in an initialization phase (206) possible positions of virtual beacons corresponding to possible vehicle track locations, and associated with synchronization reset times, are determined [Fig. 2-3; Para. 0087-0090, 0095-0097; Claim 1-2],
generating, for each possible current position of the vehicle, local replicas of positioning signals, each of the local replicas being associated with an early, a prompt and a late point of each time stamp of the plurality of time stamps and with a satellite in view of the at least one constellation of satellites; wherein, during the initialization a second set of hypothesis data is generated based on a plurality of synchronization reset times, and in a second step (208), replica GNSS signals are generated for each of the times for each of the possible locations [Fig. 3; Para. 0097-0099; Claim 1-2];
receiving, at each time stamp of the plurality of time stamps, positioning signals broadcasted by at least three satellites in view of the at least one constellation of satellites; wherein in the second step (208) the GNSS receiver receives the real GNSS signals from multiple satellites (exemplary 3) at the plurality of synchronization reset times [Fig. 3; Para. 0098, 0100; Claim 1-2];
processing, for each possible current position of the vehicle, for each time stamp of the plurality of time stamps, and for each satellite in view, a correlation function between a received positioning signal and the corresponding generated local replica at the early, prompt and late points; wherein multi-satellite elementary correlations between replica and real GNSS signals are determined and for each position a correlation is generated as a quadratic sum of the elemental correlations (also step (318) [Fig. 3-4; Para. 0100-0101, 0111; Claim 2-3];
determining a common error to all the satellites using the correlation results; wherein, (step 210) likelihoods are determined for each position at each time Fig. 3-4; Para. 0101, 0106-0113],
for each satellite, each position and each time stamp, correcting the correlation results using the said common error and the early, prompt and late points of the correlation results, determining, for each possible current position of the vehicle, multi-satellite likelihoods, each of the multi-satellite likelihoods being determined for a given time stamp from the quadratic sum of the corrected correlation results, wherein, (step 210) likelihoods are determined for each position at each time Fig. 3-4; Para. 0101, 0106-0113], and determining a most likely position and a most likely time stamp among the plurality of possible current positions and among the plurality of time stamps, respectively, by comparing the multi-satellite likelihoods; a fourth step (212), wherein the processing unit determines the position of the virtual beacon and the reset time for which the multidimensional correlation or likelihood function is maximum, this position and time being the most probable position of the virtual beacon and the most probable
Revol does not explicitly disclose times for as early, prompt and late, but does disclose use of a plurality of times covering an uncertainty domain, which may be understood to encompass a range including early and late times [Para. 0093].
Revol discloses a muti-satellite GNSS network using satellites visible from a particular beacon [Para. 0108-0109] and does not explicitly disclose at least three, but suggests an exemplary three [SAT(i, j, k)].
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 USC §103 as unpatentable over Revol (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2022/0135096 A1) in view of Renard et al. (United States Patent # US 5,781,152), hereinafter Renard, and Li et al. (Chinese Patent Application Publication # CN110988994 A), hereinafter Li.
Consider claim 2 and as applied to claim 1: The positioning device of claim 1, wherein the step of determining a common error to all the satellites comprises:
for each satellite:
determining the possible position having the maximum correlation result, from said possible position, drawing a line perpendicular to an axis directed towards the said satellite,
measuring, for each position, the minimum distance to the said line, and
multiplying said minimum distance by the cosine of the satellite elevation angle to obtain a temporal distance, or
for each satellite and each possible position:
implement a Newton interpolation over the correlation results at the early, prompt and late points of the time stamp having the maximum correlation result,
determine a temporal distance between the prompt position of the time stamp and the maximum of the interpolated correlation,
determine the possible position having the closest temporal distance for each of the satellites, and compute the common error as the mean of the temporal distances for all the satellites for said possible position.
Revol discloses that a common error may be determined based on a quadratic sum of the individual correlations (step 210) [Fig 3-4; Para. 0101, 0108-0110], but does not explicitly disclose use of a temporal distance as claimed. This was known in analogous prior art, however, and for example:
Renard discloses a method and device for reception of positioning signal by satellite, including elimination of multipath errors [Title, Abstract; Fig. 1-5; Col. 1, 9-11] and particularly use of a time difference between a satellite received signal and predetermined early, punctual and late predetermined times, to generate a correlation measurement [Col. 5, 48 to Col. 6, 12]. Renard does not, however, disclose use of a Newton interpolation to make this comparison. This was also known in analogous prior art:
Li discloses a GPS positioning system with improved accuracy for seismic processing applications, and particularly the use of Lagrange or Newton interpolation for evaluating positions signals from at least tow detectors [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1-3; Technical Field, Description, Para. 7-19 (Translation)].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention to compare the aggregate time differences between received satellite signals and expected early, on-time and late time estimates to estimate a correlation measurement, as taught by Renard, and where the comparison uses a Newton interpolation method as taught by Li, applied to a method and system for determining the point location of a stopped vehicle on a storage track as taught by Revol, where such techniques are known statistical methods used previously is analogous applications.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 USC §103 as unpatentable over Revol (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2022/0135096 A1) in view of Zheng et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2021/0263165 A1), hereinafter Zheng.
Consider claim 11 and as applied to claim 1: The positioning device of claim 1, wherein the first unit is configured to receive positioning signals from two or more constellations of satellites, the first unit being further configured to process separately the positioning signals broadcasted by each of the constellations of satellites, the second unit being configured to determine a most likely position and a most likely time stamp for each of the constellations of satellites, the second unit being further configured to determine a final most likely position among the determined most likely positions.
Revol discloses the use of all visible satellites, but does not specifically disclose a configuration comprising multiple constellations of satellites. This was known in analogous prior art, however, and for example:
Zheng discloses a method and apparatus to determine relative location using GNSS carrier phase measurements [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1-4; Para. 0001, 0003-0005] and particularly embodiments in which the GNSS receiver may support one or more GNSS constellations as well as other satellite-based navigation systems (exemplary Global Positioning System (GPS), the Global'naya Navigatsionnaya Sputnikovaya Sistema (GLONASS), Galileo, and/or BeiDou, or any combination thereof) [Para. 0050; Claim 9, 20].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention, for the receiver to operate using two or more satellite constellations, as taught by Zheng, and applied to a method and system for determining the point location of a stopped vehicle on a storage track as taught by Revol, allowing access to a larger number of satellites, and thereby improving location measurement accuracy and availability.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Revol (U.S. Patent Application Publication # US 2018/0100934 A1) disclosing a point location method for a vehicle moving on a constrained trajectory.
Kohli et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # US 2002/0015439 A1) disclosing a GPS system for navigating a vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to STEPHEN R BURGDORF whose telephone number is (571)270-7328. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday and Friday at 11:00 AM to 8:00 PM EST/EDT.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at (571)272-3114. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/STEPHEN R BURGDORF/ Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights