Ex Parte Mirowski et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 15, 2017

14063735 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/063,735 10/25/2013 Piotr W. Mirowski 7650-0097 8929
51094 7590 09/19/2017
MCCORMICK, PAULDING & HUBER LLP
185 ASYLUM STREET
CITY PLACE II
HARTFORD, CT 06103
EXAMINER
DEMETER, HILINA K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2674
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/19/2017 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
patentdocket @ ip-lawyers .com
ipsnarocp @ nokia. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PIOTR W. MIROWSKI, TIN K. HO,
and WILLIAM M. MACDONALD
(Applicant: Alacatel-Lucent USA Inc.)
Appeal 2017-002965
Application 14/063,735
Technology Center 2600
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’
Final Rejection of claims 1—22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2017-002965
Application 14/063,735
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to simultaneous localization and
mapping systems and methods within an environment. Spec. 2—3. Claim
1, reproduced below with the disputed limitation in italics, is representative
of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system for providing localization and mapping within an
environment, the system comprising:
at least one mobile device adapted to be moved within the
environment, the at least one mobile device including an inertial
measurement unit and at least one radio frequency receiver, the at
least one mobile device detecting inertial measurements through the
inertial measurement unit and values of signal strength from a
plurality of sources of radio frequency signals within the environment
through the at least one radio frequency receiver; and
a localization module receiving the inertial measurements and
the values of signal strength, the localization module adapted to
provide simultaneous localization and mapping of the at least one
mobile device within the environment based at least on the inertial
measurements detected by the inertial measurement unit and the
values of signal strength detected by the at least one radio frequency
receiver by estimating a trajectory of the mobile device through
pedestrian-dead-reckoning using the inertial measurements and
refining the estimated trajectory using the values of radio frequency
signal strength to compare signal strength similarities.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Shen et al. (US 2014/0256356 Al;
published Sept. 11, 2014) (“Shen”) and Das et al. (US 2013/0122935 Al;
published May 16, 2013) (“Das”).
2
Appeal 2017-002965
Application 14/063,735
ANALYSIS
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Shen and
Das teaches or suggests “estimating a trajectory of the mobile device
through pedestrian-dead-reckoning using the inertial measurements and
refining the estimated trajectory using the values of radio frequency signal
strength to compare signal strength similarities,” as recited in independent
claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent claims 9 and 17?
The Examiner relies on Das, as combined with Shen, to teach or
suggest the disputed limitation. Final Act. 4—5, citing Shen 144, Das 128;
Ans. 3—4, citing Das Tflf 26, 28, 29, 79.
Appellants argue “Das is unlike the localization module of the present
application, which receives inertial measurements and values of signal
strength and provides simultaneous localization and mapping by refining the
estimated trajectory using the values of radio frequency signal strength to
compare signal strength similarities.” App. Br. 12. Appellants further argue
Das “does not teach the refinement of an estimated trajectory estimated
through pedestrian-dead-reckoning” or “the comparison of radio frequency
signal strength similarities.” Id. at 13.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments and agree with the
Examiner’s findings. See Final Act. 4—5; Ans. 3^4. Shen generally
describes collecting data from inertial measurement unit sensors, measuring
the wireless signal to determine a received signal strength, and detecting the
location at which the trend in the received signal strength changes direction,
in order to identify a location for a device perceived landmark. Shen || 22,
38, 44, Abstract. Das discloses “in addition to gathering wireless signaling
information, a mobile device may gather inertial and/or environmental
3
Appeal 2017-002965
Application 14/063,735
sensor data from onboard sensors while in the newly constructed section of
the building [an area of location uncertainty], and such gathered movement
information may subsequently be used for dead reckoning or other like
positioning purposes.” Das 126. Das goes on to describe “[o]ne or more
measurements gathered over a period of time within an area of location
uncertainty by a mobile device may be considered along with a subsequently
obtained position fix (e.g., an estimated location of the mobile device within
an area of location certainty) to detect movements and/or position locations
of the mobile device within an indoor environment.” Id. at 128. Such
measurements may include “sensor measurements from one or more inertial
sensors in the mobile device, signal measurements from one or more
wireless signals received by a radio in the mobile device.” Id. at 129. “[B]y
gathering various sensor measurements prior to obtaining such a position fix,
it may be possible to estimate a trajectory and/or path of travel of the mobile
device in a period of time leading up to the position fix while the mobile
device is within an area of location uncertainty.” Id. at 128. In addition,
“various signaling characteristics may be gathered for an area of location
uncertainty which may permit various signaling environment characteristic
models and/or like radio heatmaps to be established, maintained, refined,
and which may at some point in time allow for location position
determination by mobile devices within an indoor structure.” Id. Signaling
characteristics may include “received signal strength indication (RSSI)
measurements.” Id. at | 54; see also Das claim 6.
Appellants have not sufficiently explained why the combination of
Shen and Das does not teach or suggest the disputed limitation. As
described supra, Shen teaches monitoring trends in the received signal
4
Appeal 2017-002965
Application 14/063,735
strength. As combined with Shen, Das explicitly teaches, or at least
suggests, estimating a trajectory of a mobile device through pedestrian-dead­
reckoning using the inertial measurements (e.g., 26, 28) and refining the
estimated trajectory using the values of radio frequency signal strength to
compare signal strength similarities (e.g., 28, 29).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claims 1, 9, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and we, therefore,
sustain those rejections. For the same reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejections of dependent claims 2—8, 10-16, and 18—22, which were not
argued separately. See App. Br. 13.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—22 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5