DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and stand rejected.
Priority
Applicant’s priority claim based on provisional application 62/910,131 through parent applications PCT/IB2020/059291 and 17/765,192 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed 12/26/2026 has been considered by the examiner. The examiner notes that the foreign patent documents and non-patent literature referenced by the applicant was considered because it was filed in parent application 17/765,192.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “36” has been used to designate both the current reference station and the subsequent reference station. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the same reference character (36) is used to refer to both the current reference station and the subsequent reference station. See, e.g., p. 25, lines 25-28.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 recites "of cell serving" on line 5 but should read "of a cell serving". Claim 8 is objected to for the same reason. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (WO 2018/126869 A1), hereinafter Huang, in view of Carcanague et al. (US 10809388 B1), hereinafter Carcanague.
Regarding claim 1, Huang teaches (note: what Huang does not teach is struck through),
A method (abs., “A positioning method and apparatus.”) implemented by a wireless device that is configured to communicate with a location node (“The mobile device, which is the end user of the VRS system, uses the receiver to obtain differential correction information from the service center in real time within the coverage of the VRS network to implement RTK positioning.”), the method comprising:
transmitting a request message including a cell identifier of cell serving the wireless device (para. 0104, “As shown in FIG. 3, when the mobile device starts moving from the A cell, and sets the ambiguity adjustment parameter n to the mobile device, and the initial value is 0, the mobile device can send the coordinates of the current mobile device and the mobile device motion speed to the service center.” The examiner notes that coordinates fit the broadest reasonable interpretation of “cell identifier” because they give the location of the wireless device, thus identifying which cell it is in);
receiving an indication of an applicability of a first (para. 0104, “When the service center determines that the mobile device needs to cross to the B cell, the service center can calculate the ambiguity difference between the two cells as ΔNA, B, then the service center can calculate the ambiguity adjustment parameter of the mobile device in the B cell.” The examiner notes that the service center is a GNSS-RTK reference station, see para. 0074, “The network RTK is to uniformly and sparsely arrange several (generally at least 3) fixed observation stations (referred to as reference stations) in a relatively wide area to form a reference station network, and provide network differential information for the mobile device in real time based on one or more of these reference stations, so as to correct the error of the global navigation satellite system (GNSS) of the mobile device to achieve the purpose of high-precision positioning.” The examiner notes that the ambiguity adjustment parameter is an indication of applicability of the previous ambiguity level to the new ambiguity level); and
estimating a position of the wireless device based at least in part on the indication (“The ambiguity adjustment parameter value accumulated by the mobile device from the motion revise the observation value of the primary base station on which the mobile device is located in the next cell location, and generate the virtual station observation value for the positioning, which can solve the positioning of the mobile device in the inter-area time.”).
Huang does not explicitly teach that the ambiguity levels of each GNSS-RTK reference station are integer ambiguity levels.
Carcanague teaches that the ambiguity levels shared by GNSS-RTK reference stations are integer ambiguity levels (col. 5, lines 31-67, “Further, carrier phase measurements are ambiguous; because the carrier signal is uniform, it may not be possible to differentiate between a phase shift of φ and 2πN+φ using phase measurements alone, where N is an integer. For example, it may be difficult to determine the difference between a phase shift of π radians and a phase shift of 3π radians (or −π, 5π, etc.)… The result is that RTK solutions can converge much more quickly than PPP solutions (and without the high accuracy global corrections data needed by PPP).”).
Huang and Carcanague are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the ambiguity levels of Huang to be integer ambiguity levels, as they are in Carcanague. In GNSS-RTK positioning, ambiguity levels are typically integer ambiguity levels. Thus, the modification of Huang to include the integer ambiguity levels of Carcanague is no more than a modification of Huang to perform a standard technique in the art for determining ambiguity levels.
Regarding claim 2, Huang in view of Carcanague teaches the method of Claim 1. Huang further teaches,
…wherein the indication indicates whether the first integer ambiguity level of the first GNSS-RTK reference station is transferable to the second GNSS-RTK reference station (para. 0094, “If the ambiguity adjustment parameter of the mobile device is n, it is assumed that the ambiguity adjustment parameter of the mobile device is n, if the mobile device moves from the first cell to the second cell for the first time, it is assumed that the ambiguity difference between the second cell and the primary reference station of the first cell is ΔN1, the ambiguity difference between the second cell and the primary base station of the third cell is ΔN2, and if the initial value of n is 0, the ambiguity adjustment parameter value of the mobile device in the third cell is n = ΔN1 + ΔN2”).
Regarding claim 3, Huang in view of Carcanague teaches the method of Claim 1. Huang further teaches,
…wherein the spatial information indicates the cell identifier of the cell serving the wireless device (para. 0104, “when the service center determines that the mobile device needs to span to the B cell, the service center may calculate that the ambiguity difference between the two cells is ΔN A and B, then the service center may calculate the ambiguity adjustment parameter value n = ΔN A and B of the mobile device in the B cell, and adjust the observation value of the primary reference station in the B cell to generate the virtual station observation value, so that when the mobile device moves to the B cell, the mobile device may be positioned according to the virtual station observation value sent by the service center” The examiner notes that the special information indicates that the device is first in Cell A, then on the border between Cells A and B, and then in Cell B, indicating that the spatial information indicates the cell identifier).
Regarding claim 4, Huang in view of Carcanague teaches the method of Claim 1. Huang further teaches (note: what Huang does not teach is struck through), \
…wherein the first GNSS-RTK reference station corresponds to a first node with a known first physical position satellite system receiver for measuring signals from at least one satellite; and the second GNSS-RTK reference station corresponds to a second node with a known second physical position(para. 0099, “According to the ambiguity parameter of the known baseline in the reference station network, the first ambiguity difference value is obtained by a vector operation, the reference station network is a dilol triangle mesh formed by a plurality of reference stations on a two-dimensional plane, and the known baseline constitutes a shortest path from the first master reference station to the second master reference station in the reference station network.” The examiner notes that forming the above operation necessitates knowing the position of each reference station in the dilol triangle mesh. See also para. 0047, “The network RTK is to uniformly and sparsely arrange several (generally at least 3) fixed observation stations (referred to as reference stations)”).
Carcanague teaches,
…wherein the first GNSS-RTK reference station corresponds to a first node with a known first physical position and first antenna configuration that has a first global navigation satellite system receiver for measuring signals from at least one satellite; and the second GNSS-RTK reference station corresponds to a second node with a known second physical position and second antenna configuration that has a second global navigation satellite system receiver for measuring signals from at least one satellite (col. 31, lines 56-67, “The number and quality of satellite receivers used by a reference station (or other factors, like antenna type/size/location) may determine the accuracy of reference station data. Reference stations 1600 (or other sources of reference station data; e.g., a reference source that creates correction data from multiple reference stations) may be ordered or grouped by reference station quality (e.g., accuracy of corrections) and/or locality (e.g., if corrections are desired for a particular GNSS receiver, reference stations may be ordered or grouped by distance to that receiver).”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Huang to include the known antenna configuration of each respective GNSS-RTK reference station of Carcanague. As Carcanague notes in the section referenced above, the antenna locations of a reference station can impact the accuracy of the reference station data and thus the quality of the measured integer ambiguity level for positioning. Thus, taking into account antenna configuration would increase the accuracy of the measurement of the applicability of the integer ambiguity level, thus improving positioning accuracy.
Regarding claim 5, Huang in view of Carcanague teaches the method of Claim 1. Huang further teaches (note: what Huang does not teach is struck through. Italicized text added for clarity),
…further comprising determining a carrier information of the second reference station (eq. 1), the estimate of the position being based at least in part on the determined carrier information of the second GNSS-RTK reference station (para. 0049, “After receiving the differential correction data of the International Maritime Services (RTCM) sent by the VRS control center, the mobile device can obtain the coordinate solution of centimeter-level precision”).
Although Huang does not explicitly teach that the carrier information of eq. 1 is carrier phase information, the symbol φ is typically used to represent phase, and carrier phase is typically used to calculate ambiguity levels. However, for the sake of completeness, the examiner notes that Carcanague explicitly teaches determining integer ambiguity at a reference station based on carrier phase, and then using integer ambiguity to estimate position (col. 5, lines 31-67, “) Instead of solely using the positioning code broadcast by satellites, PPP and RTK also make use of satellite signal carrier phase to determine position. While much higher accuracy is possible using carrier phase data, accurately determining position of a GNSS receiver (i.e., the receiver for which position is to be calculated) requires accounting for a number of potential sources of error. Further, carrier phase measurements are ambiguous; because the carrier signal is uniform, it may not be possible to differentiate between a phase shift of φ and 2πN+φ using phase measurements alone, where N is an integer. For example, it may be difficult to determine the difference between a phase shift of π radians and a phase shift of 3π radians (or −π, 5π, etc.)…RTK avoids a large majority of the modeling present in PPP by use of GNSS reference stations (with precisely known locations); since a reference station is local to the GNSS receiver, differencing the reference station and GNSS receiver signals can result in greatly reduced error.”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to understand the carrier information of Huang to be the carrier phase information of Carcanague because using carrier phase information to determine integer ambiguity, and thus to determine an accurate position, is the standard practice in the art of GNSS-RTK positioning.
Regarding claim 6, Huang in view of Carcanague teaches the method of Claim 1. Huang further teaches,
…wherein the wireless device is reassigned from the first GNSS-RTK reference station to the second GNSS-RTK reference station (para. 0109, “Optionally, in this embodiment of this application, the first ambiguity adjustment parameter value is obtained by adding the second ambiguity adjustment parameter value of the mobile device to the second serving cell and the ambiguity difference between the first primary reference station and the second primary reference station, the second primary reference station is the primary reference station of the second serving cell, and before the receiving the first virtual station observation value sent by the service center, the method further includes: send first information to the service center, where the first information is used by the service center to determine that a master reference station that provides a positioning service for the mobile device is to be switched from the first master reference station to the second master reference station.”).
Regarding claim 7, Huang in view of Carcanague teaches the method of Claim 6. Huang further teaches,
…wherein the indication indicates for the wireless device to monitor RTK signaling from the second GNSS-RTK reference station instead of the first GNSS-RTK reference station (para. 0113, “the method further includes: receiving a second virtual station observation value sent by the service center, where the second virtual station observation value is obtained by adjusting an observation value of the second primary reference station based on the second ambiguity adjustment parameter value; and in a case that the mobile device moves from the second serving cell to the first serving cell, switching a virtual station observation value for positioning the mobile device from the second virtual station observation value to the first virtual station observation value.”).
Regarding claim 8, Huang teaches,
A wireless device (para. 0052, “a mobile device”) configured to communicate with a location node (para. 0053, “the mobility of the mobile device is strong, and it is connected to the service center through a wireless connection”), the wireless device comprising: processing circuitry (figs. 6-8, processing units 420, 510, 610. See also paras. 0133, 0141, 0147)…
Claim 8 is otherwise rejected for the same reasons and using the same citations as claim 1.
Claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons and using the same citations as claim 2.
Claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons and using the same citations as claim 3.
Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons and using the same citations as claim 4.
Claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons and using the same citations as claim 5.
Claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons and using the same citations as claim 6.
Claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons and using the same citations as claim 7.
Regarding claim 15, Huang teaches (note: what Huang does not teach is struck through),
A method implemented by a location node that is configured to communicate with a wireless device (“the mobility of the mobile device is strong, and it is wirelessly connected to the service center.”), the method comprising:
receiving a request message including a cell identifier of a cell serving the wireless device (para. 0090, “the mobile device may periodically send the current position information and the position information at the next moment to the service center, so that the service center determines, based on the two received position information, whether the mobile device performs cross-cell motion”); and
transmitting an indication of an applicability of a first (para. 0090, “if it is determined that the mobile device performs cross-cell motion, The ambiguity difference between the master reference stations in the two cells before and after can be calculated, and accumulated to the ambiguity adjustment parameter value of the mobile device in the previous cell, so that the service center can determine, according to the calculated ambiguity adjustment parameter value of the mobile device in the next cell, the virtual station observation value of the mobile device according to the subsequent cell, and send the determined virtual station observation value to the mobile device, so that the mobile device can perform positioning according to the virtual station observation value.”), the first and second GNSS-RTK reference stations being associated with spatial information that is associated with the cell identifier of the cell serving the wireless device (para. 0099, “According to the ambiguity parameter of the known baseline in the reference station network, the first ambiguity difference value is obtained by a vector operation, the reference station network is a dilol triangle mesh formed by a plurality of reference stations on a two-dimensional plane, and the known baseline constitutes a shortest path from the first master reference station to the second master reference station in the reference station network.” The examiner notes that forming the above operation necessitates knowing the position of each reference station in the dilol triangle mesh. See also para. 0047, “The network RTK is to uniformly and sparsely arrange several (generally at least 3) fixed observation stations (referred to as reference stations)”).
Huang does not explicitly teach that the ambiguity levels of each GNSS-RTK reference station are integer ambiguity levels.
Carcanague teaches that the ambiguity levels shared by GNSS-RTK reference stations are integer ambiguity levels (col. 5, lines 31-67, “Further, carrier phase measurements are ambiguous; because the carrier signal is uniform, it may not be possible to differentiate between a phase shift of φ and 2πN+φ using phase measurements alone, where N is an integer. For example, it may be difficult to determine the difference between a phase shift of π radians and a phase shift of 3π radians (or −π, 5π, etc.)… The result is that RTK solutions can converge much more quickly than PPP solutions (and without the high accuracy global corrections data needed by PPP).”).
Huang and Carcanague are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the ambiguity levels of Huang to be integer ambiguity levels, as they are in Carcanague. In GNSS-RTK positioning, ambiguity levels are typically integer ambiguity levels. Thus, the modification of Huang to include the integer ambiguity levels of Carcanague is no more than a modification of Huang to perform a standard technique in the art for determining ambiguity levels.
Regarding claim 16, Huang in view of Carcanague teaches the method of Claim 15. Huang as previously modified by Carcanague further teaches,
…further comprising: determining a wireless device relationship between the first GNSS-RTK reference station and the second GNSS-RTK reference station based at least in part on the spatial information associated with the cell identifier of the cell serving the wireless device (para. 0099, “Optionally, in this embodiment of this application, the obtaining a first ambiguity difference between the first master reference station and the second master reference station includes: According to the ambiguity parameter of the known baseline in the reference station network, the first ambiguity difference value is obtained by a vector operation, the reference station network is a dilol triangle mesh formed by a plurality of reference stations on a two-dimensional plane, and the known baseline constitutes a shortest path from the first master reference station to the second master reference station in the reference station network.” The examiner notes that forming the above operation necessitates knowing the position of each reference station in the dilol triangle mesh. See also para. 0047, “The network RTK is to uniformly and sparsely arrange several (generally at least 3) fixed observation stations (referred to as reference stations)”); and comparing a first integer ambiguity level of the first GNSS-RTK reference station with a second integer ambiguity level of the second GNSS-RTK reference station, the second GNSS-RTK reference station corresponding to a current GNSS-RTK reference station of the wireless device (para. 0100, “In this embodiment of this application, the ambiguity parameter of the baseline is known by searching for the shortest baseline between the primary datum stations of the two cells before and after the cross-zone, and the ambiguity difference between the two primary datum stations before and after the cross-zone can be obtained by performing a vector operation on the searched known baseline. It should be understood that the embodiments of this application should not be limited to the ambiguity difference determined based on the shortest baseline, as long as the ambiguity difference between the two master reference stations can be obtained.”).
The examiner notes that the ambiguity levels of Huang are not explicitly taught to be integer ambiguity levels, but the modification of the ambiguity levels of Huang to be specifically integer ambiguity levels as taught by Carcanague was described above with respect to claim 15, upon which claim 16 depends.
Claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons and using the same citations as claim 2.
Claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons and using the same citations as claim 7.
Claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons and using the same citations as claim 4.
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons and using the same citations as claim 7, noting that claim 7 is dependent upon, and thus includes all the limitations of, claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anna K Benjamin Gosling whose telephone number is (571)272-0401. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday, 7-3 Eastern; Friday 8-4 Eastern.
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.
/Anna K. Benjamin Gosling/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/NAZRA NUR WAHEED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights