DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 USC 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pande (US 2002/0086684 A1).
Pande discloses:
determining whether pattern matching assistance data is available for use by the GNSS receiver (¶42; ¶53) [where it is determined whether assistance data is available or not, where when no assistance data is available, no pattern matching assistance data is available];
determining one or more position solutions, in response to determining pattern matching assistance data is not available for use by the GNSS receiver, based on pseudorange measurements without using pattern matching measurements (¶31) [where the Office takes Official Notice that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it well known before the effective filing date of the invention to use the pseudoranges in the position computation].
In the cited embodiment of the method of Pande, the condition of determining pattern matching assistance data is available does not occur. According to Ex parte Schulhauser (Appeal 2013-007847, Application No. 12/184020, 22 pages), when a condition in a method claim is not met, the corresponding step need not be addressed. See also MPEP 2111.04 II, where the first sentence reads "The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.".
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garin '370 (US 2015/0032370 A1) in view of Pande (US 2002/0086684 A1).
In regard claims 1 and 12, Garin '370 discloses:
determining one or more position solutions, when pattern matching assistance data is available, based on pattern matching measurements and based on pseudorange measurements that are converted into virtual pattern matching measurements (Fig. 4; ¶52; ¶78; ¶147) [where pattern matching measurements correspond to observed measurements in Garin '370, and virtual pattern matching measurements correspond to expected measurements in Garin '370, since they are not measurements that have actually been made; where pseudorange measurements are used to determine an approximate position/first location position/along-pathway position location of the GNSS receiver, which are used to determine grid points, for which expected pattern matching measurements are generated. Thus, "pattern matching measurements" corresponds to observed pattern matching measurements and "pseudorange measurements that are converted into pattern matching measurements" corresponds to pseudorange measurements that are used to generate the expected pattern matching measurements]; and
positioning not using pattern matching comprises determining position from pseudorange measurements (¶39).
Garin '370 fails to disclose determining whether pattern matching assistance data is available for use by the GNSS receiver; and determining one or more position solutions, when pattern matching assistance data is not available for use by the GNSS receiver, based on pseudorange measurements without using pattern matching measurements.
Pande teaches:
determining whether pattern matching assistance data is available for use by the GNSS receiver (¶42; ¶53) [where it is determined whether assistance data is available or not, where when no assistance data is available, no pattern matching assistance data is available];
determining one or more position solutions and pseudorange measurements, when pattern matching assistance data is not available for use by the GNSS receiver (¶31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow the GNSS received to determine its position even when pattern matching assistance data is not available.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the position of the GNSS receive is determined whether or not pattern matching assistance data is available.
In the combination, the position solutions determined when pattern matching assistance data is not available for use by the GNSS receiver are based on the pseudorange measurements, as is well known in the art and is taught by Garin '370 in ¶39.
In regard claim 4, Garin '370 further discloses the pattern matching assistance data is based on a position solution indicating a position of the GNSS receiver or an approximate location of the GNSS receiver (¶52; ¶78; ¶147) [where the first location position/along-pathway position location is a position solution indicating a position of the GNSS receiver or an approximate location of the GNSS receiver].
In regard claim 5, Garin '370 further discloses the pattern matching assistance data is not available in an open sky environment and is available in at least a set of urban environments in which the GNSS receiver receives a plurality of NLOS GNSS signals (¶39) [where an environment where building and other like structures may prevent or inhibit acquisition of enough GNSS signals in direct visibility to accurately/and/or efficiently estimate location based on traditional pseudorange estimate and geometrical analysis explicitly includes and urban environment, and would exclude an open sky environment].
In regard claim 11, Garin '370 further discloses the pattern matching assistance data comprises, for each GNSS satellite (SV) in a set of SVs represented in the pattern matching assistance data, data derived from a plurality of non-line of sight (NLOS) signals, and wherein the pattern matching measurements use, for each SV in a set of SVs represented in the pattern matching measurements, data derived from a plurality of NLOS signals (1710, Fig. 17; 1812 to 1810 to 1820 to 1822 to 1828, Fig. 18; ¶78; ¶147).
Claim(s) 2, 8, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garin '370 and Pande, as applied to claims 1 and 12, and further in view of Nerguizian (US 2007/0010956 A1).
In regard to claims 2 and 13, Garin '370 and Pande fail to teach the pattern matching assistance data comprises a channel model that includes a channel impulse response (CIR) for a channel of GNSS signals.
Nerguizian teaches [determining the position of a GNSS receiver based on pattern matching, where] pattern matching assistance data comprises a channel model that includes a channel impulse response (CIR) for a channel of GNSS signals (¶21-24).
Replacing determining the location of the device by comparing the determined measured/observed LOS/NLOS signature to the expected SV LOS/NLOS signature at each point in the model with determining the location of a device by comparing measured channel impulse response data to expected channel impulse response data is a simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to perform the same function and obtain predictable results. Because both elements are known methods for determining the position of a mobile device, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one for the other to achieve the predictable result of determining the position of the mobile device.
In regard to claim 8, Nerguizian further teaches the one or more position solutions, when pattern matching assistance data is available, are computed in the pattern matching measurement domain (¶21-24) [i.e., the CIR domain].
Claim(s) 3 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garin '370, Pande, and Nerguizian, as applied to claims 2 and 13, and further in view of Kim (KR 101063084 B1).
Garin '370, Pande, and Nerguizian fail to teach the pattern matching measurements are based on matching, for each channel, the channel model in the pattern matching assistance data to a receiver channel model, derived from one or more correlation vectors, through a superresolution algorithm, the superresolution algorithm converting the one or more correlation vectors to the receiver channel model.
Kim teaches pattern matching measurements are based on matching, for each channel, the channel model in the pattern matching assistance data to a receiver channel model, derived from one or more correlation vectors, through a superresolution algorithm, the superresolution algorithm converting the one or more correlation vectors to the receiver channel model (Fig. 1; p. 2, lines 11-13; p. 3, ¶5 to p. 4, ¶1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the accuracy of the position estimate.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the position estimate is calculated with increased accuracy.
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garin '370 (US 2015/0032370 A1) in view of MacNaughtan (US 2009/0011779 A1).
In regard claim 15, Garin '370 discloses:
determining whether the GNSS receiver is in a first environment in which pattern matching measurements will not be used to compute location and computing one or more position solutions based on pseudorange measurements if the GNSS receiver is determined to be in the first environment; and determining whether the GNSS receiver is in a second environment in which pattern matching measurements can be used to compute location (¶39) [where an environment where building and other like structures may prevent or inhibit acquisition of enough GNSS signals in direct visibility to accurately/and/or efficiently estimate location based on traditional pseudorange estimate and geometrical analysis explicitly includes and urban environment, and would exclude an open sky environment];
while the GNSS receiver is in the second environment, computing one or more position solutions based on a combination of pseudorange measurements and pattern matching measurements by performing one of the following:
(b) computing a pattern matching based position solution using pattern matching measurements and virtual pattern matching measurements, wherein the pseudorange measurements are converted into virtual pseudorange measurements (Fig. 4; ¶78; ¶147) [where pattern matching measurements correspond to observed measurements in Garin '370, and virtual pattern matching measurements correspond to expected measurements in Garin '370, since they are not measurements that have actually been made; where pseudorange measurements are used to determine an approximate position/first location position/along-pathway position location of the GNSS receiver, which are used to determine grid points, for which expected pattern matching measurements are generated. Thus, "pattern matching measurements" corresponds to observed pattern matching measurements and "pseudorange measurements that are converted into pattern matching measurements" corresponds to pseudorange measurements that are used to generate the expected pattern matching measurements].
Garin '370 fails to disclose [the detailed method by way the environment is determined, including] determining a location of the GNSS receiver; the determining whether the GNSS receiver is in a first environment is based on the location; and the determining whether the GNSS receiver is in a second environment is based on the location.
MacNaughtan teaches determining a location of a mobile device; determining whether the mobile device is in a first environment is based on the location; and the determining whether the mobile device is in a second environment is based on the location (¶157-161) [where the environment that the mobile device is in, among possible environments, is based on the location of the mobile device being in a particular serving cell of a particular base station, where each base station is assigned the environment it is determined to be in].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to implement the method by which the determining of the environment is carried out.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the environment of the base station serving a mobile device/GNSS receiver is determined to be the environment of the mobile device/GNSS receiver.
