Michael E. Jackson et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 2, 201914466975 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2019) Copy Citation 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. 14/466,975 08/23/2014 Michael E. Jackson 0420.26 4203 112664 7590 12/02/2019 Trimble Inc. Swanson & Bratschun, L.L.C. 8210 Southpark Terrace Littleton, CO 80120 EXAMINER ISSING, GREGORY C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3646 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/02/2019 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): efspatents@sbiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MICHAEL E. JACKSON, PAUL PASSMORE, and HANS-GERD DÜNCK-KERST Appeal 2019-002344 Application 14/466,975 Technology Center 3600 Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–11, 13, and 15–25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Trimble Inc. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2019-002344 Application 14/466,975 2 According to Appellant, the invention “relates . . . to technology for detecting displacement, including without limitation, displacement resulting from earthquakes.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claims 1, 2, and 25 are the independent claims on appeal. Below, we reproduce independent claim 1 as representative of the appealed claims: 1. An earthquake early warning system, comprising: a housing; a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver disposed within the housing; one or more seismic sensors disposed within the housing, the one or more seismic sensors coupled to one of a ground surface, structure, or object; an input/output interface; a processor disposed within the housing; and a computer readable medium disposed within the housing, the computer readable medium having encoded thereon a set of instructions executable by the processor, the set of instructions comprising: instructions to receive GNSS position data with the GNSS receiver, the GNSS receiver having a GNSS operating characteristic and a GNSS error characteristic; instructions to receive GNSS correction data over a network connection or from a GNSS satellite; instructions to correct the GNSS position data using the GNSS correction data; instructions to observe seismic data with the one or more seismic sensors, the one or more seismic sensors each having a seismic operating characteristic and a seismic error characteristic; Appeal 2019-002344 Application 14/466,975 3 instructions to integrate the seismic data to calculate a seismic sensor displacement value over a specified sample period; instructions to calculate a GNSS displacement value from the GNSS position data gathered over the specified sample period; instructions to combine the GNSS displacement value with the seismic sensor displacement value in a Kalman filter, based at least in part on the GNSS operating characteristic and error characteristic and the seismic operating characteristic and error characteristic, wherein combining the GNSS displacement and the seismic sensor displacement value comprises performing at least a forward filtering operation with the Kalman filter, wherein the instructions to combine the GNSS displacement value with the seismic sensor displacement value in the Kalman filter further includes: instructions to estimate parameters of a model equation for predicting the estimated displacement value and the estimated velocity value, based on an order of a function of the model equation, the GNSS data, GNSS operating characteristic, GNSS error characteristic, seismic data, seismic operating characteristic, and seismic error characteristic, and instructions to update the estimated parameters based on weighted measurements of the GNSS data and seismic data; instructions to determine, in real time, an estimated displacement value and an estimated velocity value from the combined GNSS and seismic sensor displacement values; instructions to calculate, in real time, a predominant period, wherein the predominant period includes at least two estimated displacements instructions to Appeal 2019-002344 Application 14/466,975 4 calculate, in real time, a peak displacement during the predominant period; instructions to determine an intensity level of an earthquake based at least in part on one or more of the predominant period and the peak displacement; and instructions to transmit an earthquake warning indicating the determined intensity level using the input/output interface. REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART The Examiner rejects the claims as follows: I. Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), as failing to comply with the written-description requirement; II. Claims 3–5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that Appellant regards as the invention; Appeal 2019-002344 Application 14/466,975 5 III. Claims 2, 7–11, 13, 15–21, and 252 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Raman et al. (US 2009/0115656 A1, pub. May 7, 2009) (“Raman”), as evidenced by3 Ding, “Optimal Integration of GPS with Inertial Sensors: Modelling and Implementation,” School of Surveying and Spatial Information Systems, The University of New South Wales, March 2008 (“Ding”), and Gade, K., “(2009): Introduction to Inertial Navigation and Kalman Filtering,” Tutorial for IAIN World Congress, Stockholm, Sweden, Oct. 2009 (“Gade”); IV. Claims 2, 7–11, 13, 15–21, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Raman, Ding, and Gade; and V. Claims 1–11, 13, and 15–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Bock et al., “Real-Time Strong-Motion Broadband Displacements from Collocated GPS and Accelerometers,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 101, No. 6, pp. 2904–2925, December 2011 (“Bock”), either paragraph 53 of Appellant’s Specification 2 In the Final Action, the Examiner indicates that the rejection of claims 2, 7–11, 13, 15–21, and 25 “is substantially [as] set forth in the previous Office Action at paragraphs 9–16,” which refers to the Non-Final Office Action mailed January 9, 2018. Final Act. 4. Notwithstanding that in paragraph 9 of the Non-Final Office Action, the Examiner rejects claims 1–11, 13, 15– 21, and 25, we interpret the Examiner’s statement in the Final Office Action to mean that, in the Final Office Action, the Examiner does not reject claims 1 and 3–6. 3 Although the Examiner states that the claims are “anticipated by . . . Raman . . . in view of Ding . . . and Gade,” we interpret the Examiner’s statement to mean that the claims are anticipated by Raman, as evidenced by Ding and Gade. See Final Act. 4. Appeal 2019-002344 Application 14/466,975 6 (“Admitted Prior Art”) or Colombelli et al., “Test of a Threshold-Based Earthquake Early-Warning Method Using Japanese Data,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 102, No. 3, pp. 1266−1275, June 2012 (“Colombelli”), and Ding and Gade. ANALYSIS Rejection I—Written-Description Rejection Dependent claim 5, which ultimately depends from independent claim 2, recites in its entirety “[t]he displacement measurement device of claim 24, wherein the computer readable medium further comprises instructions to provide warning of theft of the object, based, in part, on at least one of the estimated displacement value, the estimated velocity value, or peak displacement during the predominant period.” Appeal Br., Claims App. (emphases added). The Examiner rejects claim 5 as lacking written- description support because, according to the Examiner, Appellant’s “[S]pecification is silent as to the determination and use of an intensity level of an earthquake in providing for instructions to provide a warning of theft of an object.” Final Act. 2. Based on our review of the record, we do not sustain the rejection. First, we agree with Appellant that claim 5 does not recite providing a warning of theft based on an intensity level of an earthquake. Appeal Br. 22–23; see also Reply Br. 4–5. Instead, as set forth above, claim 5 bases a warning of theft on one or more of estimated displacement, estimated velocity, and peak displacement. Id. at Claims App. (Claim 5). In response to Appellant’s argument in the Appeal Brief, the Examiner notes that dependent claim 24, from which claim 5 directly Appeal 2019-002344 Application 14/466,975 7 depends, recites “determining an intensity of an earthquake based on the predominant period and the peak displacement,” and the Examiner determines that there is no “written description of providing a warning of theft after determining an intensity of an earthquake based on the predominant period and the peak displacement during the predominant period.” Answer 4. We agree with Appellant, however, that “claim 5 does not recite that warning of theft is provided based on the intensity level of an earthquake, or that warning must be provided ‘after’ such determination, or any other [such] relationship between the warning and an intensity level of an earthquake.” Reply Br. 4. Thus, based on the foregoing, the Examiner does not support adequately that any recitation in claim 5 which lacks written-description support. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Rejection II—Indefiniteness Rejection Dependent claim 3 recites, in relevant part, “provid[ing] [a] warning . . . based, in part, on at least one of the estimated displacement value, the estimated velocity value, peak displacement during the predominant period, or the estimated intensity level of the earthquake.” Appeal Br., Claims App. (emphasis added). Dependent claims 4 and 5 include similar recitations. Id. According to the Examiner, “[t]he claim language is indefinite since it is not clear what the scope of ‘based, in part, on at least one of’ encompasses.” Final Act. 3. The Examiner further determines that “it is uncertain whether the scope of the claim encompasses the embodiment wherein the ‘based in part’ is fully met when two or more Appeal 2019-002344 Application 14/466,975 8 of the data set forth in the claim is used[,] or if there is some additional, undefined information [that is] necessary in order to provide a warning.” Id. Based on our review of the record, we do not sustain the rejection. We agree with Appellant that one of ordinary skill “would understand that [each of] claims 3–5 includes all determinations to provide warning of an earthquake that takes into consideration, in any part, any of the recited factors (in combination or otherwise).” Appeal Br. 26. Thus, based on the foregoing, the Examiner does not support adequately that any of claims 3–5 is indefinite. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3–5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Rejection III—Anticipation Rejection based on Raman, as Evidenced by Ding, and Gade Based on our review of the record, we determine that the Examiner does not support adequately that Raman anticipates any of claims 2, 7–11, 13, 15–21, and 25. Thus, for the following reasons, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection. Independent claim 2 recites the following (with emphases added): 2. A displacement measurement device, comprising: a housing; a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver disposed within the housing; one or more seismic sensors disposed within the housing, the one or more seismic sensors coupled to one of a ground surf ace, structure, or object; an input/output interface; a processor disposed within the housing; and Appeal 2019-002344 Application 14/466,975 9 a computer readable medium disposed within the housing, the computer readable medium having encoded thereon a set of instructions executable by the processor, the set of instructions comprising: instructions to receive GNSS position data with the GNSS receiver, the GNSS sensor having a GNSS operating characteristic and a GNSS error characteristic; instructions to observe seismic data with the one or more seismic sensors, the one or more seismic sensors each having a seismic operating characteristic and a seismic error characteristic; instructions to integrate the seismic data to calculate a seismic sensor displacement value over a specified sample period; instructions to calculate a GNSS displacement value from the GNSS position data gathered over the specified sample period; instructions to combine the GNSS displacement value with the seismic sensor displacement value in a Kalman filter, based at least in part on the GNSS operating characteristic and error characteristic and the seismic operating characteristic and error characteristic wherein the instructions to combine the GNSS displacement value with the seismic sensor displacement value in the Kalman filter further includes: instructions to estimate parameters of a model equation for predicting the estimated displacement value and the estimated velocity value, based on an order of a function of the model equation, the GNSS data, GNSS operating characteristic, GNSS error characteristic, seismic data, seismic operating characteristic, and seismic error characteristic, and instructions to update the estimated parameters based on weighted measurements of the GNSS data and seismic data; Appeal 2019-002344 Application 14/466,975 10 instructions to determine, in real time, at least one of an estimated displacement value or an estimated velocity value from the combined GNSS and seismic sensor displacement value; and instructions to transmit the at least one of the estimated displacement value or the estimated velocity value using the input/output interface. Appeal Br., Claims App. (emphases added). Appellant argues that the Examiner errs in relying on Raman to anticipate independent claim 2, because “Raman fails to teach or suggest . . . any use of seismic data, seismic operating characteristics, [or] seismic error characteristics.’” See, e.g., Appeal Br. 29; see Reply Br. 6. Based on our review of the record, we agree with Appellant. Raman is directed to “systems and methods for global differential positioning.” Raman ¶ 1. In particular, Raman discloses “inertial sensors 310 [that] transmit data related to the detected specific forces and body rates 305 to a navigator 315, which estimates an inertial navigational system (INS)-derived position and velocity of a vehicle based on the transmitted data.” Id. ¶ 26 (bold omitted). That is, Raman uses sensors as part of an inertial guidance system. Regardless of whether we agree with the Examiner that Raman and Appellant use the same sensors (e.g., accelerometers) to collect data (see Answer 5–8), the Examiner still does not support adequately that Raman collects “seismic” data—i.e., data relating to an earthquake (see, e.g., Spec. ¶ 5). Thus, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 2. We also do not sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 7–11, 13, and 15–21 that depend from, and which the Examiner rejects with, independent claim 2. Further, we do not Appeal 2019-002344 Application 14/466,975 11 sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 25, which recites a similar recitation to that discussed above with respect to claim 2. Rejection IV—Obviousness Rejection based on Raman, Ding, and Gade For the reasons discussed above, the Examiner does not support adequately that Raman discloses observing, or performing calculations on, seismic data. Thus, inasmuch as the Examiner’s obviousness rejection relies on Raman to disclose observation of and calculations with seismic data, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 7–11, 13, 15–21, and 25 based on Raman, Ding, and Gade. Rejection V—Obviousness Rejection based on Bock, Colombelli or Admitted Prior Art, and Ding and Gade As set forth above, claim 1 recites (with emphases added): 1. An earthquake early warning system, comprising: a housing; a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver disposed within the housing; one or more seismic sensors disposed within the housing, the one or more seismic sensors coupled to one of a ground surf ace, structure, or object; an input/output interface; a processor disposed within the housing; and a computer readable medium disposed within the housing, the computer readable medium having encoded thereon a set of instructions executable by the processor, the set of instructions comprising: instructions to receive GNSS position data with the GNSS receiver, the GNSS receiver having a GNSS Appeal 2019-002344 Application 14/466,975 12 operating characteristic and a GNSS error characteristic; instructions to receive GNSS correction data over a network connection or from a GNSS satellite; instructions to correct the GNSS position data using the GNSS correction data; instructions to observe seismic data with the one or more seismic sensors, the one or more seismic sensors each having a seismic operating characteristic and a seismic error characteristic; instructions to integrate the seismic data to calculate a seismic sensor displacement value over a specified sample period; instructions to calculate a GNSS displacement value from the GNSS position data gathered over the specified sample period; instructions to combine the GNSS displacement value with the seismic sensor displacement value in a Kalman filter, based at least in part on the GNSS operating characteristic and error characteristic and the seismic operating characteristic and error characteristic, wherein combining the GNSS displacement and the seismic sensor displacement value comprises performing at least a forward filtering operation with the Kalman filter, wherein the instructions to combine the GNSS displacement value with the seismic sensor displacement value in the Kalman filter further includes: instructions to estimate parameters of a model equation for predicting the estimated displacement value and the estimated velocity value, based on an order of a function of the model equation, the GNSS data, GNSS operating characteristic, GNSS error characteristic, seismic data, seismic operating characteristic, and seismic error Appeal 2019-002344 Application 14/466,975 13 characteristic, and instructions to update the estimated parameters based on weighted measurements of the GNSS data and seismic data; instructions to determine, in real time, an estimated displacement value and an estimated velocity value from the combined GNSS and seismic sensor displacement values; instructions to calculate, in real time, a predominant period, wherein the predominant period includes at least two estimated displacements instructions to calculate, in real time, a peak displacement during the predominant period; instructions to determine an intensity level of an earthquake based at least in part on one or more of the predominant period and the peak displacement; and instructions to transmit an earthquake warning indicating the determined intensity level using the input/output interface. Appeal Br., Claims App. (emphases added). In support of independent claim 1’s rejection, the Examiner relies on Bock to disclose a system that includes a Kalman filter, and which measures GNSS and seismic data. See, e.g., Non-Final Act. 10–11. The Examiner then finds that Gade discloses “that [a] Kalman filter is used to predict an estimate[,] and then sources of information are weighed and a new updated estimate is calculated,” and that Gade “represent[s] functions inherent in such a Kalman filter.” Id. at 13–14. According to the Examiner, because Gade discloses using a Kalman filter to weigh data from two inputs, based on this disclosure in Gade, it would have been obvious to weigh Bock’s GNSS and seismic data as inputs in Bock’s Kalman filter. See, e.g., Answer 9–10. Appeal 2019-002344 Application 14/466,975 14 Gade is a presentation relating to inertial navigation and Kalman filtering. Gade, slide 1. The Examiner relies on Gade’s slides 26 and 27 to disclose how Kalman filtering weighs the data. See Non-Final Act. 13. Gade’s slide 26 discloses a Kalman filter that “utilize[s]” “[t]wo sort of information,” i.e., “[m]easurements from . . . sensors,” and “[a] mathematical model of the system.” Gade slide 26 (emphases omitted). Gade’s slide 27 discloses that the “Kalman filter is provided with an initial estimate,” and that the Kalman filter “weigh[s]” “two sources of information” and provide a “new updated estimate” for a mathematical model. Id. slide 27. However, it appears that one of the source of information is “uncertainty” of some characteristic, rather than an input from a sensor, for example. Id.; see Appeal Br. 33–36; see Reply Br. 6–7. Thus, consistent with the fact that Gade is directed to an inertial navigation system and not an earthquake warning system, Gade does not disclose updating estimated parameters of a model equation for predicting estimated displacement and velocity values, where the updating is based on weighted measurements of GNSS data and seismic data, as claimed. Further, to the extent that the Examiner proposes to use Gade’s disclosure as a reason to use Bock’s Kalman filter to weigh Bock’s GNSS and seismic data, inasmuch as it is not clear that Gade discloses updating a model equation after weighing data from two sources, but instead appears to disclose updating a model equation after weighing further data and uncertainty related to that data, the Examiner does not support adequately that it would have been obvious to update estimated parameters of a model equation for predicting estimated displacement and velocity values, where Appeal 2019-002344 Application 14/466,975 15 the updating is based on weighted measurements of GNSS data and seismic data, as claimed. Thus, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 2 and 25, which recites a similar recitation to that discussed above with respect to claim 1. Further, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 3–11, 13, and 15–24 that depend from independent claim 2. CONCLUSION We REVERSE the Examiner’s written-description, indefiniteness, anticipation, and obviousness rejections of claims 1–11, 13, 15–25. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis/Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed 5 112(a) Written description 5 3–5 112(b) Indefiniteness 3–5 2, 7−11, 13, 15–21, 25 102(a)(1) Raman, Ding, Gade 2, 7-11, 13, 15–21, 25 2, 7−11, 13, 15–21, 25 103 Raman, Ding, Gade 2, 7-11, 13, 15–21, 25 1–11, 13, 15–25 103 Bock, Admitted Prior Art, Colombelli, Ding, Gade 1–11, 13, 15–25 Overall Outcome: 1–11, 13, 15–25 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation