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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on July 12th, 2024. Claims 1-17 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on July 22nd, 2024 and December 5th, 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to FR2307495 filed July 13th, 2023.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the movable device is not labeled in Fig. 9 as claimed to be in the specification at paragraph 169.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites “detecting a jump in position” should recite “detecting the jump in position”.
Claim 11 recites “the low-confidence segment is preceded or followed by a high-confidence segment,” examiner believes it should recite “the low-confidence segment is preceded or followed by the high-confidence segment”.
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.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) 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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“the movable device being configured for determining…” in claim 15. Structure for this limitation can be found at paragraph [0169] of the applicant’s specification.
“a fixed device (DF), configured for determining…” and “fixed device (DF) configured for segmenting” in claim 15 and 16 respectively. Structure for this limitation can be found at paragraph [0169] of the applicant’s specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-17 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.
Claims 1 and 15 recite the limitation "the precision of the data provided by the absolute position information sensor". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Claims 2-14 and 16-17 are additionally rejected due to their dependence on claims 1 and 15.
Claims 1 and 15 recite the limitation " the detection of a jump in position". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Claims 2-14 and 16-17 are additionally rejected due to their dependence on claims 1 and 15.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “the previous selected instant, and the selected instant". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim. For the purpose of prior art interpretation examiner is interpreting the selected instant as intending to be the determined instant and the previous selected instant as intending to be a previous determined instant. Claims 2-14 are additionally rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the adjacent high confidence segment”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 10-14 are additionally rejected due to their dependence on claim 2.
Claim 4 recites “a GNSS receiver supporting the RTK mode, with the confidence indicator being provided by the RTK value of the GNSS receiver, in particular the “RTK fix” value”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites “the corrected trajectory”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method for determining a trajectory and claim 15 is directed to a system for determining the trajectory. Therefore, claims 1-17 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
In this case independent claims 1 and 15 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, the claims under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover mathematical concepts. Independent claim 15 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
a system for determining a trajectory of a movable carrier, comprising:
a movable device (DM), on board the movable carrier, comprising at least one relative position information sensor and at least one absolute position information sensor, the movable device being configured for determining, at each instant ti, a merged trajectory of the movable carrier, with the merged trajectory being obtained by merging data provided by the relative position information sensor with data provided by the absolute position information sensor, and, at a plurality of determined instants tk determined from among the instants ti, for generating a merged data packet comprising data merged at the determined instant tk and at least one confidence indicator associated with the data packet of the merged position at the determined instant tk, with the confidence indicator comprising information concerning the precision of the data provided by the absolute position information sensor,
a fixed device (DF), configured for determining, at each determined instant tk a regularized trajectory as a function of the detection of a jump in position of the movable carrier in the merged data packet between the previous determined instant, and the determined instant.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bold limitation(s) constitute a “mathematical concept” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers a calculation of the trajectory based on received sensor data. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. As explained above, independent claim 15 recites at least one abstract idea. The other independent claim 1, which is of similar scope to claim 15, likewise recites at least one abstract idea under Step 2A, prong I.
101 Analysis – Step2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
a system for determining a trajectory of a movable carrier, comprising:
a movable device (DM), on board the movable carrier, comprising at least one relative position information sensor and at least one absolute position information sensor, the movable device being configured for determining, at each instant ti, a merged trajectory of the movable carrier, with the merged trajectory being obtained by merging data provided by the relative position information sensor with data provided by the absolute position information sensor, and, at a plurality of determined instants tk determined from among the instants ti, for generating a merged data packet comprising data merged at the determined instant tk and at least one confidence indicator associated with the data packet of the merged position at the determined instant tk, with the confidence indicator comprising information concerning the precision of the data provided by the absolute position information sensor,
a fixed device (DF), configured for determining, at each determined instant tk a regularized trajectory as a function of the detection of a jump in position of the movable carrier in the merged data packet between the previous determined instant, and the determined instant.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of a movable device and a fixed device located on the movable carrier and the movable device comprising both a relative and absolute position sensor the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use generic computer and sensor components to perform the processes. In particular the step of obtaining and merging the data amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The sensors, movable device, and fixed device merely describe how to generally “apply” and “display” the otherwise mental judgements using generic components in a vehicle control system. The vehicle control system is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the trajectory determination step.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 15 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of sensors and a fixed and movable device amount to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of receiving the sensor data including a confidence indicator, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine,
conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of receiving the sensor data including a confidence indicator are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. The additional limitations do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as mentioned in MPEP 2106.05(h). Hence claim 15 is not patent eligible. Claim 1 is also not patent eligible for the same reasons as stated in the above claim 15 rejection.
Dependent claims 2-13 and 16-17 have been given the full two-part analysis, including analyzing the additional limitations, both individually and in combination. Dependent claims 2-13 and 16-17, when analyzed both individually and in combination, are also patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 based on the same analysis as above. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims fail to establish that the dependent claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly claims 2-13 and 16-17 are patent ineligible.
Dependent claim 14 recites additional limitations. The additional limitations of claim 14 wherein it states that the steps S1 and S2 are performed in real-time amounts to more than the abstract idea. Therefore, if this limitation of claim 14 is amended into the independent claims, the 101 rejection would be overcome.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by US-20190128673 (hereinafter, “Faragher”).
Regarding claim 1 Faragher discloses a method for determining a trajectory of a movable carrier, comprising the following steps:
S1) at each instant ti, determining a merged trajectory of the movable carrier (see at least [0066]; “the processor 1 is also in logical communication with the Navigation solution Unit (NSU) 40, which is operable to obtain data from the device sensors and determine from said data, amongst other metrics, the position and velocity of the device,” and [0070]; “FIG. 2 schematically illustrates how the techniques introduced herein overcome these problems in order to provide an accurate and reliable trajectory of the device between the time instances T1 and T2 .”),
with the merged trajectory being obtained by merging data (see at least [abstract]; “a method and system for combining data obtained by sensors”) provided by at least one relative position information sensor (see at least[0064]; “the device 100 also comprises an inertial measurement unit (IMU),” the IMU corresponds to Applicant’s relative position sensor”) with data provided by at least one absolute position information sensor (see at least [0065]; “The device 100 further comprises a GNSS sensor 20, such as a GPS or GLONASS sensor ( or both),” the GNSS sensor corresponds to applicant’s absolute position information sensor),
and, at a plurality of determined instants tk determined from among the instants ti, generating a merged data packet comprising data merged at the determined instant tk (see at least [0012]; “the method of the present invention uses multiple time periods (or time "windows") of various lengths to process multiple sensor data streams, in order to combine (or "fuse") sensor measurements with motion models at a given time epoch” the combined measurements correspond to applicant’s merged data packet) and
at least one confidence indicator associated with the data packet of the merged position at the determined instant tk, with the confidence indicator comprising information concerning the precision of the data provided by the absolute position information sensor (see at least [0075]; “the first data, second data and the motion model, this means that erroneous data obtained from the sensors may be corrected for in providing the position solution. For example, if the motion model comprises a motion context of "walking" and a position context of "in a user's pocket", then any data obtained by, say, the GNSS sensor that does not align with the motion model (for example a spurious data event that would not be possible by walking, such as a sudden and large change in position) can be corrected for or removed when providing the position solution,” the data is analyzed to determine whether the absolute position information sensor, in this case the GNSS sensor, contains an error); and
S2) at each determined instant tk determining a regularized trajectory as a function of the detection of a jump in position in the merged data packet between the previous selected instant, and the selected instant (see at least [0067]; “The data obtained in the first time period (the first data) and the data obtained in the second time period (the second data) are provided to the NSU 40 which calculates the desired solution, in this case the trajectory of the device between time instances T1 and T2. The solution is constrained by both the first data and the second data, and a motion model of the device between time instances T1 and T2,” the trajectory between the time instances is the regularized trajectory [0084]; “by applying backwards-in-time processing to the same data (i.e. from TB to TA), the almost discontinuous jump in position over the time period B is detected as being inconsistent with the allowed motion of the device, and consequently the position data is ignored (or assigned lower confidence) when combining data to obtain the navigation solution. This continues until such times as the position data is deemed consistent with the current navigation solution and the "allowed" motion of the device from the motion model. For example, in FIG. 3 all or most of the erroneous position data between times TB to TA would be correctly ignored (or given lower confidence) by the NSU 40 during backwards-in-time processing,” the data is processed until a continuous navigation solution between the time instances is yielded, this solution corresponds to the regularized trajectory).
Regarding claim 2 Faragher discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Faragher discloses further comprising a step S3) of segmenting the regularized trajectory into segments, called high-confidence segments and into segments, called low-confidence segments, with the segmentation being carried out as a function of the confidence indicator associated with the merged data packet for each determined instant (see at least [0090]; “FIG. 4 schematically illustrates the evolution of the position of the smart phone 100 as determined between time instances T1 and T2 . The hatched boxes 100a, 100b, 100c, 100d, 100e, 100f represent time periods in which the absolute position of the device 100 has been determined with high confidence ("confident sections"), for example because of the availability of high quality GNSS data. The orientations of the confident sections also indicate the orientation of the device (e.g. position context) at that time period. The line 400 between the confident sections illustrates the potential trajectory of the device (i.e. the evolution of its position) as determined by the NSU 40”), and of determining a post-processed trajectory, with the post-processed trajectory corresponding to the merged trajectory for each high-confidence segment, and the post- processed trajectory being determined, for each low-confidence segment, by a geometric transformation of the low-confidence segment, such that a continuity condition is met between each of the ends (
P
k
m
r
e
g
,
P
k
m
+
1
r
e
g
) thereof and the end (
P
k
m
f
u
s
,
P
k
m
+
1
f
u
s
) of the adjacent high-confidence segment (see at least [0084]; “by applying backwards-in-time processing to the same data (i.e. from TB to TA), the almost discontinuous jump in position over the time period B is detected as being inconsistent with the allowed motion of the device, and consequently the position data is ignored ( or assigned lower confidence) when combining data to obtain the navigation solution. This continues until such times as the position data is deemed consistent with the current navigation solution and the "allowed" motion of the device from the motion model. For example, in FIG. 3 all or most of the erroneous position data between times TB to TA would be correctly ignored (or given lower confidence) by the NSU 40 during backwards-in-time processing,” the data is processed until a continuous navigation solution between the time instances is yielded, this solution corresponds to the post processed trajectory).
Regarding claim 3 Faragher discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Faragher discloses wherein the relative position information sensor comprises an inertial unit (see at least [0064]; “the device 100 also comprises an inertial measurement unit (IMU),” the IMU corresponds to Applicant’s relative position sensor”).
Regarding claim 13 Faragher discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Additionally, Faragher discloses wherein the relative position information sensor comprises an inertial unit (see at least [0064]; “the device 100 also comprises an inertial measurement unit (IMU),” the IMU corresponds to Applicant’s relative position sensor”), wherein step S3 further comprises a weighted recombination of the merged trajectory and of the post-processed trajectory (see at least [0085]; “Therefore parameters can be better estimated overall in regions such as between TA and TB by processing the data either side of that region in both directions and combining the estimates provided by these two passes via a weighted mean or similar calculation.”).
Regarding claim 14 Faragher discloses all of the limitations of claim 2. Additionally, Faragher discloses wherein the relative position information sensor comprises an inertial unit (see at least [0064]; “the device 100 also comprises an inertial measurement unit (IMU),” the IMU corresponds to Applicant’s relative position sensor”), wherein steps S1 and S2 are performed in real-time when the movable carrier is moving, and step S3 is performed in non-real-time (see at least [0097]; “In this manner, the techniques introduced herein provide for near-real-time determination of the evolution of a metric of interest, as well as an improved determination of said evolution over time as more data are obtained,” and [0020]; “Such evaluation may typically be performed after the session has taken place, and so real-time information may not be required” Faragher discloses that certain steps may require to be performed in real-time while others are not).
Regarding claim 15 Faragher discloses a system for determining a trajectory of a movable carrier, comprising:
a movable device (DM), on board the movable carrier (see at least [0113]; “The driver carries a smartphone in his pocket ( the second platform ) which has a built - in GNSS receiver , as well as sensors measuring acceleration , rate of turning etc.”), comprising at least one relative position information sensor (see at least[0064]; “the device 100 also comprises an inertial measurement unit (IMU),” the IMU corresponds to Applicant’s relative position sensor”) and at least one absolute position information sensor (see at least [0065]; “The device 100 further comprises a GNSS sensor 20, such as a GPS or GLONASS sensor ( or both),” the GNSS sensor corresponds to applicant’s absolute position information sensor), the movable device being configured for determining, at each instant ti, a merged trajectory of the movable carrier (see at least [0066]; “the processor 1 is also in logical communication with the Navigation solution Unit (NSU) 40, which is operable to obtain data from the device sensors and determine from said data, amongst other metrics, the position and velocity of the device,” and [0070]; “FIG. 2 schematically illustrates how the techniques introduced herein overcome these problems in order to provide an accurate and reliable trajectory of the device between the time instances T1 and T2 ”),
with the merged trajectory being obtained by merging data provided by the relative position information sensor with data provided by the absolute position information sensor (see at least [abstract]; “a method and system for combining data obtained by sensors”),
and, at a plurality of determined instants tk determined from among the instants ti, for generating a merged data packet comprising data merged at the determined instant tk (see at least [0012]; “the method of the present invention uses multiple time periods (or time "windows") of various lengths to process multiple sensor data streams, in order to combine (or "fuse") sensor measurements with motion models at a given time epoch” the combined measurements correspond to applicant’s merged data packet) and
at least one confidence indicator associated with the data packet of the merged position at the determined instant tk, with the confidence indicator comprising information concerning the precision of the data provided by the absolute position information sensor (see at least [0075]; “the first data, second data and the motion model, this means that erroneous data obtained from the sensors may be corrected for in providing the position solution. For example, if the motion model comprises a motion context of "walking" and a position context of "in a user's pocket", then any data obtained by, say, the GNSS sensor that does not align with the motion model (for example a spurious data event that would not be possible by walking, such as a sudden and large change in position) can be corrected for or removed when providing the position solution,” the data is analyzed to determine whether the absolute position information sensor, in this case the GNSS sensor, contains an error),
a fixed device (DF) (see at least [0050]; “The computer readable medium may be provided at a download server. Thus, the executable instructions may be acquired by the computer by way of a software upgrade”), configured for determining, at each determined instant tk a regularized trajectory as a function of the detection of a jump in position of the movable carrier in the merged data packet between the previous determined instant, and the determined instant (see at least [0067]; “The data obtained in the first time period (the first data) and the data obtained in the second time period (the second data) are provided to the NSU 40 which calculates the desired solution, in this case the trajectory of the device between time instances T1 and T2. The solution is constrained by both the first data and the second data, and a motion model of the device between time instances T1 and T2,” the trajectory between the time instances is the regularized trajectory [0084]; “by applying backwards-in-time processing to the same data (i.e. from TB to TA), the almost discontinuous jump in position over the time period B is detected as being inconsistent with the allowed motion of the device, and consequently the position data is ignored (or assigned lower confidence) when combining data to obtain the navigation solution. This continues until such times as the position data is deemed consistent with the current navigation solution and the "allowed" motion of the device from the motion model. For example, in FIG. 3 all or most of the erroneous position data between times TB to TA would be correctly ignored (or given lower confidence) by the NSU 40 during backwards-in-time processing,” the data is processed until a continuous navigation solution between the time instances is yielded, this solution corresponds to the regularized trajectory).
Regarding claim 16 Faragher discloses all of the limitations of claim 15. Additionally, Faragher discloses wherein the fixed device is further configured for segmenting the corrected trajectory into segments, called high-confidence segments and into segments, called low-confidence segments, with the segmentation being carried out as a function of the confidence indicator associated with the merged data packet for each determined instant (see at least [0090]; “FIG. 4 schematically illustrates the evolution of the position of the smart phone 100 as determined between time instances T1 and T2 . The hatched boxes 100a, 100b, 100c, 100d, 100e, 100f represent time periods in which the absolute position of the device 100 has been determined with high confidence ("confident sections"), for example because of the availability of high quality GNSS data. The orientations of the confident sections also indicate the orientation of the device (e.g. position context) at that time period. The line 400 between the confident sections illustrates the potential trajectory of the device (i.e. the evolution of its position) as determined by the NSU 40”), and of determining a post-processed trajectory, with the post-processed trajectory corresponding to the merged trajectory for each high-confidence segment, and the post- processed trajectory being determined, for each low-confidence segment, by a geometric transformation of the low-confidence segment, such that a continuity condition is met between each of the ends (
P
k
m
r
e
g
,
P
k
m
+
1
r
e
g
) thereof and the end (
P
k
m
f
u
s
,
P
k
m
+
1
f
u
s
) of the adjacent high-confidence segment (see at least [0084]; “by applying backwards-in-time processing to the same data (i.e. from TB to TA), the almost discontinuous jump in position over the time period B is detected as being inconsistent with the allowed motion of the device, and consequently the position data is ignored ( or assigned lower confidence) when combining data to obtain the navigation solution. This continues until such times as the position data is deemed consistent with the current navigation solution and the "allowed" motion of the device from the motion model. For example, in FIG. 3 all or most of the erroneous position data between times TB to TA would be correctly ignored (or given lower confidence) by the NSU 40 during backwards-in-time processing,” the data is processed until a continuous navigation solution between the time instances is yielded, this solution corresponds to the post processed trajectory).
Regarding claim 17 Faragher discloses all of the limitations of claim 15. Additionally, Faragher discloses wherein the movable device (DM) and the fixed device (DF) are connected to each other by a radio link (see at least [0063]; “The communications module 2 comprises components necessary for wireless communication, such as a receiver, transmitter, antenna, local oscillator and signal processor”).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faragher, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US-20180039284 (hereinafter, “Hitosugi”).
Regarding claim 4 Faragher discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Faragher discloses wherein the absolute position information sensor comprises a GNSS receiver (see at least [0065]; “The device 100 further comprises a GNSS sensor 20, such as a GPS or GLONASS sensor (or both),” the GNSS sensor corresponds to applicant’s absolute position information sensor).
Faragher does not disclose supporting the RTK mode, with the confidence indicator being provided by the RTK value of the GNSS receiver, in particular the “RTK fix” value.
Hitosugi, in the same field of endeavor teaches supporting the RTK mode, with the confidence indicator being provided by the RTK value of the GNSS receiver, in particular the “RTK fix” value (see at least [0031-0034]; “The satellite positioning receiver 21 reads a satellite signal (GNSS_Signal) received through the antenna 7, and performs predetermined computation to output a precision indicator (GNSS_Quality) and a satellite positioning position (GNSS_Pos). Here, examples of the satellite positioning receiver 21 include a real-time kinematic (RTK) receiver that capable of RTK measurement… The satellite positioning receiver 21 outputs a satellite positioning position in both "Float" and "Fix". Furthermore, the satellite positioning receiver 21 outputs, as a precision indicator (GNSS_Quality), 1 indicating higher precision (first precision) in "Fix", and O indicating lower precision (second precision) in "Float".”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the positioning system of Faragher with the RTK mode of Hitosugi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of immediately obtaining the precise own-vehicle position information (see at least Hitosugi; [0008]).
Regarding claim 5 Faragher discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Faragher does not disclose wherein the first step S1 comprises computing a correction indicator that represents the deviation between the data provided by the relative position information sensor and the data provided by the absolute position information sensor between two consecutive selected instants.
Hitosugi, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the first step S1 comprises computing a correction indicator that represents the deviation between the data provided by the relative position information sensor and the data provided by the absolute position information sensor between two consecutive selected instants (see at least [0052]; “The positional difference processor 51 receives the satellite positioning position (GNSS_Pos) and the autonomous navigation position (At_Pos). Each of the positions indicates a position on a two-dimensional plane. The positional difference processor 51 computes a distance between the two positions, and outputs it as a positional difference (Dif_Cal),” and [0054]; “The comparator 53 compares the positional difference (Dif_Cal) computed by the positional difference processor 51 with the threshold for determining occurrence of the position jump (Dif_Thresh) determined by the threshold determining unit 52. When the threshold for determining occurrence of the position jump is larger than the positional difference, that is, when the positional difference falls within the threshold for determining occurrence of the position jump, the comparator 53 outputs 0 as the result of the determination on position jump (PosJump_Judge) indicating that the satellite positioning position is represented by an acceptable value (no occurrence of the position jump or occurrence of an allowable position jump). When the threshold for determining occurrence of the position jump is smaller than the positional difference, that is, when the positional difference does not fall within t