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 is in response to Applicant’s case, no. 19/034,311, with an effective filing date of 1/22/2025. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-14, and 16-20 are currently pending. Claims 2, 6, and 15 have been canceled.
Response to Amendments
In response to Applicant’s amendments dated July 24, 2026, Examiner withdraws the previous specification trademark objections, but the objection to the abstract is maintained; withdraws the previous claim objections; maintains the previous claim interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f); withdraws the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b); the rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 7-8, 12-13,and 19-20 under 35 USC § 101 is withdrawn, however a new rejection under 35 USC § 101 is made regarding claims 4, 9-11, 14, and 16-18; and maintains the previous prior art rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed July 24, 2026, have been fully considered but they
are moot.
Regarding the 35 USC § 102 rejection of claims 1-2, 9, and 14-15 as being anticipated by Scherzinger et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2009/0093959 A1) [hereinafter referred to as Scherzinger], the Applicant has elected to amend the claims. However, due to said amendments, new reference Chen et al. (CN Pat. Pub. No. 114003056 A) [hereinafter referred to as Chen] has been necessitated.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues, see pp.12-14, that Scherzinger does not disclose the limitation the second positioning information is based on the satellite data, second IMU data from the onboard IMU in the controller, and RTK data from the RTK module in the controller. However, although Scherzinger discloses in [0170] that the airborne subsystem could also store these data on-board for future use, such as for various post-mission needs/applications, it does not explicitly disclose onboard IMU and RTK module in the controller. However, Chen teaches on pg. 5 ¶3 a two separate aspects of the system that includes an IMU (Inertial Measurement Unit, inertial sensor) unit and a RTK (Real-time kinematic, real-time differential positioning) module on the vehicle. The positioning unit is used to read the initial pose collected by the IMU unit. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle positioning and controls before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the vehicle positioning system/method of Scherzinger, by incorporating the on-board IMU and RTK unit teachings of Chen, such that the simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results regarding the comparing of IMU data to improve positioning precision.
Therefore, this argument is moot.
Regarding claim(s) 9 and 14 Applicant argues that, while differing in scope, this/these claim(s) recite(s) similar features to claim 1 and its/their rejection(s) should likewise be withdrawn. However, this argument is unpersuasive for the same reasons as given above.
Applicant argues that the dependent claims are patentable by virtue of their dependency. This argument is unpersuasive as each independent claim has been fully rejected for the reasons as given above.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains phraseology that may be implied (i.e., line 1 “The present disclosure relates to …” and in line 2 “One example…”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 4, 9-11, 14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 4 is directed to a system for transmitting satellite data to a vehicle controller (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 4 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Dependent claim 4 includes limitation(s) that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 4 recites:
The system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more memories store the first programming instructions for execution by the communication apparatus to:
determine time information based on the satellite data [mental process/step]; and
distribute the time information to the controller.
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. For example, “determine…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). 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” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
Claim 1 recites:
A system, comprising a first global navigation satellite system (GNSS) antenna, a communication apparatus in a vehicle, a controller including an onboard inertia measurement unit (IMU) and a real time kinematic (RTK) module [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module], and
one or more memories [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module], wherein:
the first GNSS antenna is connected to the communication apparatus, and the controller is connected to the communication apparatus [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module];
the first GNSS antenna is configured to: obtain satellite data [insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering) using generic sensors]; and
transmit the satellite data to the communication apparatus [insignificant extra-solution activity (data transmission)];
the one or more memories store first programming instruction for execution by the communication apparatus to [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module]:
provide a first positioning service based on first positioning information, wherein the first positioning information is based on at least one of the satellite data or first inertia measurement unit (IMU) data [insignificant extra-solution activity (data transmission)]; and
transmit the satellite data to the controller [insignificant extra-solution activity (data transmission)]; and
the one or more memories store second programming instructions for execution by the controller to [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module] provide a second positioning service based on second positioning information [insignificant extra-solution activity (data transmission)], wherein the second positioning information is based on the satellite data, second IMU data from the onboard IMU in the controller, and RTK data from the RTK module in the controller, and wherein precision of the second positioning information is higher than precision of the first positioning information [insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering) using generic sensors].
Claim 4 recites:
The system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more memories store the first programming instructions for execution by the communication apparatus to:
determine time information based on the satellite data; and
distribute the time information to the controller [insignificant extra-solution activity (data transmission)].
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 “obtain…,” “provide…,” “transmit…,” “distribute…,” and “information is based on…,” the Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (controller) to perform the process. In particular:
the obtaining and basing information from steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering satellite data, IMU data and RTK data for use in the determining step), and amount to mere data gathering, which are a form of insignificant extra-solution activity;
the transmitting, distributing, and providing data/services/information steps are also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transmitting satellite data for the determining steps or providing a service which may pertain to mere V2X transmissions based on [0118] of Applicant’s disclosure), and amount to mere data transmissions, which are a form of insignificant extra-solution activity; and
the “communication apparatus”, “one or more memories” and “controller” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor and communication link performing a generic computer function of calculating a position based on aggregated data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components commonly used in vehicles.
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. see 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.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative claim 4 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 element of using a vehicle controller to perform the determining … amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Furthermore, as discussed above, the additional limitations of “obtain…,” “provide…,” “transmit…,” “distribute…,” and “information is based on…,” the Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A must be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if the element is more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. In this case, the additional limitations of acquiring a set of points at a current time and acquiring an attitude of the vehicle at the current time are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, because they have all been deemed insignificant extra solution activity by one or more Courts; see at least MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g):
the obtaining and basing information from steps amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity under buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014); and
the transmitting, distributing, and providing data/services/information steps amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity under buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Hence, claim 4 is not patent eligible.
___________________________________________________
Regarding claim 9:
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 9 is directed to a method for transmitting satellite data to a vehicle controller (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 9 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Claim 9 recites:
A method, wherein the method comprises:
obtaining satellite data from a first global navigation satellite system (GNSS) antenna;
provide a first positioning service based on first positioning information,
wherein the first positioning information is based on at least one of the satellite data or first inertia measurement unit (IMU) data; and
transmitting the satellite data to a controller, wherein the controller includes an onboard inertia measurement unit (IMU) and a real time kinematic (RTK) module, the satellite data is used with second IMU data from the onboard IMU and RTK data from the RTK module to determine second positioning information, and precision of the second positioning information is higher than precision of the first positioning information.
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. For example, “determine…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
A method, wherein the method comprises:
obtaining satellite data from a first global navigation satellite system (GNSS) antenna [insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering) using generic sensors];
provide a first positioning service based on first positioning information, wherein the first positioning information is based on at least one of the satellite data or first inertia measurement unit (IMU) data [insignificant extra-solution activity (data transmission)]; and
transmitting the satellite data to a controller, wherein the controller includes an onboard inertia measurement unit (IMU) and a real time kinematic (RTK) module, the satellite data is used with second IMU data from the onboard IMU and RTK data from the RTK module [insignificant extra-solution activity (data transmission)] to determine second positioning information, and precision of the second positioning information is higher than precision of the first positioning information.
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 “obtain…,” “provide…,” and “transmit…,” the Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (controller) to perform the process. In particular:
the obtaining step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering satellite data, IMU data and RTK data for use in the determining step), and amount to mere data gathering, which are a form of insignificant extra-solution activity; and
the transmitting and providing data/services/information steps are also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transmitting satellite data for the determining steps or providing a service which may pertain to mere V2X transmissions based on [0118] of Applicant’s disclosure), and amount to mere data transmissions, which are a form of 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. see 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.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 9 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 element of using a vehicle controller to perform the determining … amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Furthermore, as discussed above, the additional limitations of “obtain…,” “provide…,” and “transmit…,” the Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A must be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if the element is more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. In this case, the additional limitations of acquiring a set of points at a current time and acquiring an attitude of the vehicle at the current time are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, because they have all been deemed insignificant extra solution activity by one or more Courts; see at least MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g):
the obtaining step amounts to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity under buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014);
the transmitting and providing data/services/information steps amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity under buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Hence, claim 9 is not patent eligible.
___________________________________________________
Regarding claim 14:
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 14 is directed to a method for determining a position and the precision of
said position to a vehicle controller (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 14 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Claim 14 recites:
A method, comprising:
receiving, by a controller, satellite data from a communication apparatus in a vehicle, wherein the controller includes an onboard inertia measurement unit (IMU) and a real time kinematic (RTK) module; and
determining, by the controller, second positioning information based on the satellite data,[[and]] second inertia measurement unit (IMU) data from the onboard IMU in the controller, and RTK data from the RTK module in the controller [mental process/step], wherein precision of the second positioning information is higher than precision of first positioning information, and the first positioning information is positioning information determined by the in-vehicle communication apparatus [mental process/step].
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. For example, “determining…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
A method, comprising:
receiving, by a controller, satellite data from a communication apparatus in a vehicle, wherein the controller includes an onboard inertia measurement unit (IMU) and a real time kinematic (RTK) module [insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering) using generic sensors]; and
determining, by the controller, second positioning information based on the satellite data, second inertia measurement unit (IMU) data from the onboard IMU in the controller, and RTK data from the RTK module in the controller, wherein precision of the second positioning information is higher than precision of first positioning information, and the first positioning information is positioning information determined by the communication apparatus.
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 “receiving…,” the Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (controller) to perform the process. In particular:
the receiving step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering satellite data, IMU data and RTK data for use in the determining step), and amount to mere data gathering, which are a form of 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. see 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.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 9 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 element of using a vehicle controller to perform the determining … amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Furthermore, as discussed above, the additional limitation of “receiving…,” the Examiner submits that this limitation is an insignificant extra-solution activity.
A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A must be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if the element is more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. In this case, the additional limitations of acquiring a set of points at a current time and acquiring an attitude of the vehicle at the current time are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, because they have all been deemed insignificant extra solution activity by one or more Courts; see at least MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g):
the receiving amounts to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity under buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Hence, claim 14 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 10-11 and 16-18 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 as they provide for further examples of mental processes such as determining and additional limitations that also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application such as receiving, transmitting, distributing, and providing a result. Furthermore, claims 3, 10 and 16 nominally invoke an intelligent driving controller integrating functions of the motor vehicle, but does not explain specifically how the control is implemented by the system more than simply being the type of controller being utilized. Therefore, dependent claims 10-11, and 15-18 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 4, 9, and 14.
However, dependent claims 5, 7-8, 12-13, and 19-20 recite additional limitations (e.g., claim 5 lines 5-6 transmit the satellite data to the controller when the controller is enabled, initialization of the controller is completed, and the controller is functioning) that properly integrate the judicial exception into a practical application through an improvement to a computer or a technical field. Therefore, claims 1, 3, 5-8, 12-13, and 19-20 are patent eligible.
Therefore, claim(s) 4, 9-11, 14, and 16-18 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 9, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scherzinger et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2009/0093959 A1), hereinafter referred to as Scherzinger, in view of Chen et al. (CN Pat. Pub. No. 114003056 A), hereinafter referred to as Chen.
Regarding claim 1, Scherzinger discloses:
A system, comprising a first global navigation satellite system (GNSS) antenna ([0003] GNSS and other satellite positioning systems utilize receiver antennae to obtain satellite data), a communication apparatus in a vehicle ([0024] sentence (s.) 2, virtual reference station (VRS) network comprises bidirectional communication links), a controller ([0012] s. 3 error controller corrects the inertial navigator to achieve a navigation accuracy improvement over what an unaided inertial navigator would be capable of achieving), and one or more memories ([0180] software implementations that comprise a machine-accessible medium includes recordable/non-recordable media (e.g., read-only memory (ROM); random access memory (RAM); magnetic disk storage media; optical storage media; flash memory devices; etc.)), wherein:
the first GNSS antenna is connected to the communication apparatus, and the controller is connected to the communication apparatus (see above regarding the VRS network and Figs. 1 which describe the GNSS );
the first GNSS antenna is configured to:
obtain satellite data (see [0003] above and [0003] s.1, each GPS satellite transmits continuously using two radio frequencies, where a GPS transmission is regarded as synonymous with a GNSS transmission); and
transmit the satellite data to the communication apparatus ([0025] s.4, rover receiver must periodically transmit its approximate position to the VRS server);
the one or more memories store first programming instruction for execution by the in- vehicle communication apparatus to:
provide a first positioning service based on first positioning information, wherein the first positioning information is based on at least one of the satellite data or first inertia measurement unit (IMU) data (Fig. 5 below where reference and rover GNSS data are inputs into the VRS position data generation, and an inertial navigation system (INS), construed as a first positioning service, calculates navigation data comprising vehicle position, velocity, and attitude using IMU data where as in [0005] s.1-2 the purpose of an aided INS (AINS), construed as a second positioning service is to compute navigation data comprising vehicle position, velocity, acceleration, orientation (e.g., roll, pitch, heading) and angular rate via the combination of an inertial navigation system (INS) and aiding navigation sensors such as GNSS-AINS which receive and process satellite signals); and
PNG
media_image1.png
397
412
media_image1.png
Greyscale
transmit the satellite data to the controller (see Fig. 5 above where the output of VRS position data and Fig. 6 is below where VRS GNSS data is an input into the error controller); and
the one or more memories store second programming instructions for execution by the controller to provide a second positioning service based on second positioning information, wherein the second positioning information is based on the satellite data, second IMU data (see Fig. 6 below where satellite data and VRS GNSS data are integrated with IMU Data in the inertial navigator, and an inertial navigation system (INS), construed as a first positioning service, calculates navigation data comprising vehicle position, velocity, and attitude using IMU data where as in [0005] s.1-2 the purpose of an aided INS (AINS), construed as a second positioning service is to compute navigation data comprising vehicle position, velocity, acceleration, orientation (e.g., roll, pitch, heading) and angular rate via the combination of an inertial navigation system (INS) and aiding navigation sensors such as GNSS-AINS which receive and process satellite signals), and RTK data ([0016] where RTK positioning is also performed), and wherein precision of the second positioning information is higher than precision of the first positioning information (see [0012] s. 3 above regarding achieving a navigation accuracy improvement over what an unaided inertial navigator would be capable of achieving, which is construed as the controller output having a second positioning information that is higher than the first (unaided IMU information alone)).
PNG
media_image2.png
614
484
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, although Scherzinger discloses in [0170] that the airborne subsystem could also store these data on-board for future use, such as for various post-mission needs/applications, Scherzinger does not explicitly disclose:
including an onboard inertia measurement unit (IMU) and a real time kinematic (RTK) module;
IMU data from the onboard IMU in the controller, and
RTK data from the RTK module in the controller.
However, Chen teaches on pg. 5 ¶3 a two separate aspects of the system that includes an IMU (Inertial Measurement Unit, inertial sensor) unit and a RTK (Real-time kinematic, real-time differential positioning) module on the vehicle. The positioning unit is used to read the initial pose collected by the IMU unit.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle positioning and controls before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the vehicle positioning system/method of Scherzinger, by incorporating the on-board IMU and RTK unit teachings of Chen, such that the simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results regarding the comparing of IMU data to improve positioning precision.
Regarding claims 2, 6, and 15, Applicant has elected to cancel the claims.
Regarding claim 9, Scherzinger discloses:
A positioning method, wherein the method comprises:
obtaining satellite data from a first global navigation satellite system (GNSS} antenna ([0003] GNSS and other satellite positioning systems utilize receiver antennae to obtain satellite data and [0003] s.1, each GPS satellite transmits continuously using two radio frequencies, where a GPS transmission is regarded as synonymous with a GNSS transmission);
provide a first positioning service based on first positioning information, wherein the first positioning information is based on at least one of the satellite data and/or or first inertia measurement unit {IMU) data ([0003] GNSS and other satellite positioning systems utilize receiver antennae to obtain satellite data; [0003] s.1, each GPS satellite transmits continuously using two radio frequencies, where a GPS transmission is regarded as synonymous with a GNSS transmission; and an inertial navigation system (INS), construed as a first positioning service, calculates navigation data comprising vehicle position, velocity, and attitude using IMU data where as in [0005] s.1-2 the purpose of an aided INS (AINS), construed as a second positioning service is to compute navigation data comprising vehicle position, velocity, acceleration, orientation (e.g., roll, pitch, heading) and angular rate via the combination of an inertial navigation system (INS) and aiding navigation sensors such as GNSS-AINS which receive and process satellite signals); and
transmitting the satellite data to a controller ([0025] s.4, rover receiver must periodically transmit its approximate position to the VRS server and Fig. 6 is above where VRS GNSS data is an input into the error controller), wherein t the satellite data is used to with second IMU data and RTK data determine second positioning information (see Fig. 6 above where satellite data and VRS GNSS data are integrated with IMU Data in the inertial navigator and [0016] where RTK positioning is also performed), and precision of the second positioning information is higher than precision of the first positioning information (see [0012] s. 3 above regarding achieving a navigation accuracy improvement over what an unaided inertial navigator would be capable of achieving, which is construed as the controller output having a second positioning information that is higher than the first (unaided IMU information alone)).
However, although Scherzinger discloses in [0170] that the airborne subsystem could also store these data on-board for future use, such as for various post-mission needs/applications, Scherzinger does not explicitly disclose:
the controller includes an onboard inertia measurement unit (IMU) and a real time kinematic (RTK) module, and
with second IMU data from the onboard IMU and RTK data from the RTK module
However, Chen teaches on pg. 5 ¶3 a two separate aspects of the system that includes an IMU (Inertial Measurement Unit, inertial sensor) unit and a RTK (Real-time kinematic, real-time differential positioning) module on the vehicle. The positioning unit is used to read the initial pose collected by the IMU unit.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle positioning and controls before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the vehicle positioning system/method of Scherzinger, by incorporating the on-board IMU and RTK unit teachings of Chen, such that the simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results regarding the comparing of IMU data to improve positioning precision.
Regarding claim 14, Scherzinger discloses:
A positioning method, comprising:
receiving, by a controller, satellite data from a communication apparatus(see claim 1); and
determining, by the controller, second positioning information based on the satellite data and second inertia measurement unit (IMU) data (see claim 1 regarding second position information), wherein precision of the second positioning information is higher than precision of first positioning information, and the first positioning information is positioning information determined by the communication apparatus (see claim 1 regarding second position information being more precise than the first).
However, although Scherzinger discloses in [0170] that the airborne subsystem could also store these data on-board for future use, such as for various post-mission needs/applications, Scherzinger does not explicitly disclose:
in a vehicle, wherein the controller includes an onboard inertia measurement unit (IMU) and a real time kinematic (RTK) module, and
second inertia measurement unit (IMU) data from the onboard IMU in the controller, and RTK data from the RTK module in the controller.
However, Chen teaches on pg. 5 ¶3 a two separate aspects of the system that includes an IMU (Inertial Measurement Unit, inertial sensor) unit and a RTK (Real-time kinematic, real-time differential positioning) module on the vehicle. The positioning unit is used to read the initial pose collected by the IMU unit.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle positioning and controls before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the vehicle positioning system/method of Scherzinger, by incorporating the on-board IMU and RTK unit teachings of Chen, such that the simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results regarding the comparing of IMU data to improve positioning precision.
________________________________________________
Claim(s) 3, 10, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scherzinger et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2009/0093959 A1), hereinafter referred to as Scherzinger, in view of Chen et al. (CN Pat. Pub. No. 114003056 A), hereinafter referred to as Chen, and Jia et al. (CN Pat. Pub. No. 110723151 B), hereinafter referred to as Jia.
Regarding claim 3, Scherzinger discloses:
The system according to claim 1 (see claim 1),
but Scherzinger does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the controller is an intelligent driving controller or an intelligent cockpit controller, or a controller integrating a plurality of functions of driving control, cockpit control, or vehicle body control.
However, Jia teaches on pg. 8 ¶5 an intelligent driving system, including: the intelligent driving area controller, the communication module, and an Electronic Control Unit (ECU) 15 for a chassis. This is construed as an intelligent driving controller for a vehicle body based on a determined position of a vehicle.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle positioning and controls before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the vehicle positioning system/method of Scherzinger, as already modified by the on-board IMU and RTK unit teachings of Chen, by incorporating the intelligent driving controller teachings of Jia, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of, as acknowledged by Jia in ¶3 of pg. 2, allowing improved intelligence in automobiles and transportation as it is an inevitable trend of automobile development in the future.
Claims 10 and 16 recite methods having substantially the same features of claim 3 above, therefore claims 10 and 16 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
_______________________________
Claim(s) 4, 11, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scherzinger et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2009/0093959 A1), hereinafter referred to as Scherzinger, in view of Chen et al. (CN Pat. Pub. No. 114003056 A), hereinafter referred to as Chen, and Hotta et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2024/0003701 A1), hereinafter referred to as Hotta.
Regarding claim 4, Scherzinger discloses:
The system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more memories store the first programming instructions for execution by the communication
apparatus to:
distribute the information to the controller (see claim 1 regarding being communicably coupled to the controller),
but Scherzinger does not explicitly disclose:
determine time information based on the satellite data
However, Hotta in [0026] teaches the positioning sensor performs positioning of the vehicle by receiving a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) signal containing time stamp information from plural GNSS satellites. Time stamp information is construed to be synonymous with the time information in the instant application.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle positioning and controls before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the vehicle positioning system/method of Scherzinger, as already modified by the on-board IMU and RTK unit teachings of Chen, by incorporating the time stamp teachings of Hotta, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of, as acknowledged by Hotta in [0043] s.1-2, allowing improved correction based on current and previous time stamp information.
Claim 11 recites a method having substantially the same features of claim 4 above, therefore claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
Regarding claim 17, Scherzinger discloses:
The method according to claim 14, wherein the method further comprises:
receiving, by the controller, time information from the communication apparatus (see claim 4 regarding time information).
__________________________________________
Claim(s) 5-8, 12-13, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scherzinger et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2009/0093959 A1), hereinafter referred to as Scherzinger, in view of Chen et al. (CN Pat. Pub. No. 114003056 A), hereinafter referred to as Chen, and Ahmed et al. thesis titled “Real-Time Vehicle Tracking System”, hereinafter referred to as Ahmed.
Regarding claim 5, Scherzinger discloses:
The system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more memories store the first programming instructions for execution by the communication apparatus (see claim 1) to, transmit the satellite data to the controller (see claim 1),
but Scherzinger does not explicitly disclose:
when the controller is enabled, initialization of the controller is completed, and the controller is functioning.
However, Ahmed teaches on pg. 30 ¶2 s. 4, that the device initialization process may take up to 1 minute to worm up and calculate the accurate position. In case of network un-availability, the acquisitioned GPS coordinates and other data such as time and speed are stored temporarily until the network returns back to service then the stored coordinates are sent with their time stamp and speed. The system returning to service is construed as only transmitting the satellite data when the system is enabled, initialized, and deemed to have “normal” functioning.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle positioning and controls before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the vehicle positioning system/method of Scherzinger, as already modified by the on-board IMU and RTK unit teachings of Chen, by incorporating the transmission cadence teachings of Ahmed, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of improved synchronization of data handoff from the in-vehicle communication apparatus to the controller and prevent a data backlog.
Claims 12 and 19 recite methods having substantially the same features of claim 5above, therefore claims 12 and 19 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
Regarding claim 7, Scherzinger, as modified by Ahmed, discloses:
The system according to claim 5, wherein the system further comprises:
an application function module, wherein the one or more memories store third programming instruction for execution by the application function module to:
when receiving the first positioning service and the second positioning service, provide an application function based on the second positioning service ([0009] mobile mapping/survey applications which necessarily would pick the best position and route).
Regarding claim 8, Scherzinger, as modified by Ahmed, discloses:
The system according to claim 7, wherein the application function comprises one or more of map navigation, in-vehicle wireless communication (V2X}, intelligent driving, or emergency call (mobile mapping applications inclusion of map navigation features is ubiquitous in the art of vehicle controls).
Regarding claim 13, Scherzinger, as modified by Ahmed, discloses:
The method according to claim 12, wherein the method further comprises:
providing a first positioning service based on the first positioning information (see claim 9 regarding a first positioning service based on the first positioning information).
Regarding claim 20, Scherzinger, as modified by Ahmed, discloses:
The method according to claim 19, wherein the method further comprises:
providing, by the controller, a second positioning service based on the second positioning information (see claim 6 regarding a first positioning service based on the first positioning information).
__________________________________
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scherzinger et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2009/0093959 A1), hereinafter referred to as Scherzinger, in view of Chen et al. (CN Pat. Pub. No. 114003056 A), hereinafter referred to as Chen, and Kim (KR Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0075356 A).
Regarding claim 18, Scherzinger discloses:
The method according to claim 14 (see claim 1 and 14 above),
But
wherein the controller is connected through a controller area network flexible data-rate (CAN-FD) communication link or an in-vehicle Ethernet communication link; and wherein receiving the satellite data from the communication apparatus comprises:
receiving, by the controller, the satellite data from the communication apparatus through the CAN-FD communication link or the in- vehicle Ethernet communication link.
However, Kim teaches on pg. 6 4¶ 6 s.1 the communication unit is a hardware device implemented with various electronic circuits to transmit and receive signals through a wireless or wired connection including but not limited to CAN-FD communication and Ethernet communication. In particular, the communication unit may receive location information for a vehicle guidance service and information on road conditions by using 4G and 5G communication systems and a GPS satellite system as a backhaul. This is interpreted as a system that utilizes either a CAN-FD communication ling or an ethernet communication link to receive location information including that of a GPS /GNSS satellite system.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle positioning and controls before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the vehicle positioning system/method of Scherzinger, as already modified by the on-board IMU and RTK unit teachings of Chen, by incorporating the CAN-FD communication and/or ethernet communication teachings of Kim, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of carrying improved data rates and larger payloads as the CAN-FD is an enhanced version of the classical CAN protocols.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to KEITH ALLEN VON VOLKENBURG whose telephone number is (703)756-5886. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-5:00 pm.
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, Erin D. Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
/Keith A von Volkenburg/ Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights