DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7/20/2026. Claims 1-8 and 16-19 are examined herein.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I in the reply filed on 7/20/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the election requirement does not distinctly explain why examination of the identified species would impose a serious search or examination burden, but only generally states that the species have acquired separate status in the art and required different fields of search, electronic resources, search strategies, or search queries, but does not identify the particular classifications, resources, strategies, or queries that would be required. This is not found persuasive. The requirement describes the species in terms that clearly identify the mutually exclusive characteristics of the species, making evident their divergent subject matter and the necessity of searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries:
PNG
media_image1.png
330
580
media_image1.png
Greyscale
There is no requirement to identify the particular classifications, resources, strategies, or queries that would be required. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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, in claims 1-8 and 16-18:
a first calculation unit arranged to repeatedly determine a first position estimate based on at least some information derived from one or more of the information sources (structure found at least in para. [0086] “non-volatile memory” and “navigation processor 220”; para. [0087] “distinct processor cores” or “single processor core”; corresponding algorithm is described in the claims themselves and throughout the specification);
a second calculation unit arranged to repeatedly determine a first position estimate based on at least some information derived from one or more of the information sources (structure found at least in para. [0086] “non-volatile memory” and “navigation processor 220”; para. [0087] “distinct processor cores” or “single processor core”; corresponding algorithm is described in the claims themselves and throughout the specification);
a third calculation unit arranged to repeatedly determine a first position estimate based on at least some information derived from one or more of the information sources (structure found at least in para. [0086] “non-volatile memory” and “navigation processor 220”; para. [0087] “distinct processor cores” or “single processor core”; corresponding algorithm is described in the claims themselves and throughout the specification); and
a selection unit (para. [0086] “non-volatile memory” and “navigation processor 220”; para. [0087] “distinct processor cores” or “single processor core” ; the claims themselves recite sufficient algorithm).
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 1-8 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1 lines 20-31, a series of wherein clauses are recited. They are indented in a manner that suggests they refer to functions of the selection unit recited in lines 15-19, however, their subject matter does not appear to be relevant to said unit in particular, but to the claim as a whole. Further, the colon at the end of line 22 combined with the “wherein” at the beginning of the subsequent three clauses make it unclear how the different clauses relate to each other. The scope of the claim therefore cannot be clearly determined. From Examiner’s best understanding, it appears that the indent of lines 20-22 should be removed, as should the “wherein” at the beginning of lines 23 and 26, and “and” should be added to the end of line 25.
Regarding claim 8 lines 5-6, “the respective associated uncertainty” lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
The remaining claims are dependent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co.v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert, denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) See MPEP 2123.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Divakaruni (US 5923286 A).
Regarding claim 1 as best understood, and claim 19, Divakaruni teaches a navigation system comprising:
a plurality of information sources suitable for use in determining a position estimate of the navigation system (120, 130, Fig. 2), the plurality of information sources comprising:
an inertial navigation system (INS) (IRS 130, Fig. 2) arranged to repeatedly determine an inertial-based position estimate based on one or more signals received from an inertial measurement unit (IMU) (131, Fig. 2); and
a receiver arranged to receive one or more wireless signals from one or more external transmitters (GPS receiver 124, Fig. 2);
a first calculation unit arranged to repeatedly determine a first position estimate based on at least some information derived from one or more of the information sources (POSITION ESTIMATOR 110 outputting POS_HYB based on DATA_GPS 122 and DATA_IRS 132 from sources );
a second calculation unit arranged to repeatedly determine a second position estimate based on at least some information derived from one or more of the information sources (GPS POSITION/SOLUTION INFORMATION PROCESSOR 126, outputting position POS_GPS 122, Fig. 2 based on information from GPS receiver 124, Fig. 2); and
a selection unit (POSITION SELECTOR 300, Fig. 2) arranged to repeatedly:
determine which of the first position estimate and the second position estimate is more reliable; and
select one of the first position estimate and the second position estimate for output as an output position estimate based on said determination (POS_SEL 332, Fig. 2; 9:18-30);
wherein, over a period of time comprising a plurality of determinations of the first position estimate by the first calculation unit and a plurality of determinations of the second position estimate by the second calculation unit (5:32-40 a plurality of determinations over time are implied by“associated with outputs DATA.sub.-- GPS, DATA.sub.-- IRS, POS.sub.-- HYB, POS.sub.-- X.sub.-- ERR, and POS.sub.-- Y.sub.-- ERR are discrete time values”):
wherein the first calculation unit is arranged to determine the first position estimate based on a first set of information derived from one or more of the information sources (POS_HYB 112 is based on information from information sources 120 and 130, which provide DATA_GPS 122, POS_GPS 129, and DATA_IRS 132 as shown in Fig. 2);
wherein the second calculation unit is arranged to determine the second position estimate based on a second set of information derived from one or more of the information sources (DATA_GPS 122 is based on information from information source 120); and
wherein the first set of information contains a subset of information derived from one or more of the information sources that is not contained in the second set of information (the first set of information contains DATA_IRS and DATA_GPS, while the second set contains only DATA_GPS).
Regarding claim 3, Divakaruni teaches the first set of information contains information derived from each of the plurality of information sources; and the second set of information contains information derived from a subset of the plurality of information sources (the first set of information contains DATA_IRS and DATA_GPS, while the second set contains only DATA_GPS).
Regarding claim 6, Divakaruni teaches wherein the receiver comprises a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver (124, Fig. 2), the receiver-based position estimate comprises a GNSS position estimate (POS_GPS 129, Fig. 2), and the one or more external transmitters comprise GNSS satellites (SV1, SV2, Fig. 2).
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Onomura (US 20190056512 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Onomura teaches a navigation system (Fig. 2) comprising:
a plurality of information sources suitable for use in determining a position estimate of the navigation system (14-17, Fig. 2), the plurality of information sources comprising:
an inertial navigation system (INS) arranged to repeatedly determine an inertial-based position estimate based on one or more signals received from an inertial measurement unit (IMU) (15, Fig. 2); and
a receiver arranged to receive one or more wireless signals from one or more external transmitters (14, Fig. 2);
a first calculation unit arranged to repeatedly determine a first position estimate based on at least some information derived from one or more of the information sources (inherent to GPS RECEIVER 14, Fig. 2, which outputs a calculated GPS POSITION);
a second calculation unit arranged to repeatedly determine a second position estimate based on at least some information derived from one or more of the information sources (inherent to INERTIAL NAVIGATION UNIT 15, Fig. 2, which outputs a calculated INERTIAL NAVIGATION POSITION); and
a selection unit (21 or 23, Fig. 2) arranged to repeatedly:
determine which of the first position estimate and the second position estimate is more reliable (para. [0042]); and
select one of the first position estimate and the second position estimate for output as an output position estimate based on said determination (21 or 23, Fig. 2 perform selection in view of paras. [0042]-[0044]);
wherein, over a period of time comprising a plurality of determinations of the first position estimate by the first calculation unit and a plurality of determinations of the second position estimate by the second calculation unit (para. [0048] “The self-position measuring process may, for example, be repeatedly executed at a predetermined time interval”):
wherein the first calculation unit is arranged to determine the first position estimate based on a first set of information derived from one or more of the information sources (GPS RECEIVER 14 determines the first position estimate based on information derived from an information source comprising itself);
wherein the second calculation unit is arranged to determine the second position estimate based on a second set of information derived from one or more of the information sources (INERTIAL NAVIGATION UNIT 15 determines the second position estimate based on information derived from an information source comprising itself); and
wherein the first set of information contains a subset of information derived from one or more of the information sources that is not contained in the second set of information (the first and second sets of information are mutually exclusive, meeting the language).
Regarding claim 2, Onomura teaches wherein the first set of information contains at least some information derived from the receiver (GPS RECEIVER 14 determines the first position estimate based on information derived from itself); and the second set of information contains no information derived from the receiver (INERTIAL NAVIGATION UNIT 15 determines the second position estimate based on information derived from itself, using no information from GPS RECEIVER 14).
Regarding claim 4, Onomura teaches wherein:
the receiver is arranged to repeatedly determine a receiver-based position estimate based on the one or more wireless signals received from one or more external transmitters (para. [0048] “The self-position measuring process may, for example, be repeatedly executed at a predetermined time interval”);
the first set of information contains one or more of the receiver-based position estimates (GPS RECEIVER 14 determines the first position estimate based on information derived from itself); and
the second set of information contains fewer of the receiver-based position estimates than the first set of information (INERTIAL NAVIGATION UNIT 15 determines the second position estimate based on information derived from itself, using no information from GPS RECEIVER 14).
Regarding claim 5, Onomura teaches wherein the second set of information contains none of the receiver-based position estimates (INERTIAL NAVIGATION UNIT 15 determines the second position estimate based on information derived from itself, using no information from GPS RECEIVER 14).
Regarding claim 6, Onomura teaches wherein the receiver comprises a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver, the receiver-based position estimate comprises a GNSS position estimate, and the one or more external transmitters comprise GNSS satellites (GPS RECEIVER 14, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, Onomura teaches wherein:
the navigation system further comprises a third calculation unit arranged to repeatedly determine a third position estimate based on at least some information derived from one or more of the information sources (GEONAVIGATION UNIT 16 or CELONAVIGATION UNIT 17 or COMPOSITE NAVIGATION UNIT 23, Fig. 2 output calculated position estimates and therefore necessarily comprise such calculation units; para. [0048] “The self-position measuring process may, for example, be repeatedly executed at a predetermined time interval”);
the period of time comprises a plurality of determinations of the third position estimate by the third calculation unit (para. [0048] “The self-position measuring process may, for example, be repeatedly executed at a predetermined time interval”);
over the period of time, the third calculation unit is arranged to determine the third position estimate based on a third set of information derived from one or more of the information sources (GEONAVIGATION UNIT 16 determines a position estimate based on a generated image and a coastline database as per paras. [0053]-[0057]; CELONAVIGATION UNIT 17 determines a position estimate based on a photographed image and a celestial body database as per paras. [0058]-[0062]; COMPOSITE NAVIGATION UNIT 23 determines a position estimate based on a plurality of the information sources as per para. [0077]); and
the selection unit (21 or 23, Fig. 2) is arranged to determine which of the first, second and third position estimates is more reliable, and to select one of the first, second and third position estimates for output as the output position estimate based on said determination (paras. [0065]-[0072], esp. para. [0071] “select one method with the highest accuracy or the least measurement error from among inertial navigation, geonavigation, and celonavigation, on the basis of the GPS unavailable time”); wherein:
the first set of information contains a subset of information derived from one or more of the information sources that is not contained in the third set of information (the first and third sets of information are mutually exclusive, meeting the language); and
the third set of information contains a subset of information derived from one or more of the information sources that is not contained in the second set of information (the third and second sets of information are mutually exclusive, meeting the language).
Regarding claim 17, Onomura teaches that the third set of information contains a smaller amount of information derived from the receiver than the first set of information (the third set of information is from GEONAVIGATION UNIT 16 or CELONAVIGATION UNIT 17 or COMPOSITE NAVIGATION UNIT 23, where at least the first two provide no information from the receiver, meeting the language); and the third set of information contains a greater amount of information derived from the receiver than the second set of information (the second set of information is from INERTIAL NAVIGATION UNIT 15 and contains no information from the receiver, while the third set of information is from GEONAVIGATION UNIT 16 or CELONAVIGATION UNIT 17 or COMPOSITE NAVIGATION UNIT 23, where the COMPOSITE NAVIGATION UNIT 23 uses information derived from the receiver, meeting the language).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSI J GALT whose telephone number is (571)270-1469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM - 5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, RESHA DESAI can be reached at (571)27. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CASSI J GALT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights