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 EP23210075.0 filed 11/15/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 4/7/2025 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 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 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.
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 6 is 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 6 recites “The method of claim .” It is not clear upon which claim, claim 6 depends on. The applicant needs to clarify. For the purpose of examination, it is considered that claim 6 depends on claim 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 9-11, 17 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brocard et al. (US 2024/0134065 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Brocard et al. (‘065) anticipates “a method carried out by at least one of a navigation satellite system (NSS) receiver (paragraph 20: the set of satellite observations can include satellite observations corresponding to satellites from one or more satellite constellation (e.g., Global Positioning System (GPS), GLObal Navigation Satellite System (GLONASS), BeiDou positioning System (BDS), Galileo, Navigation with Indian Constellation (NavIC), Quasi-Zenith Satellite System (QZSS), GPS Aided Geo Augmented Navigation (GAGAN), etc.) and
a processing entity capable of receiving data from the NSS receiver (paragraph 23: The computing system preferably functions to process the data (e.g., satellite observations, reference station observations, sensor data, etc.) received by the GNSS receiver(s) and/or the reference station(s)),
for estimating a position and generating at least one protection level associated with the estimated position (paragraph 23: the computing system can: determine GNSS corrections (e.g., based on the reference station satellite observations), filter the data (e.g., to calculate state vectors, ambiguities such as phase ambiguities, etc. associated with the data), calculate the GNSS receiver positioning solution (e.g., GNSS receiver location, velocity, attitude, etc.), calculate an integrity of the solution (e.g., the protection level, the integrity risk, etc.)),
wherein a protection level is a statistical error bound ensuring that the estimated position only exceeds the protection level with a probability, hereinafter referred to as “integrity risk” (paragraph 10: he system and method preferably function to determine (e.g., calculate, estimate, predict, etc.) and monitor (e.g., determine whether the information meets a threshold necessary for safety) GNSS corrections, which can enable determination of a receiver kinematic solution with a high accuracy (e.g., cm-level, dm-level, m-level, etc.), availability, integrity, and/or other property; paragraph 23: determine GNSS corrections (e.g., based on the reference station satellite observations), filter the data (e.g., to calculate state vectors, ambiguities such as phase ambiguities, etc. associated with the data), calculate the GNSS receiver positioning solution (e.g., GNSS receiver location, velocity, attitude, etc.), calculate an integrity of the solution (e.g., the protection level, the integrity risk, etc.)), the method comprising:
operating an estimation process, hereinafter referred to as “integrity estimator”, wherein the integrity estimator uses state variables and computes values of its state variables positioning solution, monitor the corrections, monitor the positioning solution, correct the data (e.g., correct the satellite observations for clock errors, hardware bias, atmospheric effects, etc.), and/or can process the data in any suitable manner) (paragraph 23: The computing system can: determine GNSS corrections (e.g., based on the reference station satellite observations), filter the data (e.g., to calculate state vectors, ambiguities such as phase ambiguities, etc. associated with the data), calculate the GNSS receiver positioning solution (e.g., GNSS receiver location, velocity, attitude, etc.), calculate an integrity of the solution (e.g., the protection level, the integrity risk, etc.), calculate the external system (e.g., vehicle, rover, etc.) at least based on:
data, hereinafter referred to as “time-propagated, IMU-based data”, derived from data from an inertial measurement unit suitable for estimating a change in position of the NSS receiver, and timely NSS observations made by the NSS receiver (paragraph 37: he positioning engine can determine (e.g., estimate) an integrity (e.g., a protection level, horizontal protection level, vertical protection level, protection level in a direction of travel, protection level orthogonal to a direction of travel, etc.) of the positioning solution by iteratively evaluating, for a plurality of target integrity risks, a relationship between each target integrity risk and a number of feared events, an impact of each feared event, a probability of the feared event occurring, and a probability of missed detection of the feared event. In this specific example, the plurality of target integrity risks can depend on the age of integrity (e.g., each integrity risk of the plurality can be chosen based on the age of integrity, a bounding integrity risk of the plurality can be set based on the age of integrity, etc. such as the most recent age of integrity, potential values of the age of integrity given the time since a previous age of integrity was determined, etc.), the list of feared events, an application of the external system, a necessary integrity risk to ensure safe operation, and/or based on any suitable information. Variations of this specific example can leverage sensor measurements (e.g., inertial measurement unit (IMU), inertial and magnetic measurement unit (IMMU), wheel tick, etc. sensors)), wherein the integrity estimator uses, among other state variables, a plurality of state variables, hereinafter referred to as “position error history state variable set”, representing estimated errors in a position of the NSS receiver at a plurality of epochs preceding an estimation epoch (paragraph 33: when an integrity monitor using given epoch of satellite observations from reference stations does not provide an integrity flag, the age of integrity can be extended back to a preceding epoch where all integrity monitors provided an integrity flag…in other variants (particularly but not exclusively, when in preceding epochs full integrity monitor information is available, when a bounding violation is observed within a threshold number of preceding epochs, when a received integrity flag from an integrity monitor indicates a bounding violation such as a residual exceeding a bounding threshold, when a higher accuracy integrity monitor provides an integrity flag, etc.), the age of integrity can be determined based on the monitored reference observations (e.g., based on the integrity monitor alerts that are received by the positioning engine, as shown for example in FIG. 3D, etc.). However, the age of integrity can be determined in any suitable manner in variants that use a plurality of integrity monitors); and
generating, for the estimation epoch, an estimated position, hereinafter referred to as “time-propagated, NSS-based estimated position”, of the NSS receiver and at least one protection level, hereinafter referred to as “time-propagated protection level set”, associated with the time-propagated, NSS-based estimated position (paragraph 38: When a plurality of integrity flags are generated (e.g., from a plurality of corrections monitors, from a corrections generator and a corrections monitor, etc.), the positioning engine preferably combines the integrity flags, where the combined integrity flags is used to determine the age of integrity. For example, the integrity flags can be combined using logic functions such as an OR function where when either integrity flag indicates the GNSS corrections are not okay the positioning engine could use a previous epoch of measurements (when the GNSS corrections were indicated to be okay) to determine an age of integrity, the positioning engine could proceed indicating that the positioning solution may not achieve a target integrity, and/or the positioning engine can otherwise operate; paragraph 58: transmitting the GNSS corrections preferably includes transmitting an integrity message. The integrity message can include an epoch associated with satellite observations used to monitor the corrections (e.g., a monitoring epoch associated with monitoring satellite observations), an integrity flag associated with the corrections (e.g., a flag associated with whether or not corrections have less than a threshold probability of being used to generate a positioning solution with an error greater than a threshold error), which correction(s) were monitored (e.g., associated with the epoch of satellite observations that were used to monitor the correction(s)), a time (e.g., timestamp) associated with when measurements were transmitted (e.g., from a reference station), a time (e.g., timestamp) associated with when measurements were received (e.g., by an integrity chain), a time (e.g., timestamp) associated with an integrity message was generated (e.g., by an integrity chain), a time (e.g., timestamp) associated with when an integrity message was transmitted (e.g., from a reference station), a time (e.g., timestamp) associated with when an integrity message was received (e.g., at a rover, at a GNSS receiver, etc.), a time when the corrections were generated, and/or any suitable data and/or information can be included in the integrity message. The integrity message can be transmitted in the same or a different message as the corrections data), at least based on:
the position error history state variable set (paragraph 37: he integrity risk can be variable (e.g., depend on the age of integrity). For instance, for a fixed protection level (such as 1 m, 2 m, 5 m, 10 m, etc.), the integrity risk can be varied to determine the integrity risk that the fixed protection level can be achieved);
an estimated position, hereinafter referred to as the “IMU-based estimated position”, of the NSS receiver computed based on data from the inertial measurement unit (paragraph 65: S500 can include propagating the propagating the positioning solution determined at the start of the age of integrity (e.g., at time t-age of integrity) with IMU measurements);
a delayed estimated position that is applicable to an epoch preceding the estimation epoch and that has been computed based on NSS observations made by the NSS receiver; and at least one delayed protection level, hereinafter referred to as “delayed protection level set”, associated with the delayed estimated position (paragraph 37: he plurality of target integrity risks can depend on the age of integrity (e.g., each integrity risk of the plurality can be chosen based on the age of integrity, a bounding integrity risk of the plurality can be set based on the age of integrity, etc. such as the most recent age of integrity, potential values of the age of integrity given the time since a previous age of integrity was determined, etc.); paragraph 66: the positioning engine integrity monitor can include a time to alert which can be compared to a threshold (e.g., 4 s, 5 s, 7 s, 10 s, 20 s, 30 s, etc.). When the time to alert exceeds the threshold, the positioning engine can purge the satellite observations and/or corrections, can rely on dead reckoning positioning (e.g., operate as a fusion engine), identify the corrections as unavailable, and/or can otherwise operate and/or respond. As the lack of corrections through delay or communication outage typically will not cause a hazard (e.g., only presents an availability problem) the requirements on TTA are generally not safety critical; paragraph 69: generating the GNSS corrections can include generating the GNSS corrections using a Gaussian process, wherein the GNSS corrections comprise independent corrections for an atmospheric delay, a satellite clock delay, a satellite hardware bias, and a satellite orbit offset. In variations of the second illustrative example, the method can include at a second corrections integrity chain, during a second integrity checking time, checking global navigation satellite signals (GNSS) corrections for the integrity violation and generating a second integrity flag for whether there the integrity violation has occurred; wherein the positioning engine processes the second integrity flag, and where the age of integrity comprises the greater of an age of integrity determined based on the corrections integrity chain and an age of integrity determined based on the second corrections integrity chain. In variations of the second illustrative example, the second corrections integrity chain can be independent of the corrections integrity chain).”
Regarding claim 2, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Brocard et al. (‘065) anticipates the method of claim 1. Brocard et al. (‘065) further anticipates “buffering the IMU-based estimated position prior to using it in generating the time-propagated, NSS-based estimated position and the time-propagated protection level set (paragraph 65: S500 can include propagating the propagating the positioning solution determined at the start of the age of integrity (e.g., at time t-age of integrity) with IMU measurements).”
Regarding claim 3, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Brocard et al. (‘065) anticipates the method of claim 1. Brocard et al. (‘065) further anticipates “generating the time-propagated, NSS-based estimated position and the time-propagated protection level set (paragraph 9: As shown in FIG. 2, the method can include receiving satellite observations S100, determining GNSS corrections S200, monitoring the GNSS corrections S300, transmitting the GNSS corrections and monitor result S400, determining a GNSS receiver positioning solution S500) comprises:
generating a corrected change in position, hereinafter referred to as “corrected delta position” (paragraph 24: the computing system can include a corrections generator (e.g., configured to determine corrections; paragraph 53: the corrections can enable a high accuracy estimated position), and at least one corrected change in protection level, hereinafter referred to as “corrected delta protection level set”, based on the position error history state variable set (paragraph 23: calculate an integrity of the solution (e.g., the protection level, the integrity risk, etc.)… calculate state vectors, ambiguities such as phase ambiguities, etc. associated with the data));
the IMU-based estimated position (paragraph 37: sensor measurements (e.g., inertial measurement unit (IMU)); and
generating the time-propagated, NSS-based estimated position (paragraph 24: determine a correction integrity age (e.g., CIA, age of integrity, etc.) using at least one of the timestamp associated with the first epoch or the timestamp associated with the second epoch) and
the time-propagated protection level set based on: the corrected delta position; the corrected delta protection level set; the delayed estimated position; and the delayed protection level set (paragraph 37: the positioning engine can determine (e.g., estimate) an integrity (e.g., a protection level…he positioning engine can determine (e.g., estimate) an integrity (e.g., a protection level, horizontal horizontal protection level, vertical protection level, protection level in a direction of travel, protection level orthogonal to a direction of travel, etc.) of the positioning solution by iteratively evaluating, for a plurality of target integrity risks, a relationship between each target integrity risk and a number of feared events, an impact of each feared event, a probability of the feared event occurring, and a probability of missed detection of the feared event…the plurality of target integrity risks can depend on the age of integrity (e.g., each integrity risk of the plurality can be chosen based on the age of integrity, a bounding integrity risk of the plurality can be set based on the age of integrity, etc. such as the most recent age of integrity, potential values of the age of integrity given the time since a previous age of integrity was determined, etc.), the list of feared events, an application of the external system).”
Regarding claim 9, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Brocard et al. (‘065) anticipates the method of claim 1. Brocard et al. (‘065) further anticipates “operating a process, hereinafter referred to as “inertial navigator”, receiving acceleration and angular velocity measurements from the inertial measurement unit and time-propagating position, velocity and attitude data based on the acceleration and angular velocity measurements, wherein the time-propagated position, velocity and attitude data are provided to the integrity estimator (paragraph 23: calculate the GNSS receiver positioning solution (e.g., GNSS receiver location, velocity, attitude, etc.), calculate an integrity of the solution (e.g., the protection level, the integrity risk, etc.; paragraph 24: positioning engine (e.g., configured to determine a kinematic solution such as position, velocity, attitude, etc. for a GNSS receiver or associated external system); paragraph 33: GNSS receiver positioning solutions (e.g., kinematic solutions; such as position, velocity, attitude, acceleration, etc.); paragrqaph 59: Determining the GNSS receiver positioning solution S500 preferably functions to determine (e.g., estimate, calculate, etc.) a kinematic solution (e.g., position, velocity, attitude, time, etc.) of the GNSS receiver).”
Regarding claim 10, which is dependent on claim 9, Brocard et al. (‘065) anticipates the method of claim 9. Brocard et al. (‘065) further anticipates “the inertial navigator receives corrections from the integrity estimator (paragraph 37: leverage sensor measurements (e.g., inertial measurement unit (IMU), inertial and magnetic measurement unit (IMMU), wheel tick, etc. sensors). In a second specific example (that can be used in combination or isolation of the preceding example), the positioning engine can determine the integrity of the positioning solution).”
Regarding claim 11, which is dependent on claim 9, Brocard et al. (‘065) anticipates the method of claim 9. Brocard et al. (‘065) further anticipates “operating a further estimation process, hereinafter referred to as “navigation estimator”, wherein the navigation estimator uses state variables and computes values of its state variables at least based on: the time-propagated, IMU-based data, and the timely NSS observations made by the NSS receiver; and wherein the inertial navigator receives corrections from the navigation estimator (paragraph 23: the computing system preferably functions to process the data (e.g., satellite observations, reference station observations, sensor data, etc.) received by the GNSS receiver(s) and/or the reference station(s; paragraph 65: S500 can include propagating the propagating the positioning solution determined at the start of the age of integrity (e.g., at time t-age of integrity) with IMU measurements… determine GNSS corrections (e.g., based on the reference station satellite observations), filter the data (e.g., to calculate state vectors, ambiguities such as phase ambiguities, etc. associated with the data), calculate the GNSS receiver positioning solution (e.g., GNSS receiver location, velocity, attitude, etc.), calculate an integrity of the solution (e.g., the protection level, the integrity risk, etc.).”
Regarding claim 17, which is dependent on claim 9, Brocard et al. (‘065) anticipates the method of claim 9. Brocard et al. (‘065) further anticipates “transferring the generated time-propagated protection level set to a position output of the inertial navigator (paragraph 37: the positioning engine can determine (e.g., estimate) an integrity (e.g., a protection level, horizontal protection level, vertical protection level, protection level in a direction of travel, protection level orthogonal to a direction of travel, etc.) of the positioning solution by iteratively evaluating, for a plurality of target integrity risks, a relationship between each target integrity risk and a number of feared events, an impact of each feared event, a probability of the feared event occurring, and a probability of missed detection of the feared event. In this specific example, the plurality of target integrity risks can depend on the age of integrity (e.g., each integrity risk of the plurality can be chosen based on the age of integrity, a bounding integrity risk of the plurality can be set based on the age of integrity, etc. such as the most recent age of integrity, potential values of the age of integrity given the time since a previous age of integrity was determined, etc.), the list of feared events, an application of the external system, a necessary integrity risk to ensure safe operation, and/or based on any suitable information. Variations of this specific example can leverage sensor measurements (e.g., inertial measurement unit (IMU), inertial and magnetic measurement unit (IMMU), wheel tick, etc. sensors).”
Regarding claim 20, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Brocard et al. (‘065) anticipates the method of claim 1. Brocard et al. (‘065) further anticipates “the delayed protection level set comprises a horizontal component and a vertical component (paragraph 37: he positioning engine can determine (e.g., estimate) an integrity (e.g., a protection level, horizontal protection level, protection level in a direction of travel, protection level orthogonal to a direction of travel, etc.) of the positioning solution by iteratively evaluating, for a plurality of target integrity risks, a relationship between each target integrity risk and a number of feared events, an impact of each feared event, a probability of the feared event occurring, and a probability of missed detection of the feared event).”
Regarding independent claim 21, which is a corresponding system claim of independent method claim 1, Brocard et al. (‘065) anticipates all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 1.
Regarding claim 22, which is dependent on independent claim 21, Brocard et al. (‘065) anticipates the system of claim 21. Brocard et al. (‘065) further anticipates “a vehicle”, “the vehicle being at least one of: a motor vehicle, an agricultural equipment, an agricultural tractor, a combine harvester, a crop sprayer, a forestry equipment, a construction equipment, a truck, a bus, a train, a motorcycle, an autonomous vehicle, a self-driving vehicle, a driverless vehicle, a robotic vehicle, a highly automated vehicle, an aircraft, and an unmanned aerial vehicle (paragraph 11: the system (and/or components) can be coupled to any suitable external system such as a vehicle (e.g., UAV, UAS, car, truck, etc.), robot, railcar, user device (e.g., cell phone), and/or any suitable system, and can provide positioning data, integrity data (e.g., protection level data), and/or other data to said system, wherein the system can use the data for control and/or navigation).”
Regarding independent claim 23, which is a corresponding non-transitory computer-readable medium claim of independent method claim 1, Brocard et al. (‘065) anticipates all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 1.
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brocard et al. (US 2024/0134065 A1), and further in view of Coatantiec (US 2011/0084874 A1).
Regarding claim 12, which is dependent on claim 11, Brocard et al. (‘065) discloses the method of claim 11. Brocard et al. (‘065) does not explicitly disclose “the inertial navigator does not receive corrections from the integrity estimator.”
Coatantiec (‘874) relates to the determination of a position measurement. Coatantiec (‘874) teaches “the inertial navigator does not receive corrections from the integrity estimator (paragraph 8: the method could also be carried out in open-loop mode).”
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 Brocard et al. (‘065) with the teaching of Coatantiec (‘874) for improved integrity monitoring and position measurements (Coatantiec (‘874) – paragraph 11). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Brocard et al. (‘065) and Coatantiec (‘874)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, calculating position and monitoring integrity.
Claims 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brocard et al. (US 2024/0134065 A1), and further in view of Talbot et al. (US 2021/0072407 A1).
Regarding claim 12, which is dependent on claim 11, Brocard et al. (‘065) discloses the method of claim 11. Brocard et al. (‘065) does not explicitly disclose “the navigation estimator is at least one of: a Kalman filter and a robust estimator.”
Talbot et al. (‘407) relates to the determination of a position measurement. Talbot et al. (‘407) teaches “the navigation estimator is at least one of: a Kalman filter and a robust estimator (paragraph 60: The series of measurements may comprise the observed NSS signals. Computing step s10 may involve, for example, a Kalman filter, a least squares estimator, and/or a robust estimator).”
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 Brocard et al. (‘065) with the teaching of Talbot et al. (‘407) for improving the implementation of positioning or similar systems making use of NSS measurements, and, in particular, for being able to reliably meet the integrity requirements of these systems (Talbot et al. (‘407) – paragraph 15). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Brocard et al. (‘065) and Talbot et al. (‘407)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, processing a prior estimation of, parameters derived from navigation satellite system (NSS) signals useful to determine a position, and for generating protection level for an application relying on NSS observations.
Regarding claim 19, which is dependent on claim 1, Brocard et al. (‘065) discloses the method of claim 1. Brocard et al. (‘065) does not explicitly disclose “the integrity estimator is at least one of: a Kalman filter and a robust estimator.”
Talbot et al. (‘407) relates to the determination of a position measurement. Talbot et al. (‘407) teaches “the integrity estimator is at least one of: a Kalman filter and a robust estimator (paragraph 60: The series of measurements may comprise the observed NSS signals. Computing step s10 may involve, for example, a Kalman filter, a least squares estimator, and/or a robust estimator).”
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 Brocard et al. (‘065) with the teaching of Talbot et al. (‘407) for improving the implementation of positioning or similar systems making use of NSS measurements, and, in particular, for being able to reliably meet the integrity requirements of these systems (Talbot et al. (‘407) – paragraph 15). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Brocard et al. (‘065) and Talbot et al. (‘407)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, processing a prior estimation of, parameters derived from navigation satellite system (NSS) signals useful to determine a position, and for generating protection level for an application relying on NSS observations.
. Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brocard et al. (US 2024/0134065 A1), and further in view of Reimer et al. (2023/0026395 A1).
Regarding claim 14, which is dependent on claim 11, Brocard et al. (‘065) discloses the method of claim 11. Brocard et al. (‘065) does not explicitly disclose “the navigation estimator computes values of its state variables further based on data from a further sensor suitable, or further sensors together suitable, for estimating a change in position of the NSS receiver, wherein the further sensor or sensors is or comprise a distance measurement instrument.”
Reimer et al. (‘395) relates to the satellite positioning field. Reimer et al. (‘395) teaches “the navigation estimator computes values of its state variables further based on data from a further sensor suitable, or further sensors together suitable, for estimating a change in position of the NSS receiver, wherein the further sensor or sensors is or comprise a distance measurement instrument (paragraph 30: The sensor data can include: inertial data (e.g., acceleration, angular velocity, angular acceleration, magnetic field, etc.), odometry, pose (e.g., position, orientation), mapping data (e.g., images, point clouds), temperature, pressure, ambient light, images (e.g., thermal images, optical images, etc.; landmarks, features, etc. associated with the images; etc.), video feeds, and/or any other suitable data. The sensors can include one or more of: inertial measurement unit (IMU), accelerometer, gyroscope, magnetometer, odometer (e.g., wheel speeds; wheel ticks; steering angles; visual odometers such as cameras; etc.), pressure sensors, distance measurement instrument, image sensor (e.g., camera, thermal camera, etc.), LIDAR, RADAR, SONAR, and/or any suitable sensor).”
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 Brocard et al. (‘065) with the teaching of Reimer et al. (‘395) for more reliable satellite based positioning (Reimer et al. (‘395) – paragraph 19). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Brocard et al. (‘065) and Reimer et al. (‘395)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, using sensor measurements in addition to satellite observations), enabling the determination of the GNSS receiver position and/or protection level.
Regarding claim 15, which is dependent on claim 1, Brocard et al. (‘065) discloses the method of claim 1. Brocard et al. (‘065) does not explicitly disclose “the integrity estimator computes values of its state variables further based on data from a further sensor suitable, or further sensors together suitable, for estimating a change in position of the NSS receiver, wherein, preferably, the further sensor or sensors is or comprise a distance measurement instrument.”
Reimer et al. (‘395) relates to the satellite positioning field. Reimer et al. (‘395) teaches “the integrity estimator computes values of its state variables further based on
data from a further sensor suitable, or further sensors together suitable, for estimating a change in position of the NSS receiver, wherein, preferably, the further sensor or sensors is or comprise a distance measurement instrument (paragraph 30: The sensor data can include: inertial data (e.g., acceleration, angular velocity, angular acceleration, magnetic field, etc.), odometry, pose (e.g., position, orientation), mapping data (e.g., images, point clouds), temperature, pressure, ambient light, images (e.g., thermal images, optical images, etc.; landmarks, features, etc. associated with the images; etc.), video feeds, and/or any other suitable data. The sensors can include one or more of: inertial measurement unit (IMU), accelerometer, gyroscope, magnetometer, odometer (e.g., wheel speeds; wheel ticks; steering angles; visual odometers such as cameras; etc.), pressure sensors, distance measurement instrument, image sensor (e.g., camera, thermal camera, etc.), LIDAR, RADAR, SONAR, and/or any suitable sensor).”
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 Brocard et al. (‘065) with the teaching of Reimer et al. (‘395) for more reliable satellite based positioning (Reimer et al. (‘395) – paragraph 19). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Brocard et al. (‘065) and Reimer et al. (‘395)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, using sensor measurements in addition to satellite observations), enabling the determination of the GNSS receiver position and/or protection level.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brocard et al. (US 2024/0134065 A1), and further in view of Gorcke (US 2019/0094388 A1).
Regarding claim 16, which is dependent on claim 1, Brocard et al. (‘065) discloses the method of claim 1. Brocard et al. (‘065) does not explicitly disclose “projecting the generated time-propagated protection level set to another point, which is a point of a platform rigidly attached to the NSS receiver.”
Gorcke (‘388) relates to the field of navigation. Gorcke (‘388) teaches “projecting the generated time-propagated protection level set to another point, which is a point of a platform rigidly attached to the NSS receiver (paragraph 160: In step s68a, the NSS-based velocity vector of point B can be computed from NSS signals as described above with reference to step s62a, and projected in the same line of sight directions as described above with reference to step s66a. This gives a NSS-based scalar velocity of point B in direction of the line of sight to the NSS satellite(s) V.sub.j|.sub.NSS.).”
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 Brocard et al. (‘065) with the teaching of Gorcke (‘388) for more reliable satellite based positioning (Gorcke (‘388) – paragraph 14). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Brocard et al. (‘065) and Gorcke (‘388)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, satellite base positioning using sensor measurements.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brocard et al. (US 2024/0134065 A1), and further in view of Peck et al. (US 2014/0070988 A1).
Regarding claim 18, which is dependent on claim 1, Brocard et al. (‘065) discloses the method of claim 1. Brocard et al. (‘065) does not explicitly disclose “the position error history state variable set has a maximum size.”
Peck et al. (‘988) relates to the field of navigation. Peck et al. (‘988) teaches “the position error history state variable set has a maximum size (paragraph 15: With the H1 protection level generated from an N-1 position, high integrity differential GPS navigation systems can account for the possibility that the GPS satellite ephemeris data may be corrupted. Using the N-1 position, allows a monitor to support a quick start-up (e.g., within or around 30 minutes), when ephemeris history is not available for an autonomous system. Using the N-1 position can provide a protection level beyond just using a past history and current observations to monitor an ephemeris error and bound the maximum undetectable error…the H1 protection level generated from an N-1 position can be used to maintain acceptable performance and high integrity in the event of possible ephemeris errors, which H1 protection level can be used to support a rapid startup of a relative navigation system and/or GPS receiver used in a mobile system).”
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 Brocard et al. (‘065) with the teaching of Peck et al. (‘988) for more reliable satellite based positioning (Peck et al. (‘988) – paragraph 14). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Brocard et al. (‘065) and Peck et al. (‘988)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, position determination using satellite navigation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 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:
“each time a delayed estimated position and associated delayed protection level set become available, or at least at some instances when a delayed estimated position and associated delayed protection level set become available, locking, in the position error history state variable set, the state variable or state variables corresponding to the epoch to which the delayed estimated position and associated delayed protection level set relate, wherein locking, in the position error history state variable set, a state variable means that the state variable remains in the position error history state variable set until a condition is met, in which case the state variable is unlocked.”
Claims 5-8 depend on claim 4 and therefore are also r0bjected 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.
Chen et al. (US 2019/0196024 A1) describes a system comprising an NSS receiver and/or a processing entity capable of receiving data from the NSS receiver, for estimating parameters useful to determine a position, wherein, as explained above, the NSS receiver observes an NSS signal from each of a plurality of NSS satellites over multiple receiver epochs…the system comprises a precise estimator configured for operation as described above, and the system is further configured for obtaining seeding information and for computing an SACS (paragraph 19).
Grgich et al. (US 2023/0204795 A1) describes A method 200 for reduced-outlier satellite positioning includes receiving satellite positioning observations S210, generating a first receiver position estimate S220, and generating an outlier-reduced second receiver position estimate S230, as shown in FIG. 3…the method 200 may additionally or alternatively include receiving other positioning data S211 (paragraph 33); S211 includes receiving other positioning data. S211 functions to receive additional data used for positioning in addition to satellite data. For example, S211 may include receiving inertial data from an inertial measurement unit (IMU), accelerometer, and/or gyroscope that may be useful in calculating receiver position more accurately…as a second example, S211 may include receiving data from a speedometer, odometer, or other position/speed/acceleration measuring source at the mobile receiver…as a third example, S211 may include receiving data concerning receiver position from an external source (e.g., an optical camera system tracking the mobile receiver or an object coupled to the mobile receiver) (paragraph 38).
Carcanague et al. (US 2020/0348422 A1) describes variants of the technology can achieve high precision positioning for a GNSS receiver and/or external system. In specific examples, using carrier phase measurements and/or determining an integer ambiguity can increase the precision with which a GNSS receiver position can be determined (such as achieving centimeter or better positioning of a mobile receiver)…this level of precision positioning can be achieved with commercial-grade GNSS receivers and antennas, which have adaptive tracking profiles that are a function of the receiver dynamics, and suffer from different levels of pseudorange error as compared to aviation-grade GNSS receivers and antennas (paragraph 40); The reliability can be a flag (e.g., use or don't use), an achievable integrity (e.g., of the estimated position, of the estimated velocity, of the real-valued carrier phase, of the integer-valued carrier phase, etc.), an error (e.g., standard deviation, variance, etc.), a confidence interval, and/or any suitable form (paragraph 119); The corrections processing engine is preferably communicably coupled to the positioning engine and to the reference station(s), but can be communicably coupled to the GNSS receiver, the external system, the sensor(s), and/or to any suitable component (paragraph 120).
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571) 270-5144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NUZHAT PERVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