In regard claim 16, Garin '370 further discloses the first environment is an open sky environment in which a majority of all GNSS signal reception is line of sight reception from GNSS satellites and wherein the location is an approximate location (¶39) [where an environment where building and other like structures may prevent or inhibit acquisition of enough GNSS signals in direct visibility to accurately/and/or efficiently estimate location based on traditional pseudorange estimate and geometrical analysis explicitly includes and urban environment, and would exclude an open sky environment].
In regard claim 17, Garin '370 further discloses the second environment is a suburban or urban canyon environment in which the GNSS receiver is receiving non-line of sight GNSS signals from one or more GNSS satellites (¶39) [where an environment where building and other like structures may prevent or inhibit acquisition of enough GNSS signals in direct visibility to accurately/and/or efficiently estimate location based on traditional pseudorange estimate and geometrical analysis explicitly includes and urban/urban canyon environment, and would exclude an open sky environment].
The following reference(s) is/are also found relevant:
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, which defines "location" as "A place where something is or could be located" (definition 2).
Kudekar (US 2016/0249316 A1), which teaches determined signal environment data comprises a set of channel impulse response data for the received GNSS signals (405, 410, Fig. 4; ¶44-45); and LOS and NLOS GNSS signals in the form of channel impulse responses (405, 410, Fig. 4; ¶44-45).
Dashti (EP 2934052 A1), which teaches determining position based on CIR measurements (Fig. 1).
Viskari (US 2020/0309959 A1), which teaches performing GNSS standalone positioning when assistance data is not available (212, 214, 216, Fig. 2a; ¶51; ¶67).
Kennedy (US 2007/0202885 A1), which teaches using pattern matching with pseudorange measurements for positioning (claim 23).
Takewa (US 2019/0031219 A1), which teaches determining position using the intersection of the surface of the earth with spheres centered at GPS satellites for positioning using pseudoranges (¶4; ¶56).
Harel (US 2020/0278455 A1), which teaches that GPS transmits L1 signals in the L1 band and L5 signals in the L5 band, and that Galileo transmits E1 signals in the L1 band and E5a and E5b signals in the L5 band (¶16-20), where the use of both L1 and L5 signals together are used for multipath mitigation, ionospheric and tropospheric delay corrections, and mitigation of signal jamming (¶2).
Irish '727 (US 2017/0299727 A1), which teaches using ray tracing between a set of GNSS SVs currently in view and a model of points near an approximate location to determine expected SV reception data at each point in a model of points, both including line of sight and a plurality of non-line of sight signals from each of a set of SVs currently in view (Fig. 1; ¶30; ¶43-44; ¶50-51) [where, while Fig. 1 illustrates only one single reflection of a signal from satellite 104D to the receiver at 110B, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a receiver could receive multiple single reflection signals from the same satellite based on the positioning of structures around the receiver (i.e. a single reflection from more than one structure at once); where using NLOS and LOS signals allows resolution among positions that cannot be resolved using determination of whether a signals is LOS or not LOS (i.e. a LOS or NLOS environment) (¶50-51)]; and the signal environment data including data for both line of sight and a plurality of non-line of sight signals for each SV (¶51) [where expected SV reception data is compared to observed signal environment data to determine/resolve the correct location of the receiver].
Maybeck (Stochastic models, estimation, and control), which teaches a GNSS determined location is provided as an input to a Kalman filter that is configured to provide location outputs [where a Kalman filter is an optimal algorithm] (p. 4, ¶2; p. 293, final ¶; p. 294, ¶5; p. 295, Fig. 6.2).
Byun (Development and application of GPS signal multipath simulator), which teaches ray tracing including LOS and NLOS signals, including when there are multiple single-reflection NLOS signals (Fig. 1; section 1.1).
Zhang (GNSS Multipath Detection in Urban Environment Using 3D Building Model), which teaches a ray-tracing algorithm that simulates, for each satellite, a LOS signal path as well as all the building-reflected signal paths from the satellite to the user receiver (p. 2).
Wang (US 6,282,426 B1), which teaches using ray-tracing of GNSS signal to determine LOS and NLOS signals for expected locations/grid points in a region of an approximate position to determine the position of a device with the assistance of a server (Fig. 3A-5; Fig. 8-9; col. 6; col. 8-10), where both LOS and NLOS paths are simulated (col. 8-9).
De Wilde (US 2007/0201537 A1), which teaches that Galileo E5a and E5b signals leads to tremendous performance in terms of tracking noise and multipath (¶11).
Applicant is encouraged to consider these documents in formulating their response (if one is required) to this Office Action, in order to expedite prosecution of this application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 6-7, 9-10, and 18-20 is/are 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.
Reasons for Allowance/Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance/allowable subject matter:
The references cited, alone or in combination, do not teach or make obvious the following limitation(s):
quoted from claim 6, in combination with the claim as a whole:
"determining whether a grid map used for pattern matching is registered to a map used for navigation; requesting a map registration accuracy estimate in response to determining the grid map is not registered to the map used for navigation".
quoted from claim 9, in combination with the claim as a whole:
"determining a surface on which a pseudorange measurement is constrained, the surface derived from the pattern matching assistance data; determining one or more intersections between the surface and positions associated with the pseudorange measurement".
quoted from claim 18, in combination with the claim as a whole:
"using the independent computation of PR based position solution and independent computation of PM based position solution if the number of SVs in the first set of SVs exceed a first threshold value and the number of SVs in the second set of SVs exceed a second threshold value".
quoted from claim 19, in combination with the claim as a whole:
"determining whether a grid map used for pattern matching is registered to a map used for navigation; requesting a map registration accuracy estimate in response to determining the grid map is not registered to the map used for navigation".
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance".
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on p. 13, with respect to the objection(s), have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection(s) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments on p. 13-19, with respect to the prior art rejection(s) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues "Pande does not, however, disclose actually converting pseudorange measurements into virtual pattern matching measurements.". However, this limitation is part of the final limitation, which only occurs based on a condition which does not occur in the embodiment of Pande cited, and thus is part of a step that is not required by the claim.
Applicant argues "This language makes clear that the claim requires the GNSS receiver to perform an active determination of whether pattern matching assistance data is available". However, Pande discloses an active determination of whether pattern matching assistance data is available in ¶53, where whether pattern matching assistance is determined in order to determine whether the GNSS receiver is to act independently or not.
Applicant argues "This language makes clear that the claim requires the GNSS receiver to ... then be able to take responsive action based on the outcome of that determination.". However, this is not an apparatus claim with structures configured to perform functions, where the structures must be present. This is a method claim. The final step of the method claim only occurs if pattern matching assistance data is available. In the embodiment of Pande cited, pattern matching assistance data is not available. Thus, the final step does not occur. See Ex parte Schulhauser (Appeal 2013-007847, Application No. 12/184020, 22 pages), when a condition in a method claim is not met, the corresponding step need not be addressed. See also MPEP 2111.04 II, where the first sentence reads "The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.".
Applicant argues "Garin uses pseudorange measurements to estimate an
along-pathway position that is used to select grid points from the enhanced database, not to actually convert pseudorange measurements into pattern matching measurements.". However, Garin converts pseudoranges into to position and then converts the position into corresponding grid points/virtual pattern matching measurements. Thus, the pseudoranges are converted into virtual pattern matching measurements in a two step conversion process. Applicant has not explained which part of this process is not encompassed by "converted" and why.
Applicant argues "the Office Action has not shown that Garin and Pantle combined would disclose 'determining one or more position solutions ... based on pseudorange measurements that are converted into virtual pattern matching measurements' as recited in amended claim 1". However, this limitation is based on language from previous claim 15, which was previously rejected, where Garin '370 is applied to claims 1 and 12 the same way it was applied to previous claim 15.
Applicant's arguments with regard to the remaining claims simply reiterate the arguments addressed above.
Since applicant has not traversed the Official Notice taken by the Office, the well-known in the art statements outlined in the Official Notice are taken to be admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03(C), ¶2.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment of 8-14-2026 necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action, e.g., claim(s) 1, 12, and 15 was/were amended, necessitating the new grounds of rejection. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fred H. Mull whose telephone number is 571-272-6975. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from approximately 9-5:30 Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 https://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Resha Desai, can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
Fred H. Mull
Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/F. H. M./
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights