DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 10/04/2024 Claims 1-14 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/27/2025 and 07/03/2025 have been considered by the examiner and initialed copies of the IDS are hereby attached.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of Lacaze (U.S. Patent No. 12123955). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the illustration below.
Application: claim 1
Patent: 12123955 claim 1
A method, comprising: receiving, by a receiver mounted to a vehicle at a first location, a plurality of satellite signals from a plurality of different remote transmitters
A radio detection and ranging (radar) apparatus comprising: an antenna module including first and second antenna elements configured to transmit and/or receive radio waves
determining, based on clear sky data at the first location, whether individual ones of the plurality of satellite signals are unobstructed signals or obstructed signals
receiving, by the receiver a plurality of signals from a plurality of different remote transmitters; identifying, based on the received signals and for each of the different remote transmitters, at least one of a bearing and an originating transmitter location; identifying, based on the clear sky data, a first subset of the plurality of signals that comprise at least one of bearings and originating transmitter locations within a predefined open sky range of bearings or originating transmitter locations, respectively
tracking movement of the vehicle to obtain movement data
wherein the instructions, when executed by the electronic processing device, further result in: tracking a movement of a vehicle; computing a new location of the vehicle; and updating the clear sky data based on the new location of the vehicle wherein the clear sky data is identified based on a current location of a vehicle.
and utilizing at least the unobstructed signals and the movement data to determine a geo-location of the vehicle
identifying, based on the clear sky data, a second subset of the plurality of signals that comprise at least one of bearings and originating transmitter locations within a predefined obstructed sky range of bearings or originating transmitter locations, respectively; and computing, based on the first subset of the plurality of signals, a localization solution
wherein the method is implemented by one or more processors coupled to memory.
An opportunistic navigation system, comprising: an electronic processing device; a receiver in communication with the electronic processing device; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing (i) clear sky data, and (ii) instructions that when executed by the electronic processing device result in
Claims 2-4, 11 and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12123955 in view of Lou (WO2021087514A1) and further in view of Melendez (Melendez-Carlos et. al, A data fusion system of GNSS data and on-vehicle sensors data for improving car positioning precision in urban environments, Expert Systems with Applications, Volume 80,2017,Pages 28-38).
Application claim 2
The method according to claim 1 wherein tracking movement includes monitoring movement of the vehicle from the first location to a second location different from the first location.
Melendez further teaches: wherein tracking movement includes monitoring movement of the vehicle from the first location to a second location different from the first location (Section 2.2.3 Data Fusion: “Sratio is the steering ratio, i.e. the quotient factor that relates the angle to which the steering wheel is turned and the angle to which the virtual central front wheel turns as a consequence; and Δt is the time elapsed between two consecutive samples, i.e.𝛥𝑡=𝑡𝑘−𝑡𝑘−1 if tk denotes the time when the kth sample is obtained.”) .
It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lacaze with Melendez to incorporate the feature of: tracking movement of the vehicle to obtain movement data; and utilizing at least the unobstructed signals and the movement data to determine a geo-location of the vehicle; wherein the method is implemented by one or more processors coupled to memory. Lacaze and Melendez are all considered analogous arts as they all disclose methods for satellite-based navigation. However, Lacaze fails to disclose a feature of using movement data to increase positioning accuracy. This feature is disclosed by Melendez. It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Lacaze with Melendez to incorporate the feature of: tracking movement of the vehicle to obtain movement data; and utilizing at least the unobstructed signals and the movement data to determine a geo-location of the vehicle; wherein the method is implemented by one or more processors coupled to memory as such a feature would increase the accuracy and efficiency of the system.
Application claim 3
The method according to claim 2 wherein tracking movement includes utilizing a motion sensor of the vehicle.
Melendez further teaches: wherein tracking movement includes utilizing a motion sensor of the vehicle (Section 2.1 Overview: “As far as this article is concerned, just the four wheel speed sensors, a lateral acceleration sensor, and a steering wheel angle sensor (Fig. 1b) were employed for relative positioning, along with a GNSS receiver for absolute positioning.”) .
The reasons for modifying Lou with Melendez are same as those given in claim 1 above.
The reasons for modifying Lacaze with Melendez are the same as those given in claim 2 above.
