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
This action is in reply to the preliminary amendment filed 27 January 2005
Claims 1-12 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-12 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 27 January 2025 has been considered by the examiner and an initialed copy of the IDS is hereby attached.
Claim Objections
Claims 5-7, 10-12, and 12 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 5-7 recite “a method of claim…” However, claims 5-7 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1 which recites “a method”. The examiner suggests amending claims 5-7 to recite “the method of…”.
Claims 10-12 recite “a device of claim…” However, claims 10-12 depend directly or indirectly from claim 8 which recites “a device”. The examiner suggests amending claims 10-12 to recite “the method of…”.
In claim 12, line 2 the recitation of “values of first absolute position” should be replaced with “values of the first absolute position”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The examiner notes that claim 1 recites “ obtaining a second absolute position of the device at the second location when the error in determining the at least one relative position of the device exceeds a predefined threshold”. This recitation is a contingent limitation and does not require that the second absolute position to be obtained. For example in situations in which the error is below the predetermined threshold, the second absolute position will not be obtained.
The examiner notes that claim 5 recites “postponing activation of the first sensor for determining the second absolute position if the calculated error is within the predefined threshold”. This recitation is a contingent limitation and it does not require that the activation is postponed in the situation in which the error is not within the predefined threshold.
See at least See at least MPEP2111.04 II. CONTINGENT LIMITATIONS
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. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed.
See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. In Schulhauser, both method claims and system claims recited the same contingent step. When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, “[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed” (quotation omitted). Schulhauser at 10. When analyzing the claimed system as a whole, the PTAB determined that “[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a system claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, still requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur.” Schulhauser at 14. Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (e.g., instances in which the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria such that the condition precedent for the determining step and the remaining steps of claim 1 has not been met);" however to render the claimed system obvious, the prior art must teach the structure that performs the function of the contingent step along with the other recited claim limitations. Schulhauser at 9, 14.
The examiner notes that claim 1 recites “ receive information about the at least one relative position of the device along the path between the first location and the second location as determined by the second sensor, wherein a given relative position of a given intermediate absolute position is determined by forward tracking of the given intermediate absolute position with respect to the first location, and backward tracking of the given intermediate absolute position with respect to the second location”. The claim does not positively recite the determination of the of given relative position of the given intermediate absolute position. The examiner recommends writing the step of determining in the gerund from to positively recite the step of determining.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are 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 1 recites “determining a path traveled by the device between the first location and a second location, based on at least one intermediate absolute position of the device that is received while the device is traveling between the first location and the second location”. It is not clear from the claim, nor the description, how the path is determined. The examiner notes claim recites that the determination is made while the device is travelling between the first and the second location. Based on the examiner’s understanding, the first absolute position of the device at the first location and an intermediate absolute position of the device along the path are known, however the second location is not known. It is not clear how the second position is not known, but the path to the second location can be determined. Rather, it appears the claim implies that the device has travelled to the second location, despite the claim language of “while the device is travelling…(to) the second location.” Therefore, it is not clear how the path between the intermediate absolute position and the second location is determined without knowledge of the second location. Still further, it is not clear if the first absolute position and the first location is used for determining the path. Claim 8 has a similar recitation and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 1 further recites “determining at least one relative position of the device along the path between the first location and the second location, wherein a given relative position of a given intermediate absolute position is determined by forward tracking of the given intermediate absolute position with respect to the first location, and backward tracking of the given intermediate absolute position with respect to the second location”. It is not clear to what the relative position is compared. Is the relative position of a given intermediate absolute position relative to the first location, the first absolute position, a previous intermediate absolute position, the second location, the second absolute position of the device or another position or location. Claim 8 has a similar recitation and is rejected for the same reasons.
Further, in the same recitation of claim 1 of “determining at least one relative position of the device along the path between the first location and the second location, wherein a given relative position of a given intermediate absolute position is determined by forward tracking of the given intermediate absolute position with respect to the first location, and backward tracking of the given intermediate absolute position with respect to the second location” it unclear what is intended by the phrase “relative position” and absolute position”, how they differ and how the terms are used in the context of the claim. The claim appears indicate that the relative position is obtained by “forward tracking” from the first location, wherein the first location has an obtained absolute position. Accordingly, the position obtained by the forward tracking would be an absolute position, not a relative position. This is also supported by the instant Application at page 11 and 12 (see Instant Application at page 11 “The path may be determined using a given intermediate absolute position (namely, the at least one intermediate absolute position) of the device 200, wherein the given intermediate absolute position may be determined using a previously-known intermediate absolute position, a previously-known direction of traveling, a distance traveled from the previously-known intermediate absolute position, of the device 200.” and page 12 “As the device 200 travels between the first location and the second location, a plurality of intermediate angular velocities of the device 200 may be obtained, and said plurality of intermediate angular velocities are integrated to obtain the at least one intermediate absolute positions of the device 200. Herein, the device 200 may maintain a record of the intermediate angle of the device 200 with more accuracy. “). Thus, it is not clear what is meant by the term “relative position” and how that differs from “absolute position”. Claim 8 has a similar recitation and is rejected for the same reason.
Further, in the above recitation, it is not clear what is meant by a “given relative position” wherein the relative position is not yet determined. Does a “given” relative position imply that the relative position is obtained or known? Claim 8 has a similar recitation and is rejected for the same reason.
Further it is not clear what is meant by “forward tracking of the given intermediate absolute position with respect to the first position”. It is not clear what the scope of “forward tracking” is or what the steps are of “forward tracking” to meet the claim limitation. Further, it is not clear how the given intermediate absolution position is used for the forward tracking. Claim 8 has a similar recitation and is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 1 recites “calculating an error in determining the at least one relative position of the device”. It is not clear how the error is calculated or what error is calculated. For example is the error in a deviation between the determined relative position and the intermediate absolute position, is the error a sensor error determined for the particular sensor that determined the relative position (see claim 4). Further, it is not clear if the relative position is used for calculating the error or if the error is in the relative position. Claim 8 has a similar recitation and is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 4 recites “ the first sensor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 depends from claim 3 and does not depend from claim 2 wherein the first sensor is introduced.
Claim 5 recites “ the first sensor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites “if the calculated error is with the predefined threshold”. It is not clear what the term “within” means in this context. Does this require that the calculated error is less than, greater than or equal to the predefined threshold. Claim 10 has a similar recitation and is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 7 recites “ the first sensor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites “the second sensor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 1-12 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 steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: determining or obtaining the second location.
Claim 1 recites “determining a path traveled by the device between the first location and a second location, based on at least one intermediate absolute position of the device that is received while the device is traveling between the first location and the second location”. The path between the intermediate absolute position and the second location is determined requires knowledge of the second location. However, the determination of the second location is not recited. Claim 8 has a similar recitation and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 2-7 depend from claim 1 and are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, based on their dependency on claim 1.
Claims 9-12 depend from claim 8 and are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, based on their dependency on claim 8.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Following the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 and MPEP § 2106, hereinafter 2019 Guidance), the claim(s) appear to recite at least one abstract idea, as explained in the Step 2A, Prong I analysis below. Furthermore, the judicial exception(s) does/do not appear to be integrated into a practical application as explained in the Step 2A, Prong II analysis below. Further still, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) as explained in the Step 2B analysis below.
STEP 1:
Step 1, of the 2019 Guidance, first looks to whether the claimed invention is directed to a statutory category, namely a process, machine, manufactures, and compositions of matter.
Claim 1 is directed toward a method and is therefore eligible for further analysis.
Claim 8 is directed toward a device and is therefore eligible for further analysis.
STEP 2A, PRONG I:
Step 2A, prong I, of the 2019 Guidance, first looks to whether the claimed invention recites any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes).
Independent claim 8 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim(s) for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 8 recites:
A device for positional tracking, comprising:
- a first sensor configured to determine a first absolute position of the device at a first location, when activated;
- a second sensor configured to determine at least one relative position of the device between the first location and a second location;
- a battery for supplying power to at least the first sensor;
- a processor configured to:
- receive information about the first absolute position of the device as determined by the first sensor;
- determine a path traveled by the device between the first location and the second location, based on at least one intermediate absolute position of the device that is received while the device is traveling between the first location and the second location;
- receive information about the at least one relative position of the device along the path between the first location and the second location as determined by the second sensor, wherein a given relative position of a given intermediate absolute position is determined by forward tracking of the given intermediate absolute position with respect to the first location, and backward tracking of the given intermediate absolute position with respect to the second location;
- calculate an error in determining the at least one relative position of the device; and
- activate the first sensor to obtain a second absolute position of the device at the second location when the error in determining the at least one relative position of the device exceeds a predefined threshold.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the “determine a path traveled by the device between the first location and the second location, based on at least one intermediate absolute position of the device that is received while the device is traveling between the first location and the second location; wherein a given relative position of a given intermediate absolute position is determined by forward tracking of the given intermediate absolute position with respect to the first location, and backward tracking of the given intermediate absolute position with respect to the second location”, “calculate an error in determining the at least one relative position of the device” and “activate the first sensor to obtain a second absolute position of the device at the second location when the error in determining the at least one relative position of the device exceeds a predefined threshold” steps encompass a human determining a path between a start and destination location based on a received intermediate position (e.g. an intermediate location, stop, or destination) and determining the relative location of the intermediate location from the first location or the second location and determining an error in the determined relative location of the intermediate location based on an absolute location of the intermediate location upon arrival and pressing a button to activate the second sensor when the error is above a certain amount.
STEP 2A, PRONG II:
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
Claim 8 recites:
A device for positional tracking, comprising:
- a first sensor configured to determine a first absolute position of the device at a first location, when activated;
- a second sensor configured to determine at least one relative position of the device between the first location and a second location;
- a battery for supplying power to at least the first sensor;
- a processor configured to:
- receive information about the first absolute position of the device as determined by the first sensor;
- determine a path traveled by the device between the first location and the second location, based on at least one intermediate absolute position of the device that is received while the device is traveling between the first location and the second location;
- receive information about the at least one relative position of the device along the path between the first location and the second location as determined by the second sensor, wherein a given relative position of a given intermediate absolute position is determined by forward tracking of the given intermediate absolute position with respect to the first location, and backward tracking of the given intermediate absolute position with respect to the second location;
- calculate an error in determining the at least one relative position of the device; and
- activate the first sensor to obtain a second absolute position of the device at the second location when the error in determining the at least one relative position of the device exceeds a predefined threshold.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application:
Regarding the additional limitations of “a first sensor configured to determine a first absolute position of the device at a first location, when activated; a second sensor configured to determine at least one relative position of the device between the first location and a second location; a battery for supplying power to at least the first sensor; - a processor configured to: receive information about the first absolute position of the device as determined by the first sensor; receive information about the at least one relative position of the device along the path between the first location and the second location as determined by the second sensor” the examiner submits that these limitations merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In particular, “a first sensor configured to determine a first absolute position of the device at a first location, when activated; a second sensor configured to determine at least one relative position of the device between the first location and a second location; a battery for supplying power to at least the first sensor; a processor configured to…receive information” is recited at a high level of generality that merely automates the receiving and determining therefore acting as a generic computer or generic components such as processors, sensor, and batteries that are simply employed as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a general purpose computer see page 7-8 of instant application).
Further, the limitations of “ receive information about the first absolute position of the device as determined by the first sensor; receive information about the at least one relative position of the device along the path between the first location and the second location as determined by the second sensor,” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of data gathering or data output) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See at least MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, these additional elements merely reflect insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
STEP 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, the representative independent claim 8 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a first sensor configured to determine a first absolute position of the device at a first location, when activated; a second sensor configured to determine at least one relative position of the device between the first location and a second location; a battery for supplying power to at least the first sensor; a processor configured to…receive information” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer or generic components (see pages 7-8 of the instant application). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer or generic components that are simply employed as a tool cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, as discussed above, the additional limitations of “ receive information about the first absolute position of the device as determined by the first sensor; receive information about the at least one relative position of the device along the path between the first location and the second location as determined by the second sensor,” the examiner submits are insignificant extra-solution activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 1 has similar recitations to claim 8 and the analysis above with respect to claim 8 also applies to claim 1.
Dependent claim(s) 2-7 and 9-12 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically, the claims only recite limitations further defining the mental process, “apply it” and insignificant extra-solution activity. These limitations are considered mental process steps (determining, calculating, postponing activation), “apply it” (first and second sensor), and additional steps that amount to necessary data output (e.g. storing). These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on the claimed invention. As such, the additional elements individually and in combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 2-7 and 9-12 are not patent eligible.
Accordingly, claims 1-12 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Egberts (US-6549844-B1).
Regarding claim 1, Egberts discloses a method (100) for positional tracking of a device, comprising:
- obtaining a first absolute position of the device at a first location (see at least Egberts col. 4, lines 14-20 “The navigation system ascertains, as often as possible, that is to say usually at a frequency of 1 Hz, positions 2 using navigation satellites which are part of the global position system or GPS. The sequence of the positions 2 is filtered. This produces a profile 3 of positions 4, called control positions 4 below.”) ;
- determining a path traveled by the device between the first location and a second location, based on at least one intermediate absolute position of the device that is received while the device is traveling between the first location and the second location (see at least Egberts Figure1 and col 4, lines 20-35 “(3) The vehicle's navigation system has a direction meter, for example a gyroscope, and a distance meter. The system uses these to ascertain a series of vectors 5, which are added vectorially. This produces a profile 6 of actual positions 7. ….(4) The navigation system now compares the actual positions 7 with the profile of the road 1. So long as the actual positions are situated close enough to the road and the direction of the road 1 matches the direction of the profile 6, the system assumes that the vehicle is traveling on the road 1.” ;
- determining at least one relative position of the device along the path between the first location and the second location, wherein a given relative position of a given intermediate absolute position is determined by forward tracking of the given intermediate absolute position with respect to the first location, and backward tracking of the given intermediate absolute position with respect to the second location (see at least Egberts Figure 1 wherein there is forward tracking from the start position. See also col 4, lines 20-35 “The vehicle's navigation system has a direction meter, for example a gyroscope, and a distance meter. The system uses these to ascertain a series of vectors 5, which are added vectorially. This produces a profile 6 of actual positions 7. Although the actual positions 7 may not indicate the actual location of the vehicle, the navigation system assumes that the vehicle is situated at the actual positions”)
- calculating an error in determining the at least one relative position of the device (see at least Egberts col 4, line 43 through col 5 lines 35 “(7) So that the position of the vehicle, ascertained using compound navigation, is not completely misleading, the actual position 7 is then compared at intervals with the control position 4. Since the control position 4 is filtered with respect to the actual GPS position, inaccuracies when the position is ascertained using the satellites are compensated for to some extent over time…(8) The gap between the actual position 7 and the associated comparison position on the road 1 is then ascertained from time to time, for example at a frequency of 5 Hz. At the beginning of the journey, a reliability value was prescribed, for example 25,000 cm or 250 m…. (11) The reliability value can, as mentioned, change in a range from 0 to 50,000 cm or from 0 to 500 m. However, an error value or gap of neither 0 m nor 500 m is desirable. Accordingly, the reliability value would need to be converted to an error value on the basis of some prescribed function.); and
- obtaining a second absolute position of the device at the second location when the error in determining the at least one relative position of the device exceeds a predefined threshold (see at least Egberts Figure 1 and col. 5 lines 22-36 “In FIG. 1, it can be seen that, despite an increasing gap between the profile of the filtered control positions 4 and the profile 6 of the actual positions 7, there is still no correction taking place. This is because it is assumed that ascertaining the actual positions using compound navigation or "dead reckoning" is reliable enough. If this ascertainment has been correct in the past, then greater discrepancies from the control positions are permissible. Only at a point X is the gap so large that the error value calculated for this reliability value is exceeded. At this point, the actual position is reset to the filtered control position and compound navigation continues to operate using this control position Y for further calculation” See also the abstract “and the actual position is reset to the control position if the gap between the actual position and the control position exceeds an error value.”)
Regarding claim 2, Egberts discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein a first sensor is used to determine the first absolute position and the second absolute position of the device (see at least Egberts col. 4, lines 14-20 “(2) The navigation system ascertains, as often as possible, that is to say usually at a frequency of 1 Hz, positions 2 using navigation satellites which are part of the global position system or GPS. The sequence of the positions 2 is filtered. This produces a profile 3 of positions 4, called control positions 4 below.”).
Regarding claim 3, Egberts discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein a second sensor is used to determine the at least one relative position of the device along the path between the first location and the second location (see at least Egberts col. 4, lines 20-26 “(3) The vehicle's navigation system has a direction meter, for example a gyroscope, and a distance meter. The system uses these to ascertain a series of vectors 5, which are added vectorially. This produces a profile 6 of actual positions 7. Although the actual positions 7 may not indicate the actual location of the vehicle, the navigation system assumes that the vehicle is situated at the actual positions.”).
Regarding claim 4, Egberts discloses the method according to Claim 3, wherein calculating the error in determining the at least one relative position of the device along the path is based on one or more characteristics of the first sensor and/or the second sensor (see at least Egberts col. 1 lines 25-40 “However, GPS position determination is generally subject to an error in the order of magnitude of 50 to 100 m. This error can be tolerated while driving on an inter-urban journey. It poses problems, however, when the distance between roads is less than this tolerance threshold, for example in towns or at traffic junctions….If, by way of example, the distance is ascertained with an error of 1%, then, after a distance of 10 km, the errors which also arise for GPS navigation are again produced in the order of magnitude of 100 m..” The examiner notes that the error between the relative position is necessarily based on the first sensor that detects the GPS position or the second sensor with determines the relative position because the relative position is determined using a combination of the absolute position determined from the GPS and the determined position based on the second sensor information. Thus, any error would be introduced based on the characteristics of the sensors or their reliability as explained by Egberts. )
Regarding claim 5, Egberts discloses a method according to Claim, comprising postponing activation of the first sensor for determining the second absolute position if the calculated error is within the predefined threshold (see at least Egberts col. 5 lines 23-35 “(12) In FIG. 1, it can be seen that, despite an increasing gap between the profile of the filtered control positions 4 and the profile 6 of the actual positions 7, there is still no correction taking place. This is because it is assumed that ascertaining the actual positions using compound navigation or "dead reckoning" is reliable enough. If this ascertainment has been correct in the past, then greater discrepancies from the control positions are permissible. Only at a point X is the gap so large that the error value calculated for this reliability value is exceeded. At this point, the actual position is reset to the filtered control position and compound navigation continues to operate using this control position Y for further calculation.”).
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shibata (US-5383127-A).
Regarding claim 1, Shibata discloses a method (100) for positional tracking of a device, comprising:
- obtaining a first absolute position of the device at a first location (see at least Shibata Figure 1, GPS receiver and col. 3 lines 35-40 “… shifting the vehicle position onto a designated road which has been located by the designated road locating means 16, a vehicle position correcting means 18 for correcting the vehicle position to a position measured by use of the GPS receiver 13 (which position will be denoted hereinbelow as "GPS position") ;
- determining a path traveled by the device between the first location and a second location, based on at least one intermediate absolute position of the device that is received while the device is traveling between the first location and the second location (see at least Shibata col. 3, lines 53-65 “In the above-mentioned embodiment, the estimated position computing means 14 computes at first estimated vehicle positions from signals transmitted from the speed sensor 11 and the angular velocity sensor 12. Then, the designated road locating means 16 locates a road having a feature coincident with that of a running path of the vehicle based upon data of the estimated vehicle positions, among road data in a predetermined area around the estimated vehicle positions, as a designated road data. Further, the vehicle position shifting means 17 shifts the vehicle position onto the designated road.” and col 4, lines 15-25 “In this case, it is determined that the vehicle 21 possibly runs on the road 23, and accordingly, the vehicle position is not corrected to the GPS position 24 measured by use of the GPS receiver 13. Thus, it is possible to maintain the continuity of the running path of the vehicle.”)
- determining at least one relative position of the device along the path between the first location and the second location, wherein a given relative position of a given intermediate absolute position is determined by forward tracking of the given intermediate absolute position with respect to the first location, and backward tracking of the given intermediate absolute position with respect to the second location (see at least Shibata Figure 3B and col 4, lines 15-25 “In this case, it is determined that the vehicle 21 possibly runs on the road 23, and accordingly, the vehicle position is not corrected to the GPS position 24 measured by use of the GPS receiver 13. Thus, it is possible to maintain the continuity of the running path of the vehicle “)
- calculating an error in determining the at least one relative position of the device (see at least Shibata col. 25-55 “) FIG. 3b shows such an example that the vehicle 21 runs actually on a road 23, but the estimated positions thereof are set erroneously on a road 25 adjacent to the road 23. In this example, the azimuth of the vehicle successively approaches the azimuth of the road 25 each time when the vehicle position is shifted. Specifically, the estimated position computing means 14 computes a new estimated position 22 at the point e (refer to FIG. 3b) from signals transmitted from the speed sensor 11 and the angular velocity sensor 12, and a vehicle position at the point d, on the map displayed on the display means 19. Since the new estimated position 22 is not on the designated road 25, the shifting means 17 shifts the vehicle position onto the road as show at the point (e) on the map. Similarly in this case, the distances of shift made by the vehicle position shifting means 17 in eight times in the past at the positions a to h are accumulated so as to obtain the absolute cumulative value thereof which is then compared with the threshold value each time when the position is corrected. FIG. 4b shows this procedure. In this case, the estimated positions do not exist on the road on which the vehicle runs actually at present, and accordingly, the distances of shift are large so that the absolute cumulative value exceeds greatly the threshold value T. At the position h where the cumulative value exceeds the threshold value T, the vehicle position correcting means 18 determines that the possibility of the running of the vehicle on the road 25 is low, and accordingly, corrects the vehicle position onto the GPS position measured by use of the GPS receiver 13, that is, it is shifted onto the GPS position 24h on the road 23” ) and
obtaining a second absolute position of the device at the second location when the error in determining the at least one relative position of the device exceeds a predefined threshold (see at least Shibata col 4, lines 50-56 “ absolute cumulative value exceeds greatly the threshold value T. At the position h where the cumulative value exceeds the threshold value T, the vehicle position correcting means 18 determines that the possibility of the running of the vehicle on the road 25 is low, and accordingly, corrects the vehicle position onto the GPS position measured by use of the GPS receiver 13, that is, it is shifted onto the GPS position 24h on the road 23”)
Regarding claim 2, Shibata discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein a first sensor is used to determine the first absolute position and the second absolute position of the device (see at least Shibata, Figure 1, GPS sensor)
Regarding claim 3, Shibata discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein a second sensor is used to determine the at least one relative position of the device along the path between the first location and the second location (see at least Shibata col. 5, lines 23-32 “(9) Further, explanation has been made such that the speed sensor 11 and the angular velocity sensor 12 are used for transmitting signals to the estimated position computing means 14 so as to compute the present vehicle position, an azimuth sensor such as an earth-magnetic sensor, a gyro or the like, and a distance sensor or the like for detecting a running distance in accordance with a rotational speed of a wheel or the like can be used as sensors for detecting the behaviors of the vehicle without departing from the technical concept of the present invention.” )
Regarding claim 4, Shibata discloses the method according to Claim 3, wherein calculating the error in determining the at least one relative position of the device along the path is based on one or more characteristics of the first sensor and/or the second sensor (see at least Shibata col. 4. Lines 1-25 “(5) Referring to FIG. 3a which shows the estimated positions 22 of the vehicle 21 are shifted onto a road 23 on which the vehicle 21 runs actually while the GPS positions 24 are accompanied by errors which are outside of a tolerance given by a desired positional accuracy due to change-over of artificial satellites used for computing multipass and measuring positions. The vehicle position correcting means 18 computes the absolute cumulative value of distances with which the vehicle position has been shifted at eight positions a to h, and the cumulative value is then compared with the predetermined threshold value for each time of correction.” See also col. 1, lines 28-45 regarding GPS accuracy and error and col. 5 lines 5-10 “Further, if the possibility of shifting the vehicle position onto a road on which the vehicle runs actually at present is low, the vehicle position is corrected to the GPS position measured by use of the GPS receiver 13, thereby it is possible to cancel a positional deviation caused by accumulation of sensor errors. Thus, no sense of incongruity sense of uneasiness and unattractive display, which are caused by positional interlacing, are presented, and a high degree of accuracy for the vehicle position can be ensured.”).
Regarding claim 5, Shibata discloses a method according to Claim, comprising postponing activation of the first sensor for determining the second absolute position if the calculated error is within the predefined threshold (see at least Shibata, col. 4, lines 49-56 “At the position h where the cumulative value exceeds the threshold value T, the vehicle position correcting means 18 determines that the possibility of the running of the vehicle on the road 25 is low, and accordingly, corrects the vehicle position onto the GPS position measured by use of the GPS receiver 13, that is, it is shifted onto the GPS position 24h on the road 23.” The examiner notes that the GPS position is only updated with the error exceeds the predetermined threshold and thus, Shibata teaches postponing when the vehicle is within the predetermined threshold. ).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egberts in view of Yanni (US 20070156337 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Egberts discloses a method according to Claim 4, but does not explicitly teach that the error is based on one or more of: noise in the second sensor, offset of the second sensor, sample timing error of the second sensor.
Yanni teaches wherein error of a position is based on one or more of: noise in the second sensor, offset of the second sensor, sample timing error of the second sensor (see at least Yanni [0079] which teaches an offset of the second sensor, “Once that occurs, or if the vehicle/pedestrian is moving (block 55), using tilt estimates and quaternion rotation methods, the DCN module normalizes the 3-D accelerometer data back to a level reference (block 56). This corrects for the position of the accelerometer on the vehicle/pedestrian. If the vehicle/pedestrian is not moving (block 57), the DCN module calculated final offsets (block 58) on all 3-D accelerometer data. Once that process occurs, or if the vehicle/pedestrian is moving (block 57), the DCN module uses final offsets and builds a 3-D acceleration vector based on rotation-normalized 3-D accelerometer data and by subtracting minor error offsets for each axis (block 60). The 3-D acceleration vector is also heavily filtered (block 60).”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Egberts with the teaching of Yanni, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Yanni teaches this assists with normalizing the sensor data to a reference (see at least Yanii [0079]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata in view of Yanni (US 20070156337 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Shibata discloses a method according to Claim 4, but does not explicitly teach that the error is based on one or more of: noise in the second sensor, offset of the second sensor, sample timing error of the second sensor.
Yanni teaches wherein error of a position is based on one or more of: noise in the second sensor, offset of the second sensor, sample timing error of the second sensor (see at least Yanni [0079] which teaches an offset of the second sensor, “Once that occurs, or if the vehicle/pedestrian is moving (block 55), using tilt estimates and quaternion rotation methods, the DCN module normalizes the 3-D accelerometer data back to a level reference (block 56). This corrects for the position of the accelerometer on the vehicle/pedestrian. If the vehicle/pedestrian is not moving (block 57), the DCN module calculated final offsets (block 58) on all 3-D accelerometer data. Once that process occurs, or if the vehicle/pedestrian is moving (block 57), the DCN module uses final offsets and builds a 3-D acceleration vector based on rotation-normalized 3-D accelerometer data and by subtracting minor error offsets for each axis (block 60). The 3-D acceleration vector is also heavily filtered (block 60).”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shibata with the teaching of Yanni, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Yanni teaches this assists with normalizing the sensor data to a reference (see at least Yanii [0079]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egberts in view of Tun et al (US 20110208430 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Egberts discloses a according to claim 1, but does not explicitly discloses further comprising storing a record of the values of the first absolute position and the second absolute position of the device, determined using the first sensor; and/or the values of the at least one relative position of the device, determined using the second sensor.
Tun teaches storing a record of the values of the first absolute position and the second absolute position of the device, determined using the first sensor; and/or the values of the at least one relative position of the device, determined using the second sensor. (see at least Tun [0024] “ A memory 140 is used to store any data that is used for operations, and more particularly to the position coordinates of the mobile navigation device 100 which may be invariably moved. Meanwhile, for the mobile navigation device 100, a great quantity of data is needed to be accumulated for tracing and locking into the satellite navigation signals, which may take a long period of time to accumulate. For example, distribution of satellites, also called Ephemeris, is necessary for locking into the position coordinates. Therefore, the information may be stored in the memory 140 temporarily when the satellite positioning module 110 is disabled. When the mobile navigation device 100 is switched back to the first mode and the satellite positioning module 110 is activated again, the information stored in the memory 140 can be immediately used; thus reducing time to re-establish the information.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Egberts with the teaching of Tun, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Tun teaches storing the data of the position coordinates allows for immediate use of the data and reducing time (see at least Tun [0024]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata in view of Tun et al (US 20110208430 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Shibata discloses a according to claim 1, but does not explicitly discloses further comprising storing a record of the values of the first absolute position and the second absolute position of the device, determined using the first sensor; and/or the values of the at least one relative position of the device, determined using the second sensor.
Tun teaches storing a record of the values of the first absolute position and the second absolute position of the device, determined using the first sensor; and/or the values of the at least one relative position of the device, determined using the second sensor. (see at least Tun [0024] “ A memory 140 is used to store any data that is used for operations, and more particularly to the position coordinates of the mobile navigation device 100 which may be invariably moved. Meanwhile, for the mobile navigation device 100, a great quantity of data is needed to be accumulated for tracing and locking into the satellite navigation signals, which may take a long period of time to accumulate. For example, distribution of satellites, also called Ephemeris, is necessary for locking into the position coordinates. Therefore, the information may be stored in the memory 140 temporarily when the satellite positioning module 110 is disabled. When the mobile navigation device 100 is switched back to the first mode and the satellite positioning module 110 is activated again, the information stored in the memory 140 can be immediately used; thus reducing time to re-establish the information.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shibata with the teaching of Tun, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Tun teaches storing the data of the position coordinates allows for immediate use of the data and reducing time (see at least Tun [0024]).
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egberts in view of Gopinath (US 20090278738 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Egberts teaches a device for positional tracking, comprising:
- a first sensor configured to determine a first absolute position of the device at a first location (see at least Egberts col. 4, lines 14-20 “(2) The navigation system ascertains, as often as possible, that is to say usually at a frequency of 1 Hz, positions 2 using navigation satellites which are part of the global position system or GPS. The sequence of the positions 2 is filtered. This produces a profile 3 of positions 4, called control positions 4 below.”) when activated;
- a second sensor configured to determine at least one relative position of the device between the first location and a second location (see at least Egberts col. 4, lines 20-26 “(3) The vehicle's navigation system has a direction meter, for example a gyroscope, and a distance meter. The system uses these to ascertain a series of vectors 5, which are added vectorially. This produces a profile 6 of actual positions 7. Although the actual positions 7 may not indicate the actual location of the vehicle, the navigation system assumes that the vehicle is situated at the actual positions.”).
[[- a battery for supplying power to at least the first sensor;]]
- a processor (see at least Egberts, navigation system, and col. 4 lines 14-20) configured to:
- receive information about the first absolute position of the device as determined by the first sensor see at least Egberts col. 4, lines 14-20 “The navigation system ascertains, as often as possible, that is to say usually at a frequency of 1 Hz, positions 2 using navigation satellites which are part of the global position system or GPS. The sequence of the positions 2 is filtered. This produces a profile 3 of positions 4, called control positions 4 below.”);
- determine a path traveled by the device between the first location and the second location, based on at least one intermediate absolute position of the device that is received while the device is traveling between the first location and the second location (see at least Egberts Figure1 and col 4, lines 20-35 “(3) The vehicle's navigation system has a direction meter, for example a gyroscope, and a distance meter. The system uses these to ascertain a series of vectors 5, which are added vectorially. This produces a profile 6 of actual positions 7. ….(4) The navigation system now compares the actual positions 7 with the profile of the road 1. So long as the actual positions are situated close enough to the road and the direction of the road 1 matches the direction of the profile 6, the system assumes that the vehicle is traveling on the road 1.”);
- receive information about the at least one relative position of the device along the path between the first location and the second location as determined by the second sensor, wherein a given relative position of a given intermediate absolute position is determined by forward tracking of the given intermediate absolute position with respect to the first location, and backward tracking of the given intermediate absolute position with respect to the second location (see at least Egberts Figure 1 wherein there is forward tracking from the start position. See also col 4, lines 20-35 “The vehicle's navigation system has a direction meter, for example a gyroscope, and a distance meter. The system uses these to ascertain a series of vectors 5, which are added vectorially. This produces a profile 6 of actual positions 7. Although the actual positions 7 may not indicate the actual location of the vehicle, the navigation system assumes that the vehicle is situated at the actual positions”);
- calculate an error in determining the at least one relative position of the device (see at least Egberts col 4, line 43 through col 5 lines 35 “(7) So that the position of the vehicle, ascertained using compound navigation, is not completely misleading, the actual position 7 is then compared at intervals with the control position 4. Since the control position 4 is filtered with respect to the actual GPS position, inaccuracies when the position is ascertained using the satellites are compensated for to some extent over time…(8) The gap between the actual position 7 and the associated comparison position on the road 1 is then ascertained from time to time, for example at a frequency of 5 Hz. At the beginning of the journey, a reliability value was prescribed, for example 25,000 cm or 250 m…. (11) The reliability value can, as mentioned, change in a range from 0 to 50,000 cm or from 0 to 500 m. However, an error value or gap of neither 0 m nor 500 m is desirable. Accordingly, the reliability value would need to be converted to an error value on the basis of some prescribed function.); and
- activate the first sensor to obtain a second absolute position of the device at the second location when the error in determining the at least one relative position of the device exceeds a predefined threshold (see at least Egberts Figure 1 and col. 5 lines 22-36 “In FIG. 1, it can be seen that, despite an increasing gap between the profile of the filtered control positions 4 and the profile 6 of the actual positions 7, there is still no correction taking place. This is because it is assumed that ascertaining the actual positions using compound navigation or "dead reckoning" is reliable enough. If this ascertainment has been correct in the past, then greater discrepancies from the control positions are permissible. Only at a point X is the gap so large that the error value calculated for this reliability value is exceeded. At this point, the actual position is reset to the filtered control position and compound navigation continues to operate using this control position Y for further calculation” See also the abstract “and the actual position is reset to the control position if the gap between the actual position and the control position exceeds an error value.”).
Egberts discloses the navigation system and the navigation system having power, however, Egberts does not explicitly disclose that the power source is a battery.
Gopinath teaches a battery for supplying power to at least the first sensor (see at least Gopinath [0004]” However, position location functions can consume substantial amounts of power and, in some cases, can significantly reduce the amount of time that a wireless device can be operated on battery power. This is because the same battery typically supplies-power for positioning functions as well as for other functions such as voice and data communications.” See also [0024] “Mobile station (MS) 110 is a wireless device having a position location capability. For example, MS 110 can include a cell phone, navigation system, personal computing device, personal digital assistant, asset-tracker, or other wireless communication device. MS 110 can also exchange voice and data signals with other devices using any number or combination of communication standards (e.g., GSM, CDMA, TDNM, WCDMA, OFDM, GPRS, EV-DO, WiFi, WiMAX, 802.xx, UWB, satellite, etc). Power for mobile station 110 is typically supplied by a battery.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Egberts with the teaching of Gopinath because Gopinath teaches that batteries are a common power source for wireless devices that include positioning functions such as GPS (see Gopinath [0004] [0024-0025] ).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Egberts and Gopinath teaches the device according to claim 8, wherein the processor is configured to calculate the error in determining the at least one relative position of the device along the path, based on one or more characteristics of at least one of the first sensor and the second sensor (see at least Egberts col. 1 lines 25-40 “However, GPS position determination is generally subject to an error in the order of magnitude of 50 to 100 m. This error can be tolerated while driving on an inter-urban journey. It poses problems, however, when the distance between roads is less than this tolerance threshold, for example in towns or at traffic junctions….If, by way of example, the distance is ascertained with an error of 1%, then, after a distance of 10 km, the errors which also arise for GPS navigation are again produced in the order of magnitude of 100 m..” The examiner notes that the error between the relative position is necessarily based on the first sensor that detects the GPS position or the second sensor with determines the relative position because the relative position is determined using a combination of the absolute position determined from the GPS and the determined position based on the second sensor information. Thus, any error would be introduced based on the characteristics of the sensors or their reliability as explained by Egberts. )
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Egberts and Gopinath teaches the device according to Claim 9, wherein the processor is further configured to postpone activation of the first sensor for determining the second absolute position if the calculated error is within the predefined threshold (see at least Egberts col. 5 lines 23-35 “(12) In FIG. 1, it can be seen that, despite an increasing gap between the profile of the filtered control positions 4 and the profile 6 of the actual positions 7, there is still no correction taking place. This is because it is assumed that ascertaining the actual positions using compound navigation or "dead reckoning" is reliable enough. If this ascertainment has been correct in the past, then greater discrepancies from the control positions are permissible. Only at a point X is the gap so large that the error value calculated for this reliability value is exceeded. At this point, the actual position is reset to the filtered control position and compound navigation continues to operate using this control position Y for further calculation.”).
