DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to an application filed November 25th, 2024. Claims 1-13 are currently pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 25th, 2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on December 11th, 2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “individual accuracy index calculator” in claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7, and “integrated accuracy index calculator” in claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 112(a) for reciting “individual accuracy index calculator” which was interpreted under 112(f) but there is no corresponding structure in the specification.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 11 are rejected under 112(a) for reciting “integrated accuracy index calculator” which was interpreted under 112(f) but there is no corresponding structure in the specification.
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 112(a) for depending upon claims rejected under 112(a).
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.
Claims 1-11 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 limitations “individual accuracy index calculator” in claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7 and “integrated accuracy index calculator” in claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 11 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The closest the specification gets to defining their structure is recited in the specification in page 8 paragraph 0028 lines 1-7 “As illustrated in Fig. 1, a positioning device 10 includes a receiver 20, a positioning processor 30, and an accuracy index calculator 40. The accuracy index calculator 40 includes an individual accuracy index calculator 41 and an integrated accuracy index calculator 42. The receiver 20, the positioning processor 30, and the accuracy index calculator 40 are constituted by an arithmetic processing unit, such as a CPU, and a positioning program executed by the arithmetic processing unit”, however this does not define whether the calculators are physical processors or programs. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 112(b) for depending upon claims rejected under 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more and the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more and the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 1:
The claim 1 is directed to a statutory category of product.
Step 2a Prong 1:
The product of claim 1 is performing a process. The process of claim 1 merely consists of calculate a plurality of different individual accuracy indexes based on an error covariance matrix used for the positioning calculation, an observed value by the positioning signal, or a positioning result by the positioning calculation, respectively; and calculate an integrated accuracy index using the plurality of individual accuracy indexes which under its BRI consists of a mental process and mathematical calculation. For example, an overseer of a positioning satellite network would be able to calculate how accurate the positioning signal of each satellite is as well as calculate a combined accuracy of the entire system.
Step 2a Prong 2:
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of [a] positioning device, comprising: a receiver configured to receive positioning signals from a plurality of positioning satellites; a positioning processor configured to perform positioning calculation using the received positioning signals; an individual accuracy index calculator; and an integrated accuracy index calculator which is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional element is merely the technological environment that the mental process and mathematical calculations are conducted in. This additional element is insufficient to find a practical application because it is merely the technological environment of the invention.
Step 2b:
The additional elements of [a] positioning device, comprising: a receiver configured to receive positioning signals from a plurality of positioning satellites; a positioning processor configured to perform positioning calculation using the received positioning signals; an individual accuracy index calculator; and an integrated accuracy index calculator, which were considered technological environment in step 2a, is similarly insufficient for a finding of significantly more because they are merely defining the technological environment of the invention. For example, the MPEP provides that merely limiting a judicial exception to be executed by computers is insufficient to show a practical application or provide a showing of significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(h)(iv) “Specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”.
Claims 2-11 fall under the same judicial exceptions of claim 1 and are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more and the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 recites the same mental process and mathematical calculations of claim 1 and goes on to further add the mental process and mathematical calculations of wherein the integrated accuracy index calculator calculates a plurality of kinds of additional values by adding up a plurality of combinations of the individual accuracy indexes, and wherein the integrated accuracy index calculator calculates the maximum value of the plurality of kinds of additional values, and uses the maximum value as the integrated accuracy index.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 recites the same mental process and mathematical calculations of claim 2 and goes on to further add the mental process and mathematical calculations of wherein the individual accuracy index calculator calculates, as the plurality of individual accuracy indexes, a first accuracy index using the error covariance matrix, a second accuracy index using a residual based on a carrier phase of the positioning signal, and a third accuracy index using Solution Separation based on the positioning result.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites the same mental process and mathematical calculations of claim 3 and goes on to further add the mental process and mathematical calculations of wherein the individual accuracy index calculator calculates a fourth accuracy index using the error covariance matrix from which the plurality of positioning satellites excluded when calculating the third accuracy index are excluded, and wherein the integrated accuracy index calculator calculates a first additional value obtained by adding the first accuracy index to the second accuracy index, and a second additional value obtained by adding the third accuracy index to the fourth accuracy index, and sets the maximum value when comparing the first additional value with the second additional value, as the integrated accuracy index.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites the same mental process and mathematical calculations of claim 3 and goes on to further add the mental process and mathematical calculations of wherein the integrated accuracy index calculator calculates the integrated accuracy index by adding the first accuracy index to the maximum value when comparing the second accuracy index with the third accuracy index.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites the same mental process and mathematical calculations of claim 3 and goes on to further add the mental process and mathematical calculations of wherein the individual accuracy index calculator calculates a degree of influence to the positioning error by the residual and a geometric arrangement of the positioning satellites corresponding to the residual, for the plurality of positioning satellites, and wherein the individual accuracy index calculator calculates the second accuracy index using the degrees of influence of the plurality of positioning satellites.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 recites the same mental process and mathematical calculations of claim 3 and goes on to further add the mental process and mathematical calculations of wherein the positioning processor sets a plurality of kinds of groups of positioning satellites from which different specific positioning satellites are excluded from all the positioning satellites of the plurality of positioning satellites, and the positioning processor calculates positioning results by the positioning signals of the all positioning satellites and positioning results by the positioning signals of the plurality of kinds of groups of positioning satellites, and wherein the individual accuracy index calculator calculates differences between the positioning results by the positioning signals of the all positioning satellites and the positioning results by the positioning signals of the plurality of kinds of groups of positioning satellites, respectively, and calculates the third accuracy index using the difference for every group.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites the same mental process and mathematical calculations of claim 7 and goes on to further add the mental process and mathematical calculations of the plurality of positioning satellites to exclude are set per system of GNSS.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites the same mental process and mathematical calculations of claim 7 and goes on to further add the mental process and mathematical calculations of wherein the plurality of positioning satellites to exclude are set based on a satellite number of the corresponding system of GNSS.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites the same mental process and mathematical calculations of claim 1 and goes on to further add the mental process and mathematical calculations of wherein the positioning processor includes: a main processor configured to perform positioning calculation using the positioning signals from the all positioning satellites; and a sub processor configured to perform positioning calculation using the positioning signals from the plurality of kinds of groups of positioning satellites from which the specific positioning satellites are excluded, and wherein the sub processor is a processor common to the plurality of kinds of groups, and sequentially performs the positioning calculation using the positioning signals from the plurality of kinds of groups of positioning satellites for every group.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites the same mental process and mathematical calculations of claim 1 and goes on to further add the mental process and mathematical calculations of the integrated accuracy index calculator calculates the integrated accuracy index by adding the plurality of individual accuracy indexes.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more and the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 12 recites the same judicial exception as claim 1 but is in the statutory category of method.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more and the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 13 recites the same judicial exception as claim 1 but is in the non-statutory category of program-per-se.
Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it is directed to a computer program.
Given the above analysis, examiner has determined that claims 1-13 are not eligible subject matter under 101 and are thus rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada; Kazuhiro (US Pub. No. 20170299729 A1), herein after Okada, and further in view of Miyamoto et al. (US Pub. No. 20210349220 A1), herein after Miyamoto.
Regarding claim 1, Okada teaches [a] positioning device, comprising: a receiver configured to receive positioning signals from a plurality of positioning satellites; a positioning processor configured to perform positioning calculation using the received positioning signals (Okada: Para. 0020, teaching receivers that receive satellite positioning signals which are used to position a vehicle); an individual accuracy index calculator configured to calculate a plurality of different individual accuracy indexes based on an error covariance matrix used for the positioning calculation, an observed value by the positioning signal, or a positioning result by the positioning calculation, respectively (examiner interprets that a Kalman filter is a type of error covariance matrix) (Okada: Para. 0020, teaching calculating an error associated with the positioning signal; and Para. 0030, teaching that the calculation of the position of the vehicle is done using a Kalman filter).
Okada is silent to an integrated accuracy index calculator configured to calculate an integrated accuracy index using the plurality of individual accuracy indexes.
In a similar field, Miyamoto teaches an integrated accuracy index calculator configured to calculate an integrated accuracy index using the plurality of individual accuracy indexes (Miyamoto: Para. 0028, teaching an accuracy index calculation unit that calculates the accuracy index of the positioning signal from the satellite; and Para. 0043, teaching that the accuracy index calculation unit calculates the accuracy index for each satellite and for a plurality of satellites together) for the benefit of improving the accuracy of positioning an object using satellites.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify the calculations of an error associated with multiple positioning signals from Okada to calculate the error associated with all of the signals together, as taught by Miyamoto, for the benefit of improving the accuracy of positioning an object using satellites.
Regarding claim 11, Okada and Miyamoto remain as applied as in claim 1, and Miyamoto goes on to further teach [t]he positioning device of claim 1, wherein the integrated accuracy index calculator calculates the integrated accuracy index by adding the plurality of individual accuracy indexes (Miyamoto: Para. 0028, teaching an accuracy index calculation unit that calculates the accuracy index of the positioning signal from the satellite; and Para. 0043, teaching that the accuracy index calculation unit calculates the accuracy index for each satellite and for a plurality of satellites together).
Regarding claim 12, Okada teaches [a] positioning method, comprising: receiving positioning signals from a plurality of positioning satellites; performing positioning calculation using the received positioning signals (Okada: Para. 0020, teaching receivers that receive satellite positioning signals which are used to position a vehicle); calculating a plurality of different individual accuracy indexes based on an error covariance matrix used for the positioning calculation, an observed value by the positioning signal, or a positioning result by the positioning calculation, respectively (examiner interprets that a Kalman filter is a type of error covariance matrix) (Okada: Para. 0020, teaching calculating an error associated with the positioning signal; and Para. 0030, teaching that the calculation of the position of the vehicle is done using a Kalman filter).
Okada is silent to calculating an integrated accuracy index using the plurality of individual accuracy indexes.
In a similar field, Miyamoto teaches an integrated accuracy index calculator configured to calculate an integrated accuracy index using the plurality of individual accuracy indexes (Miyamoto: Para. 0028, teaching an accuracy index calculation unit that calculates the accuracy index of the positioning signal from the satellite; and Para. 0043, teaching that the accuracy index calculation unit calculates the accuracy index for each satellite and for a plurality of satellites together) for the benefit of improving the accuracy of positioning an object using satellites.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify the calculations of an error associated with multiple positioning signals from Okada to calculate the error associated with all of the signals together, as taught by Miyamoto, for the benefit of improving the accuracy of positioning an object using satellites.
Regarding claim 1, Okada teaches [a] positioning program configured to cause an arithmetic processor to perform processing, the processing comprising (Okada: Para. 0017, teaching a control unit programmed to perform the steps of the invention): receiving positioning signals from a plurality of positioning satellites; performing positioning calculation using the received positioning signals (Okada: Para. 0020, teaching receivers that receive satellite positioning signals which are used to position a vehicle); calculating a plurality of different individual accuracy indexes based on an error covariance matrix used for the positioning calculation, an observed value by the positioning signal, or a positioning result by the positioning calculation, respectively (examiner interprets that a Kalman filter is a type of error covariance matrix) (Okada: Para. 0020, teaching calculating an error associated with the positioning signal; and Para. 0030, teaching that the calculation of the position of the vehicle is done using a Kalman filter).
Okada is silent to calculating an integrated accuracy index using the plurality of individual accuracy indexes.
In a similar field, Miyamoto teaches calculating an integrated accuracy index using the plurality of individual accuracy indexes (Miyamoto: Para. 0028, teaching an accuracy index calculation unit that calculates the accuracy index of the positioning signal from the satellite; and Para. 0043, teaching that the accuracy index calculation unit calculates the accuracy index for each satellite and for a plurality of satellites together) for the benefit of improving the accuracy of positioning an object using satellites.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to modify the calculations of an error associated with multiple positioning signals from Okada to calculate the error associated with all of the signals together, as taught by Miyamoto, for the benefit of improving the accuracy of positioning an object using satellites.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada in view of Miyamoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (US Patent No. 9369896 B1), herein after Huang.
Regarding claim 2, Okada and Miyamoto remain as applied as in claim 1, and Miyamoto goes on to further teach [t]he positioning device of claim 1, wherein the integrated accuracy index calculator calculates a plurality of kinds of additional values by adding up a plurality of combinations of the individual accuracy indexes (Miyamoto: Para. 0043, teaching that the accuracy index calculation unit calculates the accuracy index for each satellite and for a plurality of satellites together).
They are silent to wherein the integrated accuracy index calculator calculates the maximum value of the plurality of kinds of additional values, and uses the maximum value as the integrated accuracy index.
In a similar field, Huang teaches wherein the integrated accuracy index calculator calculates the maximum value of the plurality of kinds of additional values, and uses the maximum value as the integrated accuracy index (Huang: Page 21 col. 16 line 60 through page 22 col. 17 line 15, teaching determining the quality score for a satellite signal based on various parameters and selecting the highest quality signal for positioning) for the benefit of increasing the accuracy of positioning the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the accuracy index calculations from Okada in view of Miyamoto to use the most accurate value calculated as the index, as taught by Huang, for the benefit of increasing the accuracy of positioning the vehicle.
Claims 3-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada in view of Miyamoto in further view of Huang as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Bageshwar et al. (US Pub. No. 20210325544 A1), herein after Bageshwar.
Regarding claim 3, Okada, Miyamoto, and Huang remain as applied as in claim 2, and Okada goes on to further teach [t]he positioning device of claim 2, wherein the individual accuracy index calculator calculates, as the plurality of individual accuracy indexes, a first accuracy index using the error covariance matrix (Okada: Para. 0020, teaching calculating an error associated with the positioning signal; and Para. 0030, teaching that the calculation of the position of the vehicle is done using a Kalman filter), a second accuracy index using a residual (Okada: Para. 0051, teaching calculating the accuracy of a signal using a residual of the error) and Miyamoto goes on to further teach a second accuracy index... based on a carrier phase of the positioning signal (Miyamoto: Para. 0027, teaching calculating the accuracy index of the signal based on the parameters of the signal).
They are silent to a third accuracy index using Solution Separation based on the positioning result.
In a similar field, Bageshwar teaches calculating a third accuracy index using Solution Separation based on the positioning result (Bageshwar: Para. 0034, teaching the use of solution separation to calculate the integrity of the signal which defines how accurate it is) for the benefit of improving the determination of which set of signals to utilize.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the accuracy index calculations for multiple sets of satellites from Okada in view of Miyamoto in further view of Huang to utilize a solution separation calculation method, as taught by Bageshwar, for the benefit of improving the determination of which set of signals to utilize.
Regarding claim 4, Okada, Miyamoto, Huang, and Bageshwar remain as applied as in claim 3, and Okada goes on to further teach [t]he positioning device of claim 3, wherein the individual accuracy index calculator calculates a fourth accuracy index using the error covariance matrix from which the plurality of positioning satellites excluded when calculating the third accuracy index are excluded (Okada: Para. 0093, teaching calculating the error of a plurality of signals that are group together and if the error of the group signals are larger than the error associated with one signal the not grouped signals are used), and Miyamoto goes on to further teach wherein the integrated accuracy index calculator calculates a first additional value obtained by adding the first accuracy index to the second accuracy index, and a second additional value obtained by adding the third accuracy index to the fourth accuracy index, and wherein the integrated accuracy index calculator calculates a first additional value obtained by adding the first accuracy index to the second accuracy index, and a second additional value obtained by adding the third accuracy index to the fourth accuracy index (Miyamoto: Para. 0028, teaching an accuracy index calculation unit that calculates the accuracy index of the positioning signal from the satellite; Para. 0043, teaching that the accuracy index calculation unit calculates the accuracy index for each satellite and for a plurality of satellites together; and Para. 0052, teaching that an accuracy index is calculated by summing all of the fluctuations of each satellite signal together), and Huang goes on to further teach sets the maximum value when comparing the first additional value with the second additional value, as the integrated accuracy index (Huang: Page 21 col. 16 line 60 through page 22 col. 17 line 15, teaching determining the quality score for a satellite signal based on various parameters and selecting the highest quality signal for positioning).
Regarding claim 5, Okada, Miyamoto, Huang, and Bageshwar remain as applied as in claim 3, and Miyamoto goes on to further teach [t]he positioning device of claim 3, wherein the integrated accuracy index calculator calculates the integrated accuracy index by adding the first accuracy index to the maximum value when comparing the second accuracy index with the third accuracy index (Miyamoto: Para. 0028, teaching an accuracy index calculation unit that calculates the accuracy index of the positioning signal from the satellite; and Para. 0043, teaching that the accuracy index calculation unit calculates the accuracy index for each satellite and for a plurality of satellites together).
Regarding claim 7, Okada, Miyamoto, Huang, and Bageshwar remain as applied as in claim 3, and Bageshwar goes on to further teach [t]he positioning device of claim 3, wherein the positioning processor sets a plurality of kinds of groups of positioning satellites from which different specific positioning satellites are excluded from all the positioning satellites of the plurality of positioning satellites, and the positioning processor calculates positioning results by the positioning signals of the all positioning satellites and positioning results by the positioning signals of the plurality of kinds of groups of positioning satellites, and wherein the individual accuracy index calculator calculates differences between the positioning results by the positioning signals of the all positioning satellites and the positioning results by the positioning signals of the plurality of kinds of groups of positioning satellites, respectively, and calculates the third accuracy index using the difference for every group (Bageshwar: Para. 0033, teaching that the integrity monitoring is done by grouping GNSS satellites into different subsets which exclude satellites not in their subset and a full set which is a combination of all the subset; and Para. 0034, teaching that the positioning is calculated for each subset and the full set with a corresponding integrity of each subset and the full set being calculated).
Regarding claim 8, Okada, Miyamoto, Huang, and Bageshwar remain as applied as in claim 7, and Okada goes on to further teach [t]he positioning device of claim 7, wherein the plurality of positioning satellites to exclude are set per system of GNSS (Bageshwar: Para. 0033, teaching that the integrity monitoring is done by grouping GNSS satellites into different subsets which exclude satellites not in their subset and a full set which is a combination of all the subset; and Para. 0034, teaching that the positioning is calculated for each subset and the full set with a corresponding integrity of each subset and the full set being calculated).
Regarding claim 9, Okada, Miyamoto, Huang, and Bageshwar remain as applied as in claim 7, and Okada goes on to further teach [t]he positioning device of claim 7, wherein the plurality of positioning satellites to exclude are set based on [a satellite] of the corresponding system of GNSS (Bageshwar: Para. 0033, teaching that the integrity monitoring is done by grouping GNSS satellites into different subsets which exclude satellites not in their subset and a full set which is a combination of all the subset; and Para. 0034, teaching that the positioning is calculated for each subset and the full set with a corresponding integrity of each subset and the full set being calculated) and Miyamoto goes on the satellite number is used to identify the satellites in the set (examiner interprets that the satellite number is an identifier of the satellite) (Miyamoto: Para. 0030, teaching that each satellite is associated with an identification information unique to each satellite).
Regarding claim 10, Okada, Miyamoto, Huang, and Bageshwar remain as applied as in claim 7, and Okada goes on to further teach [t]he positioning device of claim 7, wherein the positioning processor includes: a main processor configured to perform positioning calculation using the positioning signals from the all positioning satellites; and a sub processor configured to (Okada: Para. 0176, teaching multiple processing units configured to perform the steps of the invention)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada in view of Miyamoto in further view of Huang in further view of Bageshwar as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Riley et al. (US Pub. No. 20040160365 A1), herein after Riley.
Regarding claim 6, Okada, Miyamoto, Huang, and Bageshwar remain as applied as in claim 3, however they are silent to [t]he positioning device of claim 3, wherein the individual accuracy index calculator calculates a degree of influence to the positioning error by the residual and a geometric arrangement of the positioning satellites corresponding to the residual, for the plurality of positioning satellites, and wherein the individual accuracy index calculator calculates the second accuracy index using the degrees of influence of the plurality of positioning satellites.
In a similar field, Riley teaches [t]he positioning device of claim 3, wherein the individual accuracy index calculator calculates a degree of influence to the positioning error by the residual and a geometric arrangement of the positioning satellites corresponding to the residual, for the plurality of positioning satellites (Riley: Para. 0010, teaching determining the position of a vehicle using the residual vector of measurements from satellite positioning signals; and Para. 0034, teaching that the position of the vehicle is calculated taking into consideration the position of each satellite used in the positioning of the vehicle), and wherein the individual accuracy index calculator calculates the second accuracy index using the degrees of influence of the plurality of positioning satellites (Riley: Para. 0012, teaching determining the reliability of the positioning calculations based on the errors in each positioning signal) for the benefit of isolating and eliminating faulty measurements from the positioning of the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the accuracy index calculations from Okada in view of Miyamoto in further view of Huang in further view of Bageshwar with the errors caused by residuals in the navigation and errors associated with the location of the satellites, as taught by Riley, for the benefit of isolating and eliminating faulty measurements from the positioning of the vehicle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kadoya; Takuma (US Pub. No. 20170363746 A1) discloses a positioning system that calculates accuracy indices and reliability indices for positioning signal from positioning satellites using Kalman filters.
Ramakrishnan et al. (US Pub. No. 20130154879 A1) discloses a positioning system that calculates a position of an object using positioning satellites and removing positioning signals that are erroneous.
Hatch et al. (US Pub. No. 20110090116 A1) discloses a system for compensating for faulty measurements in a satellite positioning system by using a Kalman filter to detect faulty measurements and removing them from the positioning calculations.
Yoshioka; Hiroki (US Pub. No. 20100265134 A1) discloses a positioning system that calculates an error associated with positioning signals received from positioning satellites using Kalman filters.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aaron K McCullers whose telephone number is (571)272-3523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, Roughly 9 AM - 6 PM ET.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/A.K.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663