Application claim 4
The method according to claim 3 wherein the motion sensor includes an inertial measurement unit (IMU).
Lou further teaches: wherein the motion sensor includes an inertial measurement unit (IMU) (Para 0038: “Additionally or alternatively, embodiments may calibrate orientation sensors to help ensure accurate orientation. That is, by ensuring proper calibration, yaw correction 440 may be minimized. Such embodiments may include, for example, a GNSS-calibrated inertial measurement unit (IMU) in which the orientation of the IMU is calibrated using GNSS-based measurements.”).
The reasons for modifying Lacaze with Lou are the same as those given in claim 2 above.
Application claim 11
The method according to claim 1 wherein determining, based on clear sky data at the first location, whether individual ones of the plurality of satellite signals are unobstructed signals or obstructed signals includes comparing the individual ones of the plurality of satellite signals to the clear sky data for the first location.
Lou further teaches: wherein determining, based on clear sky data at the first location, whether individual ones of the plurality of satellite signals are unobstructed signals or obstructed signals includes comparing the individual ones of the plurality of satellite signals to the clear sky data for the first location (Para 0003: “Techniques described herein address these and other issues by obtaining an image, from a camera, of obstructions in the mobile device's environment where the obstructions block the view of the sky from the perspective of the mobile device. Orientation information regarding the camera can then be used to determine where, in the image, the horizon is situated, and which portions of the sky are blocked by the obstructions from the perspective of the mobile device. Information regarding the location of satellites in the sky can then be obtained, based on an estimated position of the mobile device. Obstructed satellites can then be identified by comparing the location of the satellites with the portions of the sky that are blocked. “).
The reasons for modifying Lacaze with Lou are same as those given in claim 2 above.
Application 14
The method according to claim 2 further including: receiving, by the receiver, an additional plurality of satellite signals from an additional plurality of satellites; determining, based on clear sky data at the second location, whether individual ones of the plurality of satellite signals are unobstructed signals or obstructed signals; and utilizing at least the unobstructed signals to determine a geo-location of the vehicle at the second location.
Lou further teaches: receiving, by the receiver, an additional plurality of satellite signals from an additional plurality of satellites (Para 0002: “Mobile phones, vehicles, and other modern mobile devices often use position information to provide various types of functionality. Often times, these devices will use Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS), such as Global positioning system (GPS) and/or similar satellite-based positioning technologies to obtain this positioning information”) ; determining, based on clear sky data at the second location, whether individual ones of the plurality of satellite signals are unobstructed signals or obstructed signals (Para 0004: “Techniques described herein address these and other issues by obtaining an image, from a camera, of obstructions in the mobile device’s environment where the obstructions block the view of the sky from the perspective of the mobile device. Orientation information regarding the camera can then be used to determine where, in the image, the horizon is situated, and which portions of the sky are blocked by the obstructions from the perspective of the mobile device. Information regarding the location of satellites in the sky can then be obtained, based on an estimated position of the mobile device. Obstructed satellites can then be identified by comparing the location of the satellites with the portions of the sky that are blocked. “).
Melendez further teaches: and utilizing at least the unobstructed signals to determine a geo-location of the vehicle at the second location (Figure 1; Section 5 Discussion: “The main finding of this study is that on-vehicle sensors data can be employed through the proposed data fusion system for improving the car positioning precision provided by a standalone low-cost GNSS receiver. The positioning precision improvement can reach up to 50% in terms of the RMSE, 50% in terms of the 95th-percentile of the distance error distribution, and 75% in terms of the maximum distance error.”).
The reasons for modifying Lacaze with a combination of Lou and Melendez are same as those given in claim 2 above.
Claim 5 ais rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 Lacaze (U.S. Patent No. 12123955) in view of Lou (WO2021087514A1) in view of Melendez (Melendez-Carlos et. al, A data fusion system of GNSS data and on-vehicle sensors data for improving car positioning precision in urban environments, Expert Systems with Applications, Volume 80,2017, Pages 28-38) and further in view of Aoki (JP2008170214A).
Application claim 5
The method according to claim 3 including updating the clear sky data based on the second location of the vehicle.
Lou does not teach “updating the clear sky data based on the second location of the vehicle”.
However, Aoki in the analogous arts teaches: updating the clear sky data based on the second location of the vehicle (Page 12: “FIG. 7 is a diagram illustrating a data configuration example of the satellite sky position data 73. In the satellite sky position data 73, a satellite number 731 and an azimuth angle 733 and an elevation angle 735, which are the sky positions of the satellite, are stored in association with each other. The azimuth angle 733 is expressed as an angle with true north as “0 °” and positive in the clockwise direction, for example, and the elevation angle 735 is expressed as an angle with “0 °” in the horizon and “90 °” in the zenith. . In the main process, the CPU 30 calculates the satellite sky position based on the map matching result position and the satellite information, and updates the satellite sky position data 73 with the satellite sky position.”)
It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lacaze with Aoki to incorporate the feature of: updating the clear sky data based on the second location of the vehicle. Lacaze and Aoki are all considered analogous arts as they all disclose methods for satellite-based navigation. However, Lacaze fails to disclose a feature of updating clear sky data. This feature is disclosed by Aoki. It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Lacaze with Aoki to incorporate the feature of : updating the clear sky data based on the second location of the vehicle as such a feature would increase the accuracy and efficiency of the system.
Claims 6-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Lacaze (U.S. Patent No. 12123955) in view of Lou (WO2021087514A1) in view of Melendez (Melendez-Carlos et. al, A data fusion system of GNSS data and on-vehicle sensors data for improving car positioning precision in urban environments, Expert Systems with Applications, Volume 80,2017,Pages 28-38) and further in view of Liu (US20140070991A1).
Application claim 6
The method according to claim 1, further comprising: utilizing a masking device to process the individual ones of the plurality of satellite signals.
Liu in the analogous arts teaches: utilizing a masking device to process the individual ones of the plurality of satellite signals (Para 0028: “Any GPS signals that are below the threshold can be filtered out and not analyzed further. Such a configuration can separate unobstructed line of sight GPS satellite from obstructed GPS satellites. These relatively weaker signals of the obstructed GPS satellites can be filtered out and eliminated from the visible set. From another perspective, the GPS signals that fall below the predefined threshold can be considered as indicators of a possible obstruction.”).
It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lacaze with Liu to incorporate the feature of: utilizing a masking device to process the individual ones of the plurality of satellite signals. Lacaze and Liu are all considered analogous arts as they all disclose methods for satellite-based navigation. However, Lacaze fails to disclose a feature of using a masking device to process satellite data. This feature is disclosed by Liu. It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Lacaze with Liu to incorporate the feature of: utilizing a masking device to process the individual ones of the plurality of satellite signals as such a feature would increase the accuracy and efficiency of the system.
Application claim 7
The method according to claim 6 including identifying with the masking device the unobstructed signals and the obstructed signals.
Liu further teaches: including identifying with the masking device the unobstructed signals and the obstructed signals (Para 0028: “Any GPS signals that are below the threshold can be filtered out and not analyzed further. Such a configuration can separate unobstructed line of sight GPS satellite from obstructed GPS satellites. These relatively weaker signals of the obstructed GPS satellites can be filtered out and eliminated from the visible set. From another perspective, the GPS signals that fall below the predefined threshold can be considered as indicators of a possible obstruction.”).
The reasons for modifying Lacaze with Liu are same as those given in claim 6 above.
Application claim 8
The method according to claim 6 including blocking the obstructed signals with the masking device from the receiver.
Liu further teaches: including blocking the obstructed signals with the masking device from the receiver(Para 0028: “Any GPS signals that are below the threshold can be filtered out and not analyzed further. Such a configuration can separate unobstructed line of sight GPS satellite from obstructed GPS satellites. These relatively weaker signals of the obstructed GPS satellites can be filtered out and eliminated from the visible set. From another perspective, the GPS signals that fall below the predefined threshold can be considered as indicators of a possible obstruction.”).
The reasons for modifying Lacaze with Liu are same as those given in claim 6 above.
Application claim 9
The method according to claim 1 including utilizing at least some of the obstructed signals to determine a geo-location of the vehicle.
Lou does not teach “including utilizing at least some of the obstructed signals to determine a geo-location of the vehicle “.
However, Liu in the analogous arts teaches: including utilizing at least some of the obstructed signals to determine a geo-location of the vehicle (Para 0028: “In some implementations, the obstruction-detection module 220 can employ various techniques to address multipath propagation of satellite signals. In some cases, signals from an individual GPS satellite can be reflected from nearby objects such as tall buildings. The reflected signals can then be received by the mobile device 202. One technique that can be utilized by the obstruction-detection module is a comparison of the received GPS signal to a signal threshold of a predefined (or dynamically determined) value. For example, received GPS signals can be compared to the predefined threshold. Any GPS signals that are below the threshold can be filtered out and not analyzed further. Such a configuration can separate unobstructed line of sight GPS satellite from obstructed GPS satellites. These relatively weaker signals of the obstructed GPS satellites can be filtered out and eliminated from the visible set. From another perspective, the GPS signals that fall below the predefined threshold can be considered as indicators of a possible obstruction. The indicators can then be used as a trigger to perform further analysis on the received GPS signals to identify and/or locate the obstruction and/or refine the location of the mobile device.”).
The reasons for modifying Lacaze with Liu are same as those given in claim 6 above.
Application claim 10
The method according to claim 9 including assigning a mathematical weighting to the at least some of the obstructed signals to determine the geo-location of the vehicle.
Lou further teaches: including assigning a mathematical weighting to the at least some of the obstructed signals to determine the geo-location of the vehicle (Para 0004: “The method also comprises determining, based on an estimated position of the mobile device, locations of a plurality of satellite vehicles (SVs) in the sky, from the perspective of the mobile device, determining, based on the locations of the plurality of SVs and the one or more obstructed portions of the sky, one or more obstructed SVs of the plurality of SVs, obtaining satellite information from each SV of the plurality of SVs; and making the GNSS position determination of the mobile device. Making the GNSS position determination comprises disregarding or de-weighting the respective satellite information obtained from each of the one or more obstructed SVs.”).
The reasons for modifying Lacaze with Lou are same as those given in claim 6 above.
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 1-4, 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Lou (WO2021087514A1) in view of Melendez (Melendez-Carlos et. al, A data fusion system of GNSS data and on-vehicle sensors data for improving car positioning precision in urban environments, Expert Systems with Applications, Volume 80,2017, Pages 28-38).
Regarding claim 1 Lou discloses: A method, comprising: receiving, by a receiver mounted to a vehicle at a first location, a plurality of satellite signals from a plurality of different remote transmitters (Para 0002: “Mobile phones, vehicles, and other modern mobile devices often use position information to provide various types of functionality. Often times, these devices will use Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS), such as Global positioning system (GPS) and/or similar satellite-based positioning technologies to obtain this positioning information”) ; determining, based on clear sky data at the first location, whether individual ones of the plurality of satellite signals are unobstructed signals or obstructed signals (Para 0004: “Techniques described herein address these and other issues by obtaining an image, from a camera, of obstructions in the mobile device’s environment where the obstructions block the view of the sky from the perspective of the mobile device. Orientation information regarding the camera can then be used to determine where, in the image, the horizon is situated, and which portions of the sky are blocked by the obstructions from the perspective of the mobile device. Information regarding the location of satellites in the sky can then be obtained, based on an estimated position of the mobile device. Obstructed satellites can then be identified by comparing the location of the satellites with the portions of the sky that are blocked. “).
Lou does not teach “tracking movement of the vehicle to obtain movement data; and utilizing at least the unobstructed signals and the movement data to determine a geo-location of the vehicle; wherein the method is implemented by one or more processors coupled to memory “.
However, Melendez in the analogous arts teaches: tracking movement of the vehicle to obtain movement data (Section 2.1: “The proposed data fusion system, whose main building blocks (Fig. 1a) could be deployed in a microcontroller-based system, takes as input GNSS data, along with data for relative positioning coming from other on-vehicle sensors (Fig. 1b). As far as this article is concerned, just the four wheel speed sensors, a lateral acceleration sensor, and a steering wheel angle sensor (Fig. 1b) were employed for relative positioning, along with a GNSS receiver for absolute positioning.”); and utilizing at least the unobstructed signals and the movement data to determine a geo-location of the vehicle (Figure 1; Section 5 Discussion: “The main finding of this study is that on-vehicle sensors data can be employed through the proposed data fusion system for improving the car positioning precision provided by a standalone low-cost GNSS receiver. The positioning precision improvement can reach up to 50% in terms of the RMSE, 50% in terms of the 95th-percentile of the distance error distribution, and 75% in terms of the maximum distance error.”); wherein the method is implemented by one or more processors coupled to memory (Section 2.1 Overview: “The data supplied by the aforementioned sensors, following the scheme depicted in Fig. 1a, is then preprocessed and, thereafter, combined via the Extended Kalman Filter. By taking into account all the redundant data, this system provides a more precise estimation of the actual state of the vehicle.”).
It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lou with Melendez to incorporate the feature of: tracking movement of the vehicle to obtain movement data; and utilizing at least the unobstructed signals and the movement data to determine a geo-location of the vehicle; wherein the method is implemented by one or more processors coupled to memory. Lou and Melendez are all considered analogous arts as they all disclose methods for satellite-based navigation. However, Lou fails to disclose a feature of using movement data to increase positioning accuracy. This feature is disclosed by Melendez. It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Lou with Melendez to incorporate the feature of: tracking movement of the vehicle to obtain movement data; and utilizing at least the unobstructed signals and the movement data to determine a geo-location of the vehicle; wherein the method is implemented by one or more processors coupled to memory as such a feature would increase the accuracy and efficiency of the system.
Regarding claim 2 the combination of Lou and Melendez discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Melendez further teaches: wherein tracking movement includes monitoring movement of the vehicle from the first location to a second location different from the first location (Section 2.2.3 Data Fusion: “Sratio is the steering ratio, i.e. the quotient factor that relates the angle to which the steering wheel is turned and the angle to which the virtual central front wheel turns as a consequence; and Δt is the time elapsed between two consecutive samples, i.e.𝛥𝑡=𝑡𝑘−𝑡𝑘−1 if tk denotes the time when the kth sample is obtained.”) .
The reasons for modifying Lou with Melendez are same as those given in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3 the combination of Lou and Melendez discloses all the limitations of claim 2. Melendez further teaches: wherein tracking movement includes utilizing a motion sensor of the vehicle (Section 2.1 Overview: “As far as this article is concerned, just the four wheel speed sensors, a lateral acceleration sensor, and a steering wheel angle sensor (Fig. 1b) were employed for relative positioning, along with a GNSS receiver for absolute positioning.”) .
The reasons for modifying Lou with Melendez are same as those given in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4 the combination of Lou and Melendez discloses all the limitations of claim 3. Lou further teaches: wherein the motion sensor includes an inertial measurement unit (IMU) (Para 0038: “Additionally or alternatively, embodiments may calibrate orientation sensors to help ensure accurate orientation. That is, by ensuring proper calibration, yaw correction 440 may be minimized. Such embodiments may include, for example, a GNSS-calibrated inertial measurement unit (IMU) in which the orientation of the IMU is calibrated using GNSS-based measurements.”).
Regarding claim 11 the combination of Lou and Melendez discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Lou further teaches: wherein determining, based on clear sky data at the first location, whether individual ones of the plurality of satellite signals are unobstructed signals or obstructed signals includes comparing the individual ones of the plurality of satellite signals to the clear sky data for the first location (Para 0003: “Techniques described herein address these and other issues by obtaining an image, from a camera, of obstructions in the mobile device's environment where the obstructions block the view of the sky from the perspective of the mobile device. Orientation information regarding the camera can then be used to determine where, in the image, the horizon is situated, and which portions of the sky are blocked by the obstructions from the perspective of the mobile device. Information regarding the location of satellites in the sky can then be obtained, based on an estimated position of the mobile device. Obstructed satellites can then be identified by comparing the location of the satellites with the portions of the sky that are blocked. “).
Regarding claim 14 the combination of Lou and Melendez discloses all the limitations of claim 2. Lou further teaches: receiving, by the receiver, an additional plurality of satellite signals from an additional plurality of satellites (Para 0002: “Mobile phones, vehicles, and other modern mobile devices often use position information to provide various types of functionality. Often times, these devices will use Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS), such as Global positioning system (GPS) and/or similar satellite-based positioning technologies to obtain this positioning information”) ; determining, based on clear sky data at the second location, whether individual ones of the plurality of satellite signals are unobstructed signals or obstructed signals (Para 0004: “Techniques described herein address these and other issues by obtaining an image, from a camera, of obstructions in the mobile device’s environment where the obstructions block the view of the sky from the perspective of the mobile device. Orientation information regarding the camera can then be used to determine where, in the image, the horizon is situated, and which portions of the sky are blocked by the obstructions from the perspective of the mobile device. Information regarding the location of satellites in the sky can then be obtained, based on an estimated position of the mobile device. Obstructed satellites can then be identified by comparing the location of the satellites with the portions of the sky that are blocked. “).
Melendez further teaches: and utilizing at least the unobstructed signals to determine a geo-location of the vehicle at the second location (Figure 1; Section 5 Discussion: “The main finding of this study is that on-vehicle sensors data can be employed through the proposed data fusion system for improving the car positioning precision provided by a standalone low-cost GNSS receiver. The positioning precision improvement can reach up to 50% in terms of the RMSE, 50% in terms of the 95th-percentile of the distance error distribution, and 75% in terms of the maximum distance error.”).
The reasons for modifying Lou with Melendez are same as those given in claim 1 above.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Lou (WO2021087514A1) in view of Melendez ( Melendez-Carlos et. al., A data fusion system of GNSS data and on-vehicle sensors data for improving car positioning precision in urban environments, Expert Systems with Applications, Volume 80,2017, Pages 28-38) and further in view of Aoki (JP2008170214A).
Regarding claim 5 the combination of Lou and Melendez discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Lou does not teach “updating the clear sky data based on the second location of the vehicle”.
However, Aoki in the analogous arts teaches: updating the clear sky data based on the second location of the vehicle (Page 12: “FIG. 7 is a diagram illustrating a data configuration example of the satellite sky position data 73. In the satellite sky position data 73, a satellite number 731 and an azimuth angle 733 and an elevation angle 735, which are the sky positions of the satellite, are stored in association with each other. The azimuth angle 733 is expressed as an angle with true north as “0 °” and positive in the clockwise direction, for example, and the elevation angle 735 is expressed as an angle with “0 °” in the horizon and “90 °” in the zenith. . In the main process, the CPU 30 calculates the satellite sky position based on the map matching result position and the satellite information, and updates the satellite sky position data 73 with the satellite sky position.”)
It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lou with Aoki to incorporate the feature of: updating the clear sky data based on the second location of the vehicle. Lou and Aoki are all considered analogous arts as they all disclose methods for satellite-based navigation. However, Lou fails to disclose a feature of updating clear sky data. This feature is disclosed by Aoki. It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Lou with Aoki to incorporate the feature of : updating the clear sky data based on the second location of the vehicle as such a feature would increase the accuracy and efficiency of the system.
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Lou (WO2021087514A1) in view of Melendez (Melendez-Carlos et. al., A data fusion system of GNSS data and on-vehicle sensors data for improving car positioning precision in urban environments, Expert Systems with Applications, Volume 80,2017,Pages 28-38) and further in view of Liu (US20140070991A1).
Regarding claim 6 the combination of Lou and Melendez discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Lou does not teach “utilizing a masking device to process the individual ones of the plurality of satellite signals “.
However, Liu in the analogous arts teaches: utilizing a masking device to process the individual ones of the plurality of satellite signals (Para 0028: “Any GPS signals that are below the threshold can be filtered out and not analyzed further. Such a configuration can separate unobstructed line of sight GPS satellite from obstructed GPS satellites. These relatively weaker signals of the obstructed GPS satellites can be filtered out and eliminated from the visible set. From another perspective, the GPS signals that fall below the predefined threshold can be considered as indicators of a possible obstruction.”).
It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lou with Liu to incorporate the feature of: utilizing a masking device to process the individual ones of the plurality of satellite signals. Lou and Liu are all considered analogous arts as they all disclose methods for satellite-based navigation. However, Lou fails to disclose a feature of using a masking device to process satellite data. This feature is disclosed by Liu. It would have been obvious to someone in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Lou with Liu to incorporate the feature of: utilizing a masking device to process the individual ones of the plurality of satellite signals as such a feature would increase the accuracy and efficiency of the system.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Lou, Melendez and Liu discloses all the limitations of claim 6. Liu further teaches: including identifying with the masking device the unobstructed signals and the obstructed signals (Para 0028: “Any GPS signals that are below the threshold can be filtered out and not analyzed further. Such a configuration can separate unobstructed line of sight GPS satellite from obstructed GPS satellites. These relatively weaker signals of the obstructed GPS satellites can be filtered out and eliminated from the visible set. From another perspective, the GPS signals that fall below the predefined threshold can be considered as indicators of a possible obstruction.”).
The reasons for modifying Lou with Liu are same as those given in claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Lou, Melendez and Liu discloses all the limitations of claim 6. Liu further teaches: including blocking the obstructed signals with the masking device from the receiver(Para 0028: “Any GPS signals that are below the threshold can be filtered out and not analyzed further. Such a configuration can separate unobstructed line of sight GPS satellite from obstructed GPS satellites. These relatively weaker signals of the obstructed GPS satellites can be filtered out and eliminated from the visible set. From another perspective, the GPS signals that fall below the predefined threshold can be considered as indicators of a possible obstruction.”).
The reasons for modifying Lou with Liu are same as those given in claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Lou and Melendez discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Lou does not teach “including utilizing at least some of the obstructed signals to determine a geo-location of the vehicle “.
However, Liu in the analogous arts teaches: including utilizing at least some of the obstructed signals to determine a geo-location of the vehicle (Para 0028: “In some implementations, the obstruction-detection module 220 can employ various techniques to address multipath propagation of satellite signals. In some cases, signals from an individual GPS satellite can be reflected from nearby objects such as tall buildings. The reflected signals can then be received by the mobile device 202. One technique that can be utilized by the obstruction-detection module is a comparison of the received GPS signal to a signal threshold of a predefined (or dynamically determined) value. For example, received GPS signals can be compared to the predefined threshold. Any GPS signals that are below the threshold can be filtered out and not analyzed further. Such a configuration can separate unobstructed line of sight GPS satellite from obstructed GPS satellites. These relatively weaker signals of the obstructed GPS satellites can be filtered out and eliminated from the visible set. From another perspective, the GPS signals that fall below the predefined threshold can be considered as indicators of a possible obstruction. The indicators can then be used as a trigger to perform further analysis on the received GPS signals to identify and/or locate the obstruction and/or refine the location of the mobile device.”).
The reasons for modifying Lou with Liu are same as those given in claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 10 the combination of Lou, Melendez and Liu discloses all the limitations of claim 9. Lou further teaches: including assigning a mathematical weighting to the at least some of the obstructed signals to determine the geo-location of the vehicle (Para 0004: “The method also comprises determining, based on an estimated position of the mobile device, locations of a plurality of satellite vehicles (SVs) in the sky, from the perspective of the mobile device, determining, based on the locations of the plurality of SVs and the one or more obstructed portions of the sky, one or more obstructed SVs of the plurality of SVs, obtaining satellite information from each SV of the plurality of SVs; and making the GNSS position determination of the mobile device. Making the GNSS position determination comprises disregarding or de-weighting the respective satellite information obtained from each of the one or more obstructed SVs.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13 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 and claim 1 is rewritten to overcome the Double Patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 12 the combination of Lou and Melendez discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Lou does not teach “orientating at least an antenna of the receiver to one of a bearing or direction identified as clear sky by the clear sky data”.
In reference to depend/independent claim 12, the prior arts made of record individually or in any combination, failed to teach, render obvious, or fairly suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the combination of the claimed features of claim 12. Specifically, the prior arts made of record fail to disclose the limitation: “including orientating at least an antenna of the receiver to one of a bearing or direction identified as clear sky by the clear sky data.“.
Claim 13 is also allowable due to its dependence on allowable claim 12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bongani J. Mashele whose telephone number is (703)756-5861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00AM-5:00PM (CT).
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 H. Desai, can be reached on 571-270-7792. 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.
/BONGANI JABULANI MASHELE/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/TIMOTHY A BRAINARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