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata in view of Gopinath (US 20090278738 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Shibata teaches a device for positional tracking, comprising:
- a first sensor configured to determine a first absolute position of the device at a first location (see at least Shibata, Figure 1, GPS sensor) when activated;
- a second sensor configured to determine at least one relative position of the device between the first location and a second location (see at least Shibata col. 5, lines 23-32 “(9) Further, explanation has been made such that the speed sensor 11 and the angular velocity sensor 12 are used for transmitting signals to the estimated position computing means 14 so as to compute the present vehicle position, an azimuth sensor such as an earth-magnetic sensor, a gyro or the like, and a distance sensor or the like for detecting a running distance in accordance with a rotational speed of a wheel or the like can be used as sensors for detecting the behaviors of the vehicle without departing from the technical concept of the present invention.” )
[[- a battery for supplying power to at least the first sensor;]]
- a processor (see Shibata col. 3, lines 14-16) configured to:
- receive information about the first absolute position of the device as determined by the first sensor (see at least Shibata Figure 1, GPS receiver and col. 3 lines 35-40 “… shifting the vehicle position onto a designated road which has been located by the designated road locating means 16, a vehicle position correcting means 18 for correcting the vehicle position to a position measured by use of the GPS receiver 13 (which position will be denoted hereinbelow as "GPS position") ;
- determine a path traveled by the device between the first location and the second location, based on at least one intermediate absolute position of the device that is received while the device is traveling between the first location and the second location ((see at least Shibata col. 3, lines 53-65 “In the above-mentioned embodiment, the estimated position computing means 14 computes at first estimated vehicle positions from signals transmitted from the speed sensor 11 and the angular velocity sensor 12. Then, the designated road locating means 16 locates a road having a feature coincident with that of a running path of the vehicle based upon data of the estimated vehicle positions, among road data in a predetermined area around the estimated vehicle positions, as a designated road data. Further, the vehicle position shifting means 17 shifts the vehicle position onto the designated road.” and col 4, lines 15-25 “In this case, it is determined that the vehicle 21 possibly runs on the road 23, and accordingly, the vehicle position is not corrected to the GPS position 24 measured by use of the GPS receiver 13. Thus, it is possible to maintain the continuity of the running path of the vehicle.”)
- receive information about the at least one relative position of the device along the path between the first location and the second location as determined by the second sensor, wherein a given relative position of a given intermediate absolute position is determined by forward tracking of the given intermediate absolute position with respect to the first location, and backward tracking of the given intermediate absolute position with respect to the second location (see at least Shibata Figure 3B and col 4, lines 15-25 “In this case, it is determined that the vehicle 21 possibly runs on the road 23, and accordingly, the vehicle position is not corrected to the GPS position 24 measured by use of the GPS receiver 13. Thus, it is possible to maintain the continuity of the running path of the vehicle “) ;
- calculate an error in determining the at least one relative position of the device (see at least Shibata col. 25-55 “) FIG. 3b shows such an example that the vehicle 21 runs actually on a road 23, but the estimated positions thereof are set erroneously on a road 25 adjacent to the road 23. In this example, the azimuth of the vehicle successively approaches the azimuth of the road 25 each time when the vehicle position is shifted. Specifically, the estimated position computing means 14 computes a new estimated position 22 at the point e (refer to FIG. 3b) from signals transmitted from the speed sensor 11 and the angular velocity sensor 12, and a vehicle position at the point d, on the map displayed on the display means 19. Since the new estimated position 22 is not on the designated road 25, the shifting means 17 shifts the vehicle position onto the road as show at the point (e) on the map. Similarly in this case, the distances of shift made by the vehicle position shifting means 17 in eight times in the past at the positions a to h are accumulated so as to obtain the absolute cumulative value thereof which is then compared with the threshold value each time when the position is corrected. FIG. 4b shows this procedure. In this case, the estimated positions do not exist on the road on which the vehicle runs actually at present, and accordingly, the distances of shift are large so that the absolute cumulative value exceeds greatly the threshold value T. At the position h where the cumulative value exceeds the threshold value T, the vehicle position correcting means 18 determines that the possibility of the running of the vehicle on the road 25 is low, and accordingly, corrects the vehicle position onto the GPS position measured by use of the GPS receiver 13, that is, it is shifted onto the GPS position 24h on the road 23” ); and
- activate the first sensor to obtain a second absolute position of the device at the second location when the error in determining the at least one relative position of the device exceeds a predefined threshold ((see at least Shibata col 4, lines 50-56 “ absolute cumulative value exceeds greatly the threshold value T. At the position h where the cumulative value exceeds the threshold value T, the vehicle position correcting means 18 determines that the possibility of the running of the vehicle on the road 25 is low, and accordingly, corrects the vehicle position onto the GPS position measured by use of the GPS receiver 13, that is, it is shifted onto the GPS position 24h on the road 23”) .
Shibata discloses the navigation system and the navigation system having power, however, Shibata does not explicitly discloses that the power source is a battery.
Gopinath teaches a battery for supplying power to at least the first sensor (see at least Gopinath [0004]” However, position location functions can consume substantial amounts of power and, in some cases, can significantly reduce the amount of time that a wireless device can be operated on battery power. This is because the same battery typically supplies-power for positioning functions as well as for other functions such as voice and data communications.” See also [0024] “Mobile station (MS) 110 is a wireless device having a position location capability. For example, MS 110 can include a cell phone, navigation system, personal computing device, personal digital assistant, asset-tracker, or other wireless communication device. MS 110 can also exchange voice and data signals with other devices using any number or combination of communication standards (e.g., GSM, CDMA, TDNM, WCDMA, OFDM, GPRS, EV-DO, WiFi, WiMAX, 802.xx, UWB, satellite, etc). Power for mobile station 110 is typically supplied by a battery.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shibata with the teaching of Gopinath because Gopinath teaches that batteries are a common power source for wireless devices that include positioning functions such as GPS (see Gopinath [0004] [0024-0025] ).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Shibata and Gopinath teaches the device according to Claim 3, wherein calculating the error in determining the at least one relative position of the device along the path is based on one or more characteristics of the first sensor and/or the second sensor (see at least Shibata col. 4. Lines 1-25 “(5) Referring to FIG. 3a which shows the estimated positions 22 of the vehicle 21 are shifted onto a road 23 on which the vehicle 21 runs actually while the GPS positions 24 are accompanied by errors which are outside of a tolerance given by a desired positional accuracy due to change-over of artificial satellites used for computing multipass and measuring positions. The vehicle position correcting means 18 computes the absolute cumulative value of distances with which the vehicle position has been shifted at eight positions a to h, and the cumulative value is then compared with the predetermined threshold value for each time of correction.” See also col. 1, lines 28-45 regarding GPS accuracy and error and col. 5 lines 5-10 “Further, if the possibility of shifting the vehicle position onto a road on which the vehicle runs actually at present is low, the vehicle position is corrected to the GPS position measured by use of the GPS receiver 13, thereby it is possible to cancel a positional deviation caused by accumulation of sensor errors. Thus, no sense of incongruity sense of uneasiness and unattractive display, which are caused by positional interlacing, are presented, and a high degree of accuracy for the vehicle position can be ensured.”).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Shibata and Gopinath teaches the device according to Claim 9, wherein the processor is further configured to postpone activation of the first sensor for determining the second absolute position if the calculated error is within the predefined threshold (see at least Egberts col. 5 lines 23-35 “(12) In FIG. 1, it can be seen that, despite an increasing gap between the profile of the filtered control positions 4 and the profile 6 of the actual positions 7, there is still no correction taking place. This is because it is assumed that ascertaining the actual positions using compound navigation or "dead reckoning" is reliable enough. If this ascertainment has been correct in the past, then greater discrepancies from the control positions are permissible. Only at a point X is the gap so large that the error value calculated for this reliability value is exceeded. At this point, the actual position is reset to the filtered control position and compound navigation continues to operate using this control position Y for further calculation.”).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egberts and Gopinath in view of Yanni (US 20070156337 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Egberts and Gopinath teaches a device according to claim 9, but does not explicitly teach that the error is based on one or more of: noise in the second sensor, offset of the second sensor, sample timing error of the second sensor.
Yanni teaches wherein error of a position is based on one or more of: noise in the second sensor, offset of the second sensor, sample timing error of the second sensor (see at least Yanni [0079] which teaches an offset of the second sensor, “Once that occurs, or if the vehicle/pedestrian is moving (block 55), using tilt estimates and quaternion rotation methods, the DCN module normalizes the 3-D accelerometer data back to a level reference (block 56). This corrects for the position of the accelerometer on the vehicle/pedestrian. If the vehicle/pedestrian is not moving (block 57), the DCN module calculated final offsets (block 58) on all 3-D accelerometer data. Once that process occurs, or if the vehicle/pedestrian is moving (block 57), the DCN module uses final offsets and builds a 3-D acceleration vector based on rotation-normalized 3-D accelerometer data and by subtracting minor error offsets for each axis (block 60). The 3-D acceleration vector is also heavily filtered (block 60).”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Egberts and Gopinath with the teaching of Yanni, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Yanni teaches this assists with normalizing the sensor data to a reference (see at least Yanii [0079]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata and Gopinath in view of Yanni (US 20070156337 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Shibata and Gopinath teaches a device according to Claim 9, but does not explicitly teach that the error is based on one or more of: noise in the second sensor, offset of the second sensor, sample timing error of the second sensor.
Yanni teaches wherein error of a position is based on one or more of: noise in the second sensor, offset of the second sensor, sample timing error of the second sensor (see at least Yanni [0079] which teaches an offset of the second sensor, “Once that occurs, or if the vehicle/pedestrian is moving (block 55), using tilt estimates and quaternion rotation methods, the DCN module normalizes the 3-D accelerometer data back to a level reference (block 56). This corrects for the position of the accelerometer on the vehicle/pedestrian. If the vehicle/pedestrian is not moving (block 57), the DCN module calculated final offsets (block 58) on all 3-D accelerometer data. Once that process occurs, or if the vehicle/pedestrian is moving (block 57), the DCN module uses final offsets and builds a 3-D acceleration vector based on rotation-normalized 3-D accelerometer data and by subtracting minor error offsets for each axis (block 60). The 3-D acceleration vector is also heavily filtered (block 60).”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Shibata and Gopinath with the teaching of Yanni, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Yanni teaches this assists with normalizing the sensor data to a reference (see at least Yanii [0079]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egberts and Gopinath in view of Tun et al (US 20110208430 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Egberts and Gopinath teaches a device according to claim 1, but does not explicitly discloses further comprising storing a record of the values of the first absolute position and the second absolute position of the device, determined using the first sensor; and/or the values of the at least one relative position of the device, determined using the second sensor.
Tun teaches storing a record of the values of the first absolute position and the second absolute position of the device, determined using the first sensor; and/or the values of the at least one relative position of the device, determined using the second sensor. (see at least Tun [0024] “ A memory 140 is used to store any data that is used for operations, and more particularly to the position coordinates of the mobile navigation device 100 which may be invariably moved. Meanwhile, for the mobile navigation device 100, a great quantity of data is needed to be accumulated for tracing and locking into the satellite navigation signals, which may take a long period of time to accumulate. For example, distribution of satellites, also called Ephemeris, is necessary for locking into the position coordinates. Therefore, the information may be stored in the memory 140 temporarily when the satellite positioning module 110 is disabled. When the mobile navigation device 100 is switched back to the first mode and the satellite positioning module 110 is activated again, the information stored in the memory 140 can be immediately used; thus reducing time to re-establish the information.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Egberts and Gopinath with the teaching of Tun, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Tun teaches storing the data of the position coordinates allows for immediate use of the data and reducing time (see at least Tun [0024]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata and Gopinath in view of Tun et al (US 20110208430 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Shibata and Gopinath teaches a device according to claim 1, but does not explicitly discloses further comprising storing a record of the values of the first absolute position and the second absolute position of the device, determined using the first sensor; and/or the values of the at least one relative position of the device, determined using the second sensor.
Tun teaches storing a record of the values of the first absolute position and the second absolute position of the device, determined using the first sensor; and/or the values of the at least one relative position of the device, determined using the second sensor. (see at least Tun [0024] “ A memory 140 is used to store any data that is used for operations, and more particularly to the position coordinates of the mobile navigation device 100 which may be invariably moved. Meanwhile, for the mobile navigation device 100, a great quantity of data is needed to be accumulated for tracing and locking into the satellite navigation signals, which may take a long period of time to accumulate. For example, distribution of satellites, also called Ephemeris, is necessary for locking into the position coordinates. Therefore, the information may be stored in the memory 140 temporarily when the satellite positioning module 110 is disabled. When the mobile navigation device 100 is switched back to the first mode and the satellite positioning module 110 is activated again, the information stored in the memory 140 can be immediately used; thus reducing time to re-establish the information.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Shibata and Gopinath with the teaching of Tun, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Tun teaches storing the data of the position coordinates allows for immediate use of the data and reducing time (see at least Tun [0024]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-6268825-B1 to Okada is cited for teaching using an absolute position data from GPS and further using an acceleration sensor and data of the map to determine position.
US-6779752-B1 to Ratkovic is cited for showing storing a record of the positions relevant to claims 7 and 12 (see at least abstract and claim 20).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER M. ANDA whose telephone number is (571)272-5042. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-5pm MST.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on (571)270-3832. 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.
/JENNIFER M ANDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights