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
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority benefits of EP23194726.8 filed 8/31/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 8/28/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “global navigation satellite system, GNSS, receiver.” The examiner suggests replacing “global navigation satellite system, GNSS, receiver” with “global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-14 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.
Claim 2 recites “A method” in line 1 of claim 2. It is not clear if “A method” of claim 2 same or different than “A method” of claim 1. The applicant needs to clarify.
Claim 3 recites “A method” in line 1 of claim 3. It is not clear if “A method” of claim 3 same or different than “A method” of claim 1. The applicant needs to clarify.
Claim 4 recites “A method” in line 1 of claim 4. It is not clear if “A method” of claim 4 same or different than “A method” of claim 1. The applicant needs to clarify.
Claim 5 recites “A method” in line 1 of claim 5. It is not clear if “A method” of claim 5 same or different than “A method” of claim 1. The applicant needs to clarify.
Claim 6 recites “A method” in line 1 of claim 6. It is not clear if “A method” of claim 6 same or different than “A method” of claim 1. The applicant needs to clarify.
Claim 7 recites “A method” in line 1 of claim 7. It is not clear if “A method” of claim 7 same or different than “A method” of claim 1. The applicant needs to clarify.
Claim 8 recites “A method” in line 1 of claim 8. It is not clear if “A method” of claim 8 same or different than “A method” of claim 1. The applicant needs to clarify.
Claim 9 recites “A method” in line 1 of claim 9. It is not clear if “A method” of claim 9 same or different than “A method” of claim 1. The applicant needs to clarify.
Claim 10 recites “A method” in line 1 of claim 10. It is not clear if “A method” of claim 10 same or different than “A method” of claim 1. The applicant needs to clarify.
Claim 11 recites “A method” in line 1 of claim 11. It is not clear if “A method” of claim 11 same or different than “A method” of claim 1. The applicant needs to clarify.
Claim 12 recites “A method” in line 1 of claim 12. It is not clear if “A method” of claim 12 same or different than “A method” of claim 1. The applicant needs to clarify.
Claim 13 recites “A method” in line 1 of claim 13. It is not clear if “A method” of claim 13 same or different than “A method” of claim 1. The applicant needs to clarify.
Claim 14 recites “A method” in line 1 of claim 14. It is not clear if “A method” of claim 14 same or different than “A method” of claim 1. The applicant needs to clarify.
Claim 9 recites “carrying out a method according to any one of the preceding claims.” Claim 9 is dependent on independent claim 1, as recited in line 1 of claim 9. It is not understood what is meant by “carrying out a method according to any one of the preceding claims.” The applicant needs to clarify.
Claim 9 recites “a method” in line 5 of claim 1. It is not understood if “a method” in line 5 of claim 9 same or different than “a method” of line 1 of claim 9. The applicant needs to clarify.
Claim 9 recites “a method” in line 5 of claim 1. It is not understood if “a method” in line 5 of claim 9 same or different than “a method” of line 1 of claim 1. The applicant needs to clarify.
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 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.
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 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, 9, 12 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyusin (US 2021/0157013 A1), and further in view of Molina-Markham (US 2019/0317221 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lyusin (‘013) discloses “a method of determining verification of a navigation solution in a global navigation satellite system, GNSS, receiver (paragraph 2: detection and elimination of GNSS spoofing signals and estimation of PVT (position, velocity, and time) solutions at a GNSS receiver; paragraph 6: estimating authenticity and accuracy of each of the estimated solutions), the method comprising:
receiving a plurality of GNSS signals from a plurality of satellites, a first plurality of the signals having no trusted data (paragraph 36: the acquired GNSS signals for which no authentication information is available or no authentication process is performed are labeled (flagged) as "unverified" or "unauthenticated" (408); paragraph 37: a second list 420 of unverified or unauthenticated GNSS signals Uj) and
a second plurality of the signals having trusted data (paragraph 35: one or more of the acquired GNSS signals 202 may be a security-enhanced GNSS signal that includes a security code therein…such a security code may be fully encrypted or contains periodic authentication codes such that some or all of its symbols are unpredictable to a would-be spoofer; paragraph 37: a first list 410 of the authentic GNSS signals Ai);
estimating a navigation solution based on all the received GNSS signals (paragraph 40: If the number of the authentic target GNSS signals Ai is three or less and the remaining target GNSS signals are all unverified (questionable) or unauthenticated signals Un (n=1, 2, . . . , N), a plurality of sets 430 are created (112 in FIG. 1), and the PVT solutions and post-fit residuals 440 are calculated for each set (114 in FIG. 1); paragraph 41: In the case where there are two authentic GNSS signals A1 and A2, and m unverified target GNSS signals U1, U2 . . . Urn have been acquired and tracked, it is possible to create mC2=m(m−1)/2 sets of the acquired target GNSS signals where each set includes the two authentic signals A1 and A2, and two unverified signals Uj and Uk (j=1, 2, . . . m, k=1, 2, . . . m, j<k). In order for the full analysis, the PVT solutions and post-fit residuals are calculated for each of the m(m−1)/2 sets of the target GNSS signals to produce, for example, m(m−1)/2 estimated positions of the GNSS receiver 100 and the post-fit residuals; paragraph 42: The number of sets M is not necessarily m(m−1)/2, but may be reduced, if the number in is large and/or if it can be assumed that the number of spoofing signal is one….only in sets of targets GNSS signals may be created such that each set includes authentic GNSS signals A1 and A2, and unverified GNSS signals Uj and Uk (j=1, 2, . . . m, k=1, 2, . . . m, k=j+1 where j<m, k=1 where j=m). If unverified target GNSS signal Us is the spoofing signal, two sets including Us (when j=s and j+1=s) would produce PVT solutions greatly deviated compared with other PVT solutions. Any statistical threshold value(s) can be used for the determination of spoofing signal. Any other statistical method can be used to estimate and evaluate authenticity of unverified target GNSS singles from the calculated PVT solutions);
determining, for each satellite from which a signal is received, an estimated measurement from the satellite based on at least the navigation solution (paragraph 41: the PVT solutions and post-fit residuals are calculated for each of the m(m−1)/2 sets of the target GNSS signals to produce, for example, m(m−1)/2 estimated positions of the GNSS receiver 100 and the post-fit residuals; paragraph 48: The PVT solutions and post-fit residuals are calculated for each of the M sets of the GNSS signals);
determining, for each received signal, a residual comprising the difference between the estimated measurement from the satellite transmitting the received signal of the respective signal (paragraph 41: the PVT solutions and post-fit residuals are calculated for each of the m(m−1)/2 sets of the target GNSS signals to produce, for example, m(m−1)/2 estimated positions of the GNSS receiver 100 and the post-fit residuals; paragraph 45: a plurality of sets of the acquired GNSS signals may be created such that each set includes the three authentic GNSS signals A1, A2, and A3, and one of the unverified/ unauthenticated candidate GNSS signals S(n, j) of the target GNSS signal Un (n=1, 2, ... N) as the remaining fourth target GNSS signal…if each unverified target GNSS signal Un has only one candidate GNSS signal S(n, 1 ), N sets of four GNSS signals may be created, and the calculated PVT solutions (with post-fit residuals) may converge to the correct position of the GNSS receiver with reasonable/ expected statistical variations (ordinary errors and environmental interferences such as multi path effects) among the unverified target signals Un, if the unverified target signals Un are genuine signals; paragraph 48: the PVT solutions and post-fit residuals are calculated for each of the M sets of the GNSS signals…M estimated positions of the GNSS receiver 100 may be obtained from the calculated PVT solutions and the post-fit residuals)”,
“comparing the statistic to a first value (paragraph 48: by analyzing the M estimated positions, for example, by plotting the estimated positions on the coordinate plane or the easting-northing plane, it may found that one or more positions are deviated more than a statistically expected value, indicating that the corresponding set(s) may include a spoofing GNSS signal; paragraph 42: any statistical threshold value(s) can be used for the determination of spoofing signal); and
responsive to the comparison determining the navigation solution to be verified or not to be verified (paragraph 55: if post-fit residuals of the calculate PVT solutions obtained from a set of GNSS signals are small enough, the set of the GNSS signals may be considered as internally consistent; paragraph 80: position, velocity, and time (PVT) solutions and post-fit residuals are calculated for each of the plurality of sets based on the GNSS signals therein (740), thereby obtaining a plurality (M) of estimated solutions corresponding to the plurality of sets…the plurality of estimated solutions are analyzed, thereby estimating authenticity and accuracy of each of the plurality of estimated solutions (760)…authenticity of the respective candidate GNSS signals of the target GNSS signals is estimated based on the estimated authenticity and accuracy of the plurality of estimated solutions (780)…list of all of the candidate GNSS signals with the respective estimated authenticity thereof, and a list of all possible PVT solutions with the respective authenticity and accuracy thereof may be generated and output).”
Lyusin (‘013) does not explicitly disclose determining “a pseudo-range of the respective signal”, “determining a statistic from the residuals of the first plurality of signals.”
Molina-Markham (‘221) relates to systems and methods for position, navigation, and timing, and more specifically to mitigating effects of spoofing on position, velocity, and time estimates .Molina-Markham (‘221) teaches “a pseudo-range of the respective signal (paragraph 81: a PVT estimator that accounts for beliefs about the trust of signals over time includes an adaptive weighted least squares (AWLS) model that estimates PVT from a plurality of pseudo-ranges derived from signals received from a plurality of GPS satellites while factoring assurance metrics for the pseudo-ranges)”,
determining a statistic from the residuals of the first plurality of signals (paragraph 6: generate PVT estimates with measures of assurance that indicate the degree to which the PVT estimate meets an operational requirement such as integrity, which is a measure of whether a PVT estimate is affected by adversarial action such as GPS satellite spoofing. PVT estimators with assurance may use open-universe probability models (OUPMs) to generate PVT estimate assurance metrics and/or PVT estimators suitable for adversarial environments in which information used by the platform for PVT estimation is uncertain in terms of both availability and reliability; paragraph 4: a PVT estimator with assurance is built on a probabilistic engine that encodes uncertainty about which objects exist (or may be present), and uncertainty about the relations among these objects. This observation is critical because in adversarial environments uncertainty about the availability, continuity, and integrity of a PVT solution can arise from noise or incomplete information…PVT estimators with assurance use open-universe probability models to generate PVT estimate assurance metrics and/or PVT estimates suitable for adversarial environments in which the information available to the platform implementing the PVT estimator is uncertain…OUPMs have richer semantics than other commonly used probabilistic models such as Bayesian networks and allow the modeling of structural uncertainty that corresponds to the uncertain availability of sensors, such as satellites, inertial sensors, clocks, etc., and the uncertain presence of one or more adversaries …OUPMs, according to some embodiments, model relational uncertainty, such as how adversaries influence observations about the state of the system implementing the platform...the associated probabilistic programs, in addition to encoding trust and adversarial models, can specify assurance requirements (e.g., related to accuracy, availability, and continuity paragraph 14: the trust assessment may be a probability that the position estimate satisfies at least one of integrity, availability, and continuity; paragraph 76: an OUPM implemented in a PVT engine specifies a unique probability distribution over all possible worlds of modeled objects and relations…the OUPM enables queries that can generate the probability that a particular object exists, or more generally, the probability that a particular statement is true…queries are functions on logic and numeric expressions that involve constant and random terms…a query can encode inference tasks concerning the estimation of posterior probabilities that a particular assurance requirement is satisfied, given a set of observations …queries within an OUPM can be used to define assurance metrics…the probabilities of accuracy, availability, continuity, and accuracy…assurances…of a PVT solution can be estimated based on a set of observations and a model using one or more queries within an OUPM; paragraph 77: the accuracy of a solution can be defined as the probability that the solution is within a specific boundary of the truth value that is estimated…availability is defined as the probability that a receiver will be able to compute a useful solution when needed during a specified interval of time (e.g., the next hour, or the expected duration of a trip). Continuity is defined as the probability that a solution can be continuously updated during a period of time. Integrity is defined as the ability to obtain a PVT solution that has not been manipulated by an adversary).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lyusin (‘013) with the teaching of Molina-Markham (‘221) for more reliable estimation of position, velocity, and time (Molina-Markham (‘221) – paragraph 2). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Lyusin (‘013) and Molina-Markham (‘221)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, generate position, velocity, time (PVT) estimates with measures of assurance that indicate the degree to which the PVT estimate meets an operational requirement.
Regarding claim 9, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Lyusin (‘013)/Molina-Markham (‘221) discloses the method of claim 1. Lyusin (‘013)/Molina-Markham (‘221) further discloses “determining the number of signals in the second plurality of signals; responsive to the number of signals in the second plurality of signals being greater than a first signal threshold carrying out a method according to any one of the preceding claims (paragraph 42: the number of sets M is not necessarily m(m−1)/2, but may be reduced, if the number in is large and/or if it can be assumed that the number of spoofing signal is one (1)…only in sets of target GNSS signals may be created such that each set includes authentic GNSS signals A1 and A2, and unverified GNSS signals Uj and Uk (j=1, 2, . . . m, k=1, 2, . . . m, k=j+1 where j<m, k=1 where j=m). If unverified target GNSS signal Us is the spoofing signal, two sets including Us (when j=s and j+1=s) would produce PVT solutions greatly deviated compared with other PVT solutions. ..any statistical threshold value(s) can be used for the determination of spoofing signal…any other statistical method can be used to estimate and evaluate authenticity of unverified target GNSS singles from the calculated PVT solutions).”
Regarding claim 12, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Lyusin (‘013)/Molina-Markham (‘221) discloses the method of claim 1. Lyusin (‘013)/Molina-Markham (‘221) further discloses “estimating a navigation solution based on only the second plurality of signals (paragraph 49: in the case where there are two authentic GNSS signals A1 and A2, and two unauthenticated target GNSS signals U1 and U2 (with multiple candidates GNSS signals) have been acquired and tracked. Suppose a first unauthenticated target signal U1 has m.sub.1 unverified candidate GNSS signals S(1, j), where j=1, 2, . . . m.sub.1, and a second unauthenticated target GNSS signal U2 has m.sub.2 unverified candidate GNSS signals S(2, k), where k=1, 2, . . . m.sub.2. Then, it is possible to create total of m.sub.1×m.sub.2 subsets of the acquired GNSS signals, where each subset includes the two authentic GNSS signals A1 and A2, and respective one of unverified/unauthenticated candidate GNSS signals S(1, j) and S(1, k) (j=1, 2, . . . m.sub.1, k=1, 2, . . . m.sub.2). In order for the full analysis, the PVT solutions and post-fit residuals are calculated for each of the m.sub.1×m.sub.2 subsets of the GNSS signals to produce M=m.sub.1×m.sub.2 estimated positions of the GNSS receiver 100 and the post-fit residuals. The M estimated positions are analyzed to determine which candidate GNSS signals are genuine signals for the corresponding target GNSS signals as mentioned above).”
Regarding independent claim 15, which is a corresponding device claim of independent method claim 1, Lyusin (‘013)/Molina-Markham (‘221) discloses all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Lyusin (‘013)/Molina-Markham (‘221) discloses the method of claim 1. Lyusin (‘013) further discloses “A computer program comprising computer program code configured to cause one or more processors to perform all the steps of the method”, “when said computer program is run on said one or more processors (paragraph 16: the method of detecting and eliminating a GNSS spoofing signal with PVT solutions may be implemented in a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with an executable program stored thereon, wherein the program instructs a microprocessor to perform the above-described method).”
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyusin (US 2021/0157013 A1)/ Molina-Markham (US 2019/0317221 A1), and further in view of Cao et al. (US 2021/0333409 A1).
Regarding claim 2, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Lyusin (‘013)/Molina-Markham (‘221) discloses the method of claim 1. Lyusin (‘013)/Molina-Markham (‘221) does not explicitly disclose “comparing comprises comparing the maximum residual of the first plurality of signals below a first predetermined percentile of the residual distribution to the first value; and responsive to the maximum residual at the first predetermined percentile being below the first value determining the navigation solution to be verified.”
Cao et al. (‘409) relates to detecting and excluding spoofed Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) signals. Cao et al. (‘409) teaches “comparing comprises comparing the maximum residual of the first plurality of signals below a first predetermined percentile of the residual distribution to the first value; and responsive to the maximum residual at the first predetermined percentile being below the first value determining the navigation solution to be verified (paragraph 54: the at least one LOS range and GNSS range data (pseudorange) are compared to acquire at least one error differential value, for example, a residual…the error differential value is the difference between the ranges acquired from the GNSS position data and the LOS ranges determined from the navigation reckoning solution, which signifies the difference between the measured position of the vehicle (from the GNSS data) and the expected position determined from the inertial sensors. In some embodiments, the range rates (LOS range rate, pseudorange rate) and corresponding variances may also be compared…the error differential value is compared to a threshold value at block 612, which is set to a value that is indicative of GNSS spoofing with respect to the one or more satellites used to acquire GNSS data, to determine whether the GNSS position data has been spoofed. If the error differential value exceeds the threshold value, then the GNSS data is determined to be spoofed, and may be excluded from further analysis. If the error differential value does not exceed the threshold value, then the GNSS data is determined to be non-spoofed and then may undergo further processing).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lyusin (‘013)/Molina-Markham (‘221) with the teaching of Cao et al. (‘409) for more reliable estimation of position. In addition, both of the prior art references, (Lyusin (‘013), Molina-Markham (‘221) and Cao et al. (‘409)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, detecting and excluding spoofed Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) signals.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyusin (US 2021/0157013 A1)/ Molina-Markham (US 2019/0317221 A1), and further in view of Rife (US 2014/0232595 A1).
Regarding claim 2, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Lyusin (‘013)/Molina-Markham (‘221) discloses the method of claim 1. Lyusin (‘013)/Molina-Markham (‘221) does not explicitly disclose “determining a statistic from the residuals of the second plurality of signals; comparing the statistic to a second value; responsive to the comparison determining the navigation solution to be verified or not to be verified.”
Rife (‘595) elates to a system and method for verifying the integrity of global navigation satellite system measurements. Rife (‘595) teaches “determining a statistic from the residuals of the second plurality of signals; comparing the statistic to a second value; responsive to the comparison determining the navigation solution to be verified or not to be verified (paragraph 64: FIG. 3B is flowchart of a first algorithm for verifying GNSS measurements…the algorithm involves calculating a residual vector (step 322), calculating a monitor statistic (step 324), determining a threshold for the monitor statistic (step 326), determining whether the monitor statistic is greater than the threshold (step 328), and issuing an alert if the monitor statistic is greater than the threshold (step 332); paragraph 66: to determine if there is a faulty satellite, a weighted sum-of-squares is calculated from the residual vector pl…a larger weighted sum-of-squares indicates a higher error in the measurements at the receiver l…if there are no satellite faults, the weighted sum-of-squares will typically be higher for a longer residual vector containing residuals for more satellites than a shorter vector containing residuals for fewer satellites…a weighted sum-of-squares is calculated for each receiver from which the CERIM unit receives data…these weighted sum-of-squares are added together to form a monitor statistic…the monitor static increases as error in the measurements increases, the number of receivers increases, and the number of satellites being measured at the receivers increases…the monitor statistic is compared to a threshold that depends on the number of receivers and the number of satellites being measured. If the monitor statistic is greater than the threshold, then it is likely that there is a satellite fault. This calculation is described in greater detail below).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lyusin (‘013)/Molina-Markham (‘221) with the teaching of Rife (‘595) for more reliable estimation of position (Rife (‘595) – paragraph 8). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Lyusin (‘013), Molina-Markham (‘221) and Rife (‘595)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, position estimation using global navigation satellite system verification.
Regarding claim 11, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Lyusin (‘013)/Molina-Markham (‘221) discloses the method of claim 1. Lyusin (‘013)/Molina-Markham (‘221) does not explicitly disclose “comparing the maximum residual of the first plurality of signals below a fourth predetermined percentile to a fourth value; responsive to the maximum residual of the first plurality of signals below the fourth predetermined percentile being below the fourth value determining the individual signals below the fourth predetermined percentile to be verified.”
Rife (‘595) elates to a system and method for verifying the integrity of global navigation satellite system measurements. Rife (‘595) teaches “comparing the maximum residual of the first plurality of signals below a fourth predetermined percentile to a fourth value; responsive to the maximum residual of the first plurality of signals below the fourth predetermined percentile being below the fourth value determining the individual signals below the fourth predetermined percentile to be verified (paragraph 63: once the position solution is calculated for the set of pseudorange measurements from each of the CERIM units, the fault detection processor 216 performs a fault detection algorithm (step 312) to determine if the position solution residuals pl indicate a satellite fault. In each of two suitable fault detection algorithms described below in relation to FIGS. 3B and 3C, a monitor statistic is calculated and compared to a threshold; paragraph 66: to determine if there is a faulty satellite, a weighted sum-of-squares is calculated from the residual vector pl….a larger weighted sum-of-squares indicates a higher error in the measurements at the receiver l…if there are no satellite faults, the weighted sum-of-squares will typically be higher for a longer residual vector containing residuals for more satellites than a shorter vector containing residuals for fewer satellites…a weighted sum-of-squares is calculated for each receiver from which the CERIM unit receives data…these weighted sum-of-squares are added together to form a monitor statistic…the monitor statistic increases as error in the measurements increases, the number of receivers increases, and the number of satellites being measured at the receivers increases…the monitor statistic is compared to a threshold that depends on the number of receivers and the number of satellites being measured. If the monitor statistic is greater than the threshold, then it is likely that there is a satellite fault).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lyusin (‘013)/Molina-Markham (‘221) with the teaching of Rife (‘595) for more reliable estimation of position (Rife (‘595) – paragraph 8). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Lyusin (‘013), Molina-Markham (‘221) and Rife (‘595)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, position estimation using global navigation satellite system verification.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyusin (US 2021/0157013 A1)/ Molina-Markham (US 2019/0317221 A1), and further in view of Raghupathy et al. (US 2017/033,8855 A1).
Regarding claim 10, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Lyusin (‘013)/Molina-Markham (‘221) discloses the method of claim 1. Lyusin (‘013)/Molina-Markham (‘221) does not explicitly disclose “determining a dilution of precision of the second plurality of signals; responsive to the dilution of precision being below a dilution of precision threshold carrying out a method according to any one of the preceding claims.”
Raghupathy et al. (‘855) relates to positioning systems. Raghupathy et al. (‘855) teaches “determining a dilution of precision of the second plurality of signals; responsive to the dilution of precision being below a dilution of precision threshold carrying out a method according to any one of the preceding claims (paragraph 53: the tower arrangement of an embodiment is optimized for coverage and location accuracy…the deployment of the towers will be arranged in such a way as to receive signals from 3 or more towers in most of the locations within the network and at the edge of the network, such that the geometric dilution of precision (GDOP) in each of these locations is less than a predetermined threshold based on the accuracy requirement. Software programs that do RF planning studies will be augmented to include the analysis for GDOP in and around the network. GDOP is a function of receiver position and transmitter positions. One method of incorporating the GDOP in the network planning is to set up an optimization as follows…function to be minimized is volume integral of the square of GDOP over the coverage volume…the volume integration is with respect to the (x, y, z) coordinates of the receiver position…the minimization is with respect to the n transmitter position coordinates (x1, y1, z1), (x2, y2, z2), . . . (xn, yn, zn,) in a given coverage area subject to the constraints that they are in the coverage volume: xmin<x<xmax, ymin<y<ymax , zmin<z<zmax for i=1, . . . , n with xmin, ymin and zmin being the lower limits and with xmax, ymax and zmax being the upper limits of the coverage volume; Claim 18: the set of transmitters are positioned so that positioning signals can be received from at least three transmitters in the set of transmitters at different locations in the transmitter network such that a geometric dilution of precision for each of the different locations is less than a predetermined threshold, wherein the different locations include an edge of the transmitter network and other locations, wherein each transmitter in the set of transmitters is at a position determined by minimizing a function that is a volume integration of a square of geometric dilution of precision over a coverage volume, wherein the volume integration is with respect to possible coordinates of a location of the receiver within the transmitter network, and wherein the minimizing of the function is with respect to n transmitter position coordinates in a given coverage area in the coverage volume).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lyusin (‘013)/Molina-Markham (‘221) with the teaching of Raghupathy et al. (‘855) for more reliable estimation of position. In addition, both of the prior art references, (Lyusin (‘013), Molina-Markham (‘221) and Raghupathy et al. (‘855)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, position estimation using global navigation satellite system verification.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Allowable Subject matter:
“comparing the maximum residual of the second plurality of signals below a second predetermined percentile of the residual distribution to the second value; responsive to the maximum residual of the second plurality of signals below the second predetermined percentile being below the second value and the maximum residual of the first plurality of signals below the first predetermined percentile being below a first value determining the navigation solution to be verified.”
Claims 5-6 depend on claim 4, and therefore are also objected to be allowable.
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Allowable Subject matter:
“determining the maximum residual of the second plurality of signals below a second predetermined percentile of the residual distribution of the second plurality of signals;
wherein determining a statistic comprises determining the maximum residual of the first plurality of signals below a third predetermined percentile of the first plurality of signals;
wherein comparing comprises determining whether the maximum residual of the first plurality of signals below the third predetermined percentile is less than a predetermined percentage greater than the maximum residual below the second predetermined percentile of the second plurality of signals; responsive to the maximum residual of the first plurality of signals below the third predetermined percentile being less than a predetermined percentage greater than the maximum residual below the second predetermined percentile of the second plurality of signals determining the navigation solution to be verified.”
Claim 8 depends on claim 7, and therefore are also objected to be allowable.
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Allowable Subject matter:
“responsive to the position not being verified: estimating a first updated navigation solution based only on the second plurality of signals; determining, for each of the first plurality of signals, an estimated measurement from the respective satellite based on at least the first updated navigation solution; determining, for each of the first plurality of signals, an updated residual comprising the difference between the estimated measurement from the satellite and the pseudo-range of the respective signal; comparing the maximum residual below a sixth predetermined percentile of the first plurality of signals to a sixth value; responsive to the maximum residual below the sixth predetermined percentile being below the sixth value determining the signals below the sixth predetermined percentile to be verified.”
Claim 14 depends on claim 13, and therefore are also objected to be allowable.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Snyder et al. (US 10,509,130 B2) describes system, method and/or computer program product embodiments, and/or combinations and sub-combinations thereof, for a fast detection and mitigation of GNSS signal anomalies, including spoofing or jamming attacks on systems, such as but not limited to, systems requiring PNT based on GNSS (column 2 lines 60-64); GPS receiver 104 can be compromised by a targeted attack, such as a spoofing or jamming attack…a spoofing attack, for example, can attempt to modify the associated time coordinates or spatial coordinates of a GPS system, which can result in inaccurate time and spatial information from GPS receiver 104. Alternatively, a jamming attack can attempt to interfere with the operation of GPS-based system by saturating GPS receiver 104 with noise which may result in the legitimate, accurate signals received from GPS antennas 102 being blocked (column 4 lines 8-17).
Davies et al. (US 2016/0146947 A1) describes the development of a positioning system of enhanced robustness against intentional and un-intentional threats using encrypted navigation signals in general and in particular Galileo PRS signals (paragraph 1); such methods may have particular application to Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS)…there may be many distributed and moveable receivers (e.g. vehicle based navigation aids, safety beacons, cellular telephones, etc.)…such receivers often perform tracking using processing circuitry contained therein, but in the above described method, the functionality of a tracking receiver maybe distributed between a field receiver and a remote processing device (e.g. a central sever)…GNSS services usually incorporate an encrypted portion (e.g. Public Regulated Service (PRS) in Galileo, PPS in GPS) and an open, unencrypted portion…encrypted navigation signals can be used to authenticate the measurements obtained from open, unencrypted, signals and/or to directly provide a robust position and time data for the receiver without the need for distributing navigation encryption keys to the field receiver units (paragraph 19).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NUZHAT PERVIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9795. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, William J Kelleher can be reached at 571-272-7753. 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.
/NUZHAT PERVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights