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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 09/22/2023. The Examiner notes that the Applicant has filed, and the Office has received, a certified copy of the CN 202311238427 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 07/20/2026, have been entered into the record. Claims 1-18 and 20 stand rejected. Claim 21 has been withdrawn from consideration by the examiner pursuant to the Election/Restriction requirement set out below. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 07/20/2026, have been carefully considered by the examiner. The examiner agrees that the applicant’s amendment to the independent claims overcomes the rejection set out in the previous Office Action because it is not taught by the art presented in the previous Office Action. However, a new reference, not cited in the previous Office Action, is used in this Action, rendering applicant’s arguments moot. The use of a new reference is necessitated by applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 21 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Inventions of Group I (claims 1-20) and Group II (newly submitted claim 21) are directed to related processes. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect because they are capable of being used independently. For example, the invention of Group II can be used without the geomagnetic field strength of the invention of Group I, while the invention of Group I can be used without the time duration adjustment of the invention of Group II. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: the inventions have acquired a separate status in the due to their divergent subject matter and divergent fields required for search.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 21 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bobye (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0292212 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0301040 A1), hereinafter Zhang.
Regarding claim 1, Bobye teaches (note: what Bobye does not teach is struck through),
A movement trajectory generation method (para. 0022, “The INS subsystem filter 112 performs two main processes, the mechanization of the raw gyroscope and accelerometer measurements into a trajectory, that is, a time series of position, velocity and attitude, and the correction of that trajectory with updates estimated by the GNSS/INS integration process, which is the Kalman filter process 114.”) comprising:
obtaining first positioning information (fig. 4, steps 406 and 410);
obtaining attitude information of a movable platform (fig. 4, steps 406 and 410),
generating a movement trajectory of the movable platform according to the first positioning information and the attitude information of the movable platform (fig. 4, steps 406-410. See also para. 0022, “The INS subsystem filter 112 performs two main processes, the mechanization of the raw gyroscope and accelerometer measurements into a trajectory, that is, a time series of position, velocity and attitude”);
obtaining second positioning information (fig. 4, steps 410-406, in which a GNSS position is obtained for the beginning of the second mechanization interval); and
correcting the movement trajectory according to the second positioning information (fig. 4, step 406, noting that the GNSS measurement is used to update the INS filter and correct for drift errors before the end position from the previous interval calculated at 410 is propagated as the start position of the next interval. See also para. 0022, “The INS subsystem filter 112 performs two main processes, the mechanization of the raw gyroscope and accelerometer measurements into a trajectory, that is, a time series of position, velocity and attitude, and the correction of that trajectory with updates estimated by the GNSS/INS integration process, which is the Kalman filter process 114.” The examiner further notes that GNSS information is used to update the INS filter (i.e., correct the trajectory) at the beginning of every mechanization update interval, correcting the INS-based position, velocity, and attitude calculated in step 410 of the previous mechanization update interval).
Zhang teaches,
… obtaining attitude information of a movable platform, the attitude information including geomagnetic field strength values (para. 0075, “In the present embodiment, the attitude term in the formula (24) is obtained by using the outputs of the three-axis fluxgate magnetometer in the three directions and the strength of the geomagnetic field”).
Bobye and Zhang are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Bobye with the geomagnetic field strength of Zhang because the geomagnetic field strength measurement of Zhang enables the method to compensate for any interference signals generated by the motion of the moveable platform (see Zhang, para. 0003).
Regarding claim 2, Bobye in view of Zhang teaches the method according to claim 1. Bobye further teaches,
…wherein obtaining the attitude information of the movable platform includes obtaining the attitude information of the movable platform in response to inability to obtain a satellite positioning signal (fig. 4, step 410 occurs after determination that GNSS measurement information is not available at step 402, and operates through steps 502, 504, optionally 506, 508, and 510 to return to steps 408 and 410, in which an INS-based attitude is calculated for the update interval. The examiner notes that this path through fig. 5 back to step 410 is being understood to be “in response to inability to obtain a satellite positioning signal” because the process by which attitude is obtained is different the process used when a satellite signal is obtained. See, e.g., para. 0046).
Regarding claim 3, Bobye in view of Zhang teaches the method according to claim 1. Bobye further teaches,
…determining position information of the movable platform according to the first positioning information (fig. 4, step 410);
wherein generating the movement trajectory of the movable platform includes generating the movement trajectory according to the position information and the attitude information of the movable platform (fig. 4, steps 406-410. See also para. 0022, “The INS subsystem filter 112 performs two main processes, the mechanization of the raw gyroscope and accelerometer measurements into a trajectory, that is, a time series of position, velocity and attitude.” See also the starred line of fig. 3, in which position and attitude are used to form a trajectory).
Regarding claim 4, Bobye in view of Zhang teaches the method according to claim 3. Bobye further teaches,
…wherein: the position information includes a starting point of the movement trajectory (fig. 4, step 406, “propagate INS-based position…to the start of the mechanization update interval”); and
generating the movement trajectory according to the position information and the attitude information of the movable platform includes generating the movement trajectory according to the starting point and the attitude information of the movable platform (para. 0022, “The INS subsystem filter 112 performs two main processes, the mechanization of the raw gyroscope and accelerometer measurements into a trajectory, that is, a time series of position, velocity and attitude…” See also fig. 4, steps 406-410).
Regarding claim 5, Bobye in view of Zhang teaches the method according to claim 3. Bobye further teaches,
…wherein the movement trajectory is a first movement trajectory of the movable platform (para. 0022, “The INS subsystem filter 112 performs two main processes, the mechanization of the raw gyroscope and accelerometer measurements into a trajectory, that is, a time series of position, velocity and attitude…” See also fig. 4, step 412, which makes clear that the processes of figs. 4 and 5 are repeated for each mechanization update interval); the method further comprising:
generating a second movement trajectory of the movable platform according to the position information, wherein generating the first movement trajectory according to the position information and the attitude information of the movable platform includes determining an end point of the second movement trajectory as a starting point of the first movement trajectory (fig. 4, step 406, “propagate INS-based position…to the start of the next mechanization update interval”. See also para. 0022, “The INS subsystem filter 112 performs two main processes, the mechanization of the raw gyroscope and accelerometer measurements into a trajectory, that is, a time series of position, velocity and attitude…” The examiner notes that “a time series of position” means that each section of the trajectory has a starting point and an ending point, and the starting point of one section is the ending point of the next. See, e.g., fig. 3, starred line).
Regarding claim 6, Bobye in view of Zhang teaches the method according to claim 1. Bobye further teaches,
…wherein: obtaining the first positioning information includes obtaining the first positioning information at a first moment (fig. 4, steps 406 and 410 for a first mechanization interval. See also para. 0029, “In the example, the mechanization update intervals are timed to the updating of the GNSS measurement information, which occurs at 1 second intervals.”);
obtaining the second positioning information includes obtaining the second positioning information at a second moment (fig. 4, step 406 for a second mechanization update interval. See also para. 0029, “When signals from a sufficient number of GNSS satellite signals are available, the GNSS subsystem 102 operates in a known manner to provide GNSS measurement information to the INS subsystem at the start of a mechanization update interval. In the example, the mechanization update intervals are timed to the updating of the GNSS measurement information, which occurs at 1 second intervals.” The examiner notes that fig. 4 indicates that more than one mechanization update interval exists, because step 412 repeats back to step 400); and
the first moment and the second moment are separated by a preset time duration (para. 0029, “When signals from a sufficient number of GNSS satellite signals are available, the GNSS subsystem 102 operates in a known manner to provide GNSS measurement information to the INS subsystem at the start of a mechanization update interval. In the example, the mechanization update intervals are timed to the updating of the GNSS measurement information, which occurs at 1 second intervals.”).
Regarding claim 8, Bobye in view of Zhang teaches the method according to claim 6. Bobye further teaches,
…wherein obtaining the attitude information of the movable platform includes obtaining the attitude information of the movable platform within the preset time duration (fig. 4, steps 406-410, noting that relative yaw measurements are attitude information. Alternatively, for the pathway when GNSS information is not available, steps 504-508 include yaw rate updates, i.e., obtaining attitude information).
Regarding claim 9, Bobye in view of Zhang teaches the method according to claim 1. Bobye further teaches,
…determining position information of the movable platform according to the second positioning information (fig. 4, step 406 for a second mechanization update interval includes correcting drift errors using GNSS measurement information to correct the position determined at the end of the previous mechanization update interval before propagating the position to the beginning of the previous mechanization update interval. See also para. 0015, “The GNSS raw measurements, GNSS position, velocity and time, and the position covariance and the GNSS observables are hereinafter referred to collectively as “GNSS measurement information.”);
wherein correcting the movement trajectory according to the second positioning information includes correcting the movement trajectory according to the position information (fig. 4, step 406. The examiner notes that the INS filter is used to determine trajectory).
Regarding claim 10, Bobye in view of Zhang teaches the method according to claim 9. Bobye further teaches,
…wherein correcting the movement trajectory according to the position information includes determining the position information as an end point of the movement trajectory (fig. 4, step 410. Para 0033 indicates that calculating the INS-based position update over the mechanization update interval results in an end point of that section of movement trajectory, stating that, “While in the dead reckoning mode, the INS-based position, velocity and attitude updated to the end of a mechanization update interval are used at the start of a next mechanization update interval.”).
Regarding claim 11, Bobye in view of Zhang teaches the method according to claim 9. Bobye further teaches,
…wherein the movement trajectory is a first movement trajectory of the movable platform (fig. 4, steps 406-412); the method further comprising:
generating a second movement trajectory of the movable platform according to the position information (fig. 4, steps 406-412 for a second mechanization update interval. See also para. 0029, “The INS subsystem also utilizes the IMU measurements and produces the INS-based position, velocity and attitude that are provided to the vehicle navigation and control system 200 over the mechanization update interval.”);
wherein correcting the first movement trajectory according to the position information includes determining a starting point of the second movement trajectory as an end point of the first movement trajectory (fig. 4, step 406 for the second mechanization update interval. See also para. 0029, “The INS subsystem 110, operating in a known manner, utilizes the GNSS measurement information to correct for the drift of the INS sensors by updating the error states.”).
Regarding claim 12, Bobye in view of Zhang teaches the method according to claim 1. Bobye further teaches,
…wherein obtaining the second positioning information includes obtaining the second positioning information in response to re-obtaining a satellite positioning signal after the satellite positioning signal is lost (fig. 4, step 406 occurs only in response to GNSS measurement information being available, and is the procedure for correcting the trajectory of the previous mechanization update interval. See also fig. 3, as described in para. 0044, “Referring now to FIG. 3, a solid line 300 illustrates the route traveled by a vehicle over a highway for approximately 4 hours, which includes a 2 hour GNSS outage that begins at a time that coincides with point 340, continues while the vehicle turns around at a time that coincides with point 350, and ends as the vehicle returns along the same highway at a time that coincides with point 360, that is, GNSS again becomes available at this time. The route depicted by line 300 is plotted as distance traveled in meters from the start location against axes of latitude in meters and longitude in meters. The starred line 320 represents a route determined by a GNSS/INS navigation system with DMI and the yaw rate constraint subsystem 120, which operates as discussed above when the system is in the dead reckoning mode during the 2 hour GNSS outage.”).
Regarding claim 13, Bobye in view of Zhang teaches the method according to claim 1. Bobye further teaches,
…wherein: the attitude information further includes a direction of the movable platform (para. 0021, “Thus, the gyroscopes measuring rotation about the X, Y and Z axes have been identified and various associated matrices for the INS filter have been established” The examiner notes that measuring rotation about the x, y, and z-axis results in a measurement of the vehicle’s direction); and
generating the movement trajectory of the movable platform according to the first positioning information and the attitude information of the movable platform includes generating the movement trajectory according to the first positioning information and the direction of the movable platform (fig. 4, steps 406-410).
Regarding claim 14, Bobye in view of Zhang teaches the method according to claim 13. Bobye further teaches,
…obtaining a speed of the movable platform (para. 0016, “If any distance measurement indicators (DMI), such as speedometers and so forth (not shown), are included on the vehicle, the INS subsystem includes the DMI measurements in the calculations in a known manner”);
wherein generating the movement trajectory according to the first positioning information and the direction of the movable platform includes generating the movement trajectory according to the first positioning information, the speed of the movable platform, and the direction of the movable platform (para. 0021, “Thus, the gyroscopes measuring rotation about the X, Y and Z axes have been identified and various associated matrices for the INS filter have been established, including matrices for a Kalman filter process 114. In the navigation mode, the INS subsystem 110 uses the GNSS measurement information in an update to the Kalman filter process 114, which provides updated error states to a mechanization process 116 in order to correct for the drift errors of the respective IMU sensors 108 and 109. The mechanization process 116 uses the updated error states and the IMU measurements to determine the INS-based position, velocity and/or attitude over the intervals between the Kalman filter process updates.”).
Regarding claim 15, Bobye in view of Zhang teaches the method according to claim 14. Bobye further teaches,
…wherein obtaining the speed of the movable platform includes obtaining the speed of the movable platform through a speedometer fixed at the movable platform (para. 0039, “If any distance measurement indicators (DMI), such as speedometers, and so forth (not shown), are included on the vehicle, the INS subsystem includes the DMI measurements in the calculations in a known manner.”).
Regarding claim 16, Bobye teaches,
An electronic device (fig. 1, GNSS/INS navigation system 100) comprising: at least one memory storing at least one computer program (para. 0002, “GNSS/INS navigation systems, such as the systems described in U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,721,657 and 7,193,559, which are assigned to a common assignee and incorporated herein by reference…” The examiner notes that the system of U.S. Pat. No. 6,721,657 has a memory storing a computer program that processes GPS and INS measurements); and
at least one processor configured to execute the at least one computer program (fig. 1, processor 124. See also para. 0019, “The processor 124 operates in a known manner to control the time tagging of the GNSS measurement information and the INS measurements. The processor further operates to control the operations of the GNSS subsystem to produce the GNSS measurement information and the INS subsystem to produce the INS measurements, as well as the operations of the INS filter to produce the INS-based position, velocity and/or attitude”)…
Claim 16 is otherwise rejected for the same reasons and using the same citations as claim 1, above.
Claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons and using the same citations as claim 2, above.
Claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons and using the same citations as claim 3, above.
Regarding claim 20, Bobye in view of Zhang teaches the method according to claim 1. Bobye further teaches,
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium store at least one computer program that, when executed by at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to perform the method according to claim 1 (para. 0002, “GNSS/INS navigation systems, such as the systems described in U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,721,657 and 7,193,559, which are assigned to a common assignee and incorporated herein by reference…” The examiner notes that the system of U.S. Pat. No. 6,721,657 has a memory storing a computer program that processes GPS and INS measurements).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bobye in view of Zhang and further in view of Heidtmann (Heidtmann, B. "u-blox M10: Ultra-low power GPS for small, high-performance trackers and wearables" (20 Nov.2020). ublox. https://www.u-blox.com/en/blogs/tech/ultra-low-power-gps-u-blox-m10).
Regarding claim 7, Bobye in view of Zhang teaches the method according to claim 6. Bobye in view of Zhang does not teach,
…wherein the preset time duration is longer than or equal to 30 seconds, and shorter than or equal to 120 seconds
Heidtmann teaches,
…wherein the preset time duration is longer than or equal to 30 seconds, and shorter than or equal to 120 seconds (table 1, reproduced below. Red square added for emphasis).
PNG
media_image1.png
273
834
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Heidtmann is analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the GPS receiver of Bobye in view of Zhang with the increased time duration between measurements of Heidtmann. Heidtmann teaches that, “As a device increases its position update rate, increased computational demand draws more power from its battery, decreasing power autonomy.” Therefore, reducing the frequency of measurement for the system of Bobye in view of Zhang would increase the power autonomy of the system. Although automotive vehicles have larger batteries than a tracker or handheld device, incorporating the reduced frequency of Heidtmann into the system of Bobye in view of Zhang would have the predictable result of increasing power autonomy. Bobye in view of Zhang is further silent as to the type of vehicle the taught system should be used with; the reduced update rate of Heidtmann would allow the system of Bobye to be used in non-automotive vehicles, such as bicycles and strollers.
Incorporating the update rate of Heidtmann into the system of Bobye in view of Zhang would have the predictable result of reducing the frequency of mechanization update intervals with available GNSS information. However, the system of Bobye in view of Zhang is perfectly poised for this reduced frequency because it is designed to maintain an accurate trajectory even when GNSS measurements are not available, as demonstrated in fig. 3. Therefore, using the reduced update rate of Heidtmann would not negatively impact the accuracy of the measurements of Bobye in view of Zhang and would reduce the computational demand, thus improving the working of the system.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anna K Benjamin Gosling whose telephone number is (571)272-0401. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday, 7-3 Eastern; Friday 8-4 Eastern.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571) 270-5144. 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.
/Anna K. Benjamin Gosling/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/NAZRA NUR WAHEED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights