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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Grammar regarding the transceiver. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 11 – 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: GNSS receiver 880 as shown in Fig. 8. The transceiver is the communication interface 830. See Fig. 8 and Para. 60. A processor cannot collect GNSS measurements without a GNSS receiver. By not claiming said GNSS receiver, the reader may be in doubt as to whether the transceiver is also (or contains) the GNSS receiver. Also, the reader may be in doubt as to whether the Applicant is attempting to suggest that a processor has specialized circuitry and antenna to collect satellite data. Also, it is not clear from most of the claims as to whether the apparatus comprises the GNSS device, thus making it difficult to ascertain when infringement occurs. As such, the metes and bounds of the claims are not fully defined, thus the claims are indefinite.
Dependent claims 12 – 16 and 19 are rejected due to dependency on a rejected base claim.
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 – 4, 6 – 7, 10 – 16 and 19 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kannan (US 20220163679 A1) in view of Johnson (US 20170227648 A1).
As to claims 1, 11 and 20, Kannan discloses apparatus for supporting global navigation satellite system (GNSS) positioning of a GNSS device, the apparatus comprising:
at least one transceiver (Fig. 2 item 215);
at least one memory (Fig. 2 item 11); and
at least one processor communicatively coupled with the at least one transceiver and at least one memory (Fig. 2 item 210), the at least one processor configured to:
obtain GNSS measurement data indicative of a plurality of GNSS measurements (Fig. 2 item 217);
obtain ionospheric correction data applicable to the plurality of GNSS measurements, the ionospheric correction data including (Fig. 12 item 230 – 250), for each GNSS measurement of the plurality of GNSS measurements:
correction information indicative of an ionospheric delay correction (Para. 102 “weighted average”), and variance information indicative of a variance or uncertainty of the correction information (Para. 102 “uncertainty”);
determine an ionospheric correction variance threshold based at least in part on the plurality of GNSS measurements and the variance information for the plurality of GNSS measurements (Para. 102 “threshold variance”); and
Although the term “output” is broad, the Examiner will provide another reference to provide a teaching for the feature provide an output indicative of the ionospheric correction variance threshold in order to expedite prosecution. It is not readily apparent to the Examiner that the primary reference Kannan teaches “output” other than Kannan’s Fig. 2 showing a bus connected to various circuitries.
In the same field of endeavor, Johnson teaches “The processor 130 determines if the ephemeris uncertainty for one or more of the second plurality of satellites 51-54 in view of the first ground subsystem 501 exceeds a preselected threshold. If the ephemeris uncertainty for one or more of the satellites 51, 52, 53, or 54 in view of the first ground subsystem 501 exceeds the preselected threshold, the processor 130 ceases broadcasting the correction data for the effected satellite 51, 52, 53, or 54 (i.e., the satellite that has an ephemeris uncertainty that exceeds the preselected threshold). If the ephemeris uncertainty for a satellite 51, 52, 53, or 54 in view of the first ground subsystem 501 is less than the preselected threshold, the processor 130 broadcasts the adjusted Vertical Ionosphere Gradient standard deviation sigma-vig (σ.sub.vig) and the ephemeris uncertainty from the first ground subsystem 501. In one implementation of this embodiment, the adjusted Vertical Ionosphere Gradient standard deviation sigma-vig (σ.sub.vig) and the ephemeris uncertainty are broadcast by the transmitter 160 (FIG. 2) (Para. 55).
In view of Johnson, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled before filing to provide ionospheric standard deviation and ephemeris correction data to other devices because not all devices may be capable of correcting for ionospheric delay thus do so improve overall integrity of the GNSS network. Whether said correction data is sent is indicative of whether a threshold is met ensuring said correction data is reliable.
As to claims 2 and 12, Kannan in view of Johnson teaches the apparatus of claim 1/11, wherein the apparatus comprises a server, and wherein the at least one processor is configured to send the ionospheric correction variance threshold to the GNSS device via the at least one transceiver (as modified in the independent claims wherein Johnson shows data exchange between several ground subsystems. Johnson Fig. 4A).
As to claims 3 and 13, Kannan in view of Johnson teaches the apparatus of claim 2/12, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to obtain the GNSS measurement data from a plurality of GNSS devices the at least one transceiver (As modified in the independent claims wherein Johnson shows multiple satellites in Fig. 1B or multiple reference receivers in Fig. 1A. At least three to four satellites or receivers are needed to provide localization data, four for height.).
As to claims 4 and 14, Kannan in view of Johnson teaches the apparatus of claim 1/11, wherein the GNSS measurement data further comprises, for each GNSS measurement of the plurality of GNSS measurements:
ephemeris data (Kannan Para. 4 “ephemeris information includes details about the satellite’s orbit and corrections …” It’s obvious to apply ephemeris to have more accuracy.), and, ground truth information (Kannan Para. 35 “RTK” which uses a stationary reference station to provide better accuracy.); and
wherein to determine the ionospheric correction variance threshold, the at least one processor is configured to:
determine a residual for each GNSS measurement of the plurality of GNSS measurements based at least in part on the GNSS measurement, the ephemeris data and ground truth information of the GNSS measurement, and the ionospheric correction data applicable to the plurality of GNSS measurements (Kannan Para. 56 “The PMD 219 may be configured to provide indications of uncertainty and/or error in the determined position and/or motion.” See also Johnson Paras. 63 – 64, 75 and 82 also discloses mitigation of errors, as well as determine faulty satellites, wherein the motivation to mitigate errors is to improve.); and
analyze residuals of the plurality of GNSS measurements (Id.).
As to claims 6 and 15, Kannan in view of Johnson teaches the apparatus of claim 1/11, wherein, to determine the ionospheric correction variance threshold, the at least one processor is configured to determine an average variational coefficient (Kannan Para. 102 “determining the bias estimate may include determining a weighted average of the bias estimate over a period of time. The period of time may be based on a number of measurements, or an uncertainty value (e.g., when the bias estimates are within a threshold variance value).”, a median total electron count (TEC) variance, or both.
As to claim 7, Kannan in view of Johnson teaches the method of claim 1, wherein obtaining the GNSS measurement data, obtaining the ionospheric correction data applicable to the plurality of GNSS measurements, and determining the ionospheric correction variance threshold are performed by the GNSS device (Kannan Fig. 2).
As to claim 16, Kannan in view of Johnson teaches the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the apparatus comprises the GNSS device (Kannan Fig. 2 SPS item 217).
As to claims 10 and 19, Kannan in view of Johnson teaches the apparatus of claim 1/11, wherein, to obtain the ionospheric correction data applicable to the plurality of GNSS measurements, the at least one processor is configured to receive the correction data applicable to the plurality of GNSS measurements from a Satellite Based Augmentation System (SBAS) (Kannan Para. 65 & 104).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kannan in view of Johnson and in further view of Drescher (US 20160377730 A1).
As to claim 5, Kannan in view of Johnson does not teach the method of claim 4, wherein analyzing residuals comprises performing a regression analysis.
In same field, Drescher teaches “The functional model in this Least Squares step comprises ASHA functions, the set of ASHA coefficients of which is estimated (Para. 159).”
In view of Drescher, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled before filing to apply least squares because least squares in standard approach to account for data irregularities associated with satellites thereby improving accuracy.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 – 9 and 17 – 18 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.
Regarding claim 8, Kannan in view of Johnson teaches the method of claim 7, further comprising:
performing, with the GNSS device, a set of GNSS measurements (Kannan Fig. 2);
obtaining ionospheric correction data applicable to the set of GNSS measurements (Kannan Para. 23);
filtering the ionospheric correction data applicable to the set of GNSS measurements based at least in part on the ionospheric correction variance threshold (Kannan: Para. 102 as previously cited. See also Para. 65 “remove a significant portion of the ionospheric bias.” & Para. 95 “filtered bias estimate …”; and
determining a location of the GNSS device based at least in part on the filtered the ionospheric correction data and the set of GNSS measurements (Kannan Fig. 8 step 808);
Kannan in view of Johnson does not teach the features of wherein providing the output indicative of the ionospheric correction variance threshold comprises providing an output indicative of the determined location of the GNSS device.
Johnson teaches “At block 312, a Vertical Ionosphere Gradient standard deviation sigma-vig (σ.sub.vig) is adjusted by the processor 130 based on the determined quality metric of the ionosphere. If the quality metric of the ionosphere has been met (i.e., is less than the preselected threshold), the satellite measurement data is used for computation of differential corrections and a simple technique of overbounding is used for mitigation of the spatial ionosphere decorrelation error. These differential corrections are generated using the location of the local references receivers 161-164. The average error measured by all operational reference receivers is the correction term that can be processed by the vehicle's (e.g., the aircraft's) GNSS receiver to compensate for the delay in signal along the aircraft's line of sight. The ground system 501 processes signals from each of the second plurality of satellites 51-54 in view to compile the list of broadcast corrections to be utilized by the vehicle 200 (Para. 50).”
However, Johnson does not teach an output that includes both the ionospheric variance threshold and the determined position as claimed. The Examiner does not know of a reason to modify.
Claim 17 has similar limitations to claim 7.
Dependent claim 9 and 18 depends from claims 8 and 17, respectively, and thus allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL W JUSTICE whose telephone number is (571)270-7029. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 5:30 M-F.
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, William Kelleher can be reached at 571-272-7753. 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.
/MICHAEL W JUSTICE/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights