DETAILED ACTION
This is a first action on the merits. Claims 1-12 are pending. Claims dated 06/20/2025 are being examined.
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 .
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 06/20/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informality: in the preamble “device” is suggested to be recited as “navigation device” to be clear that device is referring to the navigation device.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informality: “device” is suggested to be recited as “navigation device” to be clear that device is referring to the navigation device.
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.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “…on the basis of the correction data”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the correction data”. As the claim recites “first correction data” and “second correction data”, it is not clear which “the correction data” is referring to, or if this is a different data from the two. For examination purposes, the Examiner interprets “the correction data” as “the first correction data and the second correction data”.
Claims 2-10 and 12 are rejected because of their dependencies to rejected claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites “the second rate is preferably a sub-multiple of the first rate”. The phrase “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. “Descriptions of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim…” See MPEP § 2173.05(d). As the specification, as originally filed, recites in numerous places a preferred embodiment, for examination purposes, the Examiner presumes that the claims cover the preferred embodiment and Examiner interprets the following limitations after the phrase “preferably” as being required, necessary to the claimed invention. "[A] claim interpretation that excludes a preferred embodiment from the scope of the claim is rarely, if ever, correct." On-Line Techs., Inc. v. Bodenseewerk Perkin-Elmer GmbH, 386 F.3d 1133, 1138 (Fed. Cir.2004)
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites “…on the basis of the correction data”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the correction data”. As the claim recites “first correction data” and “second correction data”, it is not clear which “the correction data” is referring to, or if this is a different data from the two. For examination purposes, the Examiner interprets “the correction data” as “the first correction data and the second correction data”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 would be allowable if rewritten as per the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim language, as set forth in the record due to the issues raised under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the prior arts on record do not teach, describe, and/or suggest all the limitations as presented in the claim as a whole – specifically “in that the electronic processing circuit is arranged to transmit to the electronic navigation unit […] secondly, at a second rate, correction signals comprising first correction data, which are representative of an impact of the sensor errors on the location signals over a given period and which are determined by the electronic processing circuit on the basis of the error model, and second correction data, which are representative of an effect of the random noises and errors of the inertial measurement unit over the given period; and in that the electronic navigation calculation unit implements a hybrid navigation algorithm arranged to supply a hybrid location that is based on inertial location data extracted from the location signals and from the external location data and that is readjusted on the basis of the correction data”
The closest prior art in inertial measurement system architecture has the IMU output raw measurements to a navigation processor that performs filtering and state correction. This architecture is conventional as exemplified by EP-3392613-B1 (hereinafter referred to as Todd, as cited in the IDS filed 06/20/2025), but in Todd, the electronic processing unit provides a singular corrected localization data to the navigation processor instead of two separate outputs as claimed localization data and correction data and does not teach the navigation processor using the correction signals to recalibrate the hybrid navigation. US-8457891-B1 (hereinafter referred to as Vallot) and/or US-7668655-B2 (hereinafter referred to as Soehren) likewise shows architecture where the IMU output raw measurements to a processor. In contrast, the invention moves part of the processing into the inertial measurement unit itself. The IMU generates both location signals and correction signals. The navigation computer uses those signals with external location data and readjusts the hybrid solution accordingly. This is beneficial over the conventional architecture cited above as it supports slower, lower-bandwidth transmission without losing as much accuracy.
Additionally, prior art for IMU preprocessing is conventional as exemplified by US-20180231385-A1 (hereinafter referred to as Fourie) which as shown in FIG. 5 teaches a IMU 120 comprising a preintegration processor 124 to send information to a navigation processor 126. However, while prior art as per above exists that splits work between an inertial measurement unit and a separate navigation computer, the prior arts do not teach or suggest the claimed distribution of processing in which the IMU generates and transmits the claimed data to the electronic navigation unit for use in realigning a hybridized navigation solution.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-8457891-B1 (hereinafter referred to as Vallot) and/or US-7668655-B2 (hereinafter referred to as Soehren) and US-20180231385-A1 (hereinafter referred to as Fourie) as reasoned above
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVIN SEOL whose telephone number is (571) 272-6488. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached on (571) 270-3969. 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.
/DAVIN SEOL/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights