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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 12/19/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 2 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 2, the term “GNSS” should be defined the first time it is used, e.g., “Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS)”
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, and 9-10 is/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, the claim recites the limitation “A device for maintaining reliability of positioning of a vehicle irrespective of vulnerability of satellite data, carried on-board a vehicle” (emphasis added). It is unclear whether the positioned vehicle and the vehicle carrying the device are the same vehicle.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites the limitation “a bank of Kalman sub-filters in parallel.” It is unclear whether this limitation requires the sub-filters to operate concurrently with one another, to operate concurrently with one another and the main filter, or something else. For examination purposes, the limitation is interpreted as meaning the sub-filters and main filter all operate concurrently with one another.
Regarding Claim 2, the claims recites the limitation “said Kalman sub-filters are identical.” It is unclear what constitutes “identical.” For example, do the sub-filters have identical architectures? Do they have identical parameters? Additionally, Claim 1 requires the sub-filters to have “distinct” resetting frequencies.
Regarding Claim 2, the claim recites the limitation “the period corresponding to a verification period of the reliability of the positioning measurements by GNSS satellites.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for both “the period” and “the positioning measurements” in the claim.
Regarding Claim 3, the claim recites the limitations “the positioning measurements,” “the state of each sub-filter,” and “the state of said main Kalman filter.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Regarding Claim 6, the claim recites the limitation “the Kalman sub-filter among said Kalman sub-filters the implementation of which of the intermittent hybridization is the farthest, in terms of time, from the moment of raising the alarm.” Because each sub-filter repeatedly implements intermittent hybridization, it is unclear whether “the farthest” refers to the first, the most recent, or some other intermittent hybridization event of a particular sub-filter. For examination purposes, the limitation is interpreted as meaning “the Kalman sub-filter whose most recent implementation of intermittent hybridization occurred farthest in time before the alarm was raised.”
Regarding Claim 7, the claim recites the limitation “the positioning measurements.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 9, the claim recites the limitations “the positioning measurements” and “the hybrid position.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Regarding Claim 10, the claim recites the limitation “the output.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C.
102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the
statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a
new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection,
would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the
basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in
public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or
in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b),
in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and
was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Morgan (US 2024/0337762).
Regarding Claim 1, Morgan discloses:
A device for maintaining reliability of positioning of a vehicle irrespective of vulnerability of satellite data, carried on-board a vehicle moving between two distinct geographical positions ([0005]: “An inertial coasting monitoring system comprises a plurality of aiding sensors onboard a vehicle”), the device comprising:
an inertial measurement unit providing navigation measurements ([0015]: “inertial navigation system (INS) 112”);
a receiver of satellite positioning data ([0016]: “GPS receiver 118”; [0101]: “Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receiver”);
a closed-loop main Kalman filter calculating navigation data corrections by continuous hybridization of satellite positioning data provided by said receiver and non-satellite positioning data provided by at least said inertial measurement unit ([0015]: “an all measurement main filter 114 (main navigation filter), such as a Kalman filter, which is operatively coupled to INS 112 in a feedback loop.”; [0016]: “The main filter 114 is configured to receive aiding data from an aiding source 116, such as GPS measurements from a GPS receiver 118”; [0018]: “The aiding data are used by main filter 114 to generate an error correction signal”); and
a bank of Kalman sub-filters in parallel ([0020]: “a plurality of inertial coast (IC) sub-filters 132”), each Kalman sub-filter:
calculating navigation data corrections by intermittent hybridization, according to a resetting frequency comprised within a predetermined frequency range, of satellite positioning data provided by said receiver and non-satellite positioning data provided at least by said inertial measurement unit, the resetting frequency being distinct from one sub-filter to another ([0021]: “Each sub-filter in the inertial coasting monitor provides a solution that has not processed aiding data for a given number of seconds.”; [0029]: “For example, as shown in FIG. 2 , a first IC sub-filter 210 will have not processed aiding for 10 seconds (i.e., 10 Kalman filter (KF) cycles). A second IC sub-filter 220 will have not processed aiding for 20 seconds (20 KF cycles).”; [0063]: “All of the inertial coast solution separation Kalman filters are organized in a circular buffer. First, the oldest element in the circular buffer is updated with the most recent blended Kalman filter… Filters 2 (TWA=20) through N (TWA=N*10) are the next previous elements in the circular buffer.”; Examiner note: Each sub-filter is periodically re-initialized onto the main Kalman filter according to distinct periods of not processing aiding data.), and
outside the implementation of the intermittent hybridization, calculating navigation data corrections solely from the non-satellite positioning data provided by at least said inertial measurement unit ([0021]: “Each sub-filter in the inertial coasting monitor provides a solution that has not processed aiding data for a given number of seconds.”; [0061-0063]).
Regarding Claim 2, Morgan discloses: wherein said Kalman sub-filters are identical and independent ([0032]: “The inertial coast sub-filter organization contains the following information”; [0076]: “active and independent sub-filters”), the period corresponding to a verification period of the reliability of the positioning measurements by GNSS satellites ([0021]: “The IC sub-filters allow the highly accurate short term inertial coast capability of an embedded GPS/INS system for various “coast” times as a detection and recovery aid.”).
Regarding Claim 3, Morgan discloses: wherein the device checks the reliability of the positioning measurements by GNSS satellites by comparing, with a predetermined threshold, the difference between the state of each sub-filter, outside the implementation of the intermittent hybridization, and the state of said main Kalman filter ([0025]: “The position detection process 150 then computes a position threshold for each of the IC sub-filters, with the position threshold defined as a position uncertainty separation between the main navigation filter and each IC sub-filter (block 154). Thereafter, position detection process 150 compares the position discriminator to the position threshold, for each IC sub-filter, to detect if there is a fault in the aiding data (block 156).”), and,
in case of difference greater than the predetermined threshold, raises an alarm suitable for signaling a vulnerability of the positioning measurements by GNSS satellites ([0023]: “A failure will be declared (fail flag 1) if any of the sub-filters detect a failure.”; [0025]: “detect if there is a fault”).
Regarding Claim 4, Morgan discloses: wherein the device determines the predetermined threshold as a function of a probability of false alarm ([0074]: “The equation for the detection threshold … where: pfa=probability of false alert”).
Regarding Claim 5, Morgan discloses: wherein, in the event of raising an alarm, said main Kalman filter reconfigures itself on a predetermined Kalman sub-filter ([0029]: “Aiding exclusion involves reverting to the sub-filter least likely to be affected by the GPS threat event. This can be the TWA=10*N IC sub-filter”).
Regarding Claim 6, Morgan discloses: wherein the predetermined Kalman sub-filter on which said main Kalman filter reconfigures itself in the event of raising an alarm, is the Kalman sub-filter among said Kalman sub-filters the implementation of which of the intermittent hybridization is the farthest, in terms of time, from the moment of raising the alarm ([0029]: “This can be the TWA=10*N IC sub-filter”; Examiner note: The TWA=10*N sub-filter is that with the farthest time from the most recent intermittent hybridization.).
Regarding Claim 7, Morgan discloses: wherein said main Kalman filter no longer inputs the positioning measurements by GNSS satellites from the moment when said main Kalman filter initiates reconfiguration ([0095]: “If a fault is declared, then the blended Kalman filter will not process aiding measurements until the fault clears.”).
Regarding Claim 8, Morgan discloses: wherein in the event of raising an alarm, each Kalman sub-filter other than the predetermined sub-filter is also configured to reconfigure itself to the predetermined Kalman sub-filter ([0060]: “Prior to this processing, a filter re-initialization must occur if a GPS threat was detected.”; [0063]: “initialize all the sub-filters”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C.
102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the
statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a
new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection,
would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness
rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the
claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the
differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the
claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which
the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in
which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan (US 2024/0337762), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Brenner (US 5,760,737).
Regarding Claim 9, Morgan does not explicitly teach determining a protection radius as claimed.
However, Brenner is in the field of integrity monitoring for hybrid GPS and inertial navigation systems and teaches:
a navigation system comprising a main Kalman filter and Kalman sub-filters (Brenner [col. 11, lines 35-39]: “main Kalman filter”; “Kalman subfilters”),
wherein the system determines a radius of protection against vulnerability of the positioning measurements by GNSS satellites, the radius of protection ensuring that the value of the distance between the hybrid position provided from said main Kalman filter and the true position of the vehicle is less than the value of the radius of protection (Brenner [col. 1, lines 40-49]: “a maximum allowable radial error”; “The worst-case error, due to an undetected failure in a satellite, typically defines the radius of a horizontal circle centered on the receiver antenna, though it may also define a sphere or the height of a vertical boundary.”; [col. 7, lines 29-31]: “the scalar sum of D, and A therefore defines an upper bound for the protection limit of the full position solution.”), the radius of protection depending on the number of Kalman sub-filters (Brenner [col. 6, lines 25-27]: “the factor N accounts for the possibility of any one of the N subsolutions causing a false detection.”; Equation 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Morgan and determine a protection radius depending on the number of Kalman sub-filters, as taught by Brenner, with a reasonable expectation of success. Applying Brenner’s protection limit technique to Morgan’s navigation system yields the predictable result of improving the integrity of a positioning solution by bounding the error of the solution.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan (US 2024/0337762), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Vacher (EP 1956386 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Morgan teaches generating navigation solutions associated with the bank of Kalman sub-filters and the main Kalman filter, respectively ([0021]: “Each sub-filter in the inertial coasting monitor provides a solution”; [0068]: “x0 is the all measurement Kalman filter state vector”; [0069]: “xn is the sub-filter that has not processed aiding data”).
Morgan does not explicitly teach that the navigation solutions are output in parallel.
However, Vacher is in the field of integrity monitoring for hybrid GPS and inertial navigation systems and teaches:
a navigation system that propagates a navigation state with both satellite and inertial data, and a navigation state with solely inertial data, (Vacher [0048]: “a navigation state Xrec calculated conventionally by carrying out the fusion of the satellite data and the inertial data”; “a set of M navigation states XIP propagated solely by means of inertial data”),
wherein the system provides, at the output, in parallel, navigation solutions associated with the bank of Kalman sub-filters and the main Kalman filter, respectively (Vacher [0048]: “The navigation system then periodically provides … a navigation state Xrec … a set of M navigation states XIP”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Morgan and output, in parallel, the navigation solutions associated with the bank of Kalman sub-filters and the main Kalman filter, respectively, as taught by Vacher, with a reasonable expectation of success. Applying Vacher’s parallel output technique to Morgan’s navigation system yields the predictable result of making the already-calculated navigation solutions available for additional integrity processing.
Conclusion
The cited references made of record in the contemporaneously filed PTO-892 form and not relied upon in the instant office action are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, and may have one or more of the elements in Applicant’s disclosure and at least Claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH Y. ZHU whose telephone number is (571) 270-0170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-4PM.
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).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire, can be reached on (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.
/NOAH YI MIN ZHU/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/BRADY W FRAZIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights