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
Claims 1-37 of US Application No. 18/211,366, filed on 19 June 2023, are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
A claim that recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to a judicial exception. Abstract ideas include the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation: (a) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and (c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. With respect to mental processes, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer.
In the instant application, independent claim 1 recites “by the computing device, performing localization of navigation using the geomagnetic map”. Independent claims 13, 25, and 37 recite substantially similar limitations. Performing localization, when given their broadest reasonable interpretation, may be performed in the human mind, such as by comparison of magnetic measurement sensor data to the geomagnetic map. Therefore, these limitations are abstract ideas and claims 1, 11 and 16 are directed to a judicial exception.
Even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The following examples are indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
the additional element(s) reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
the additional element(s) that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
the additional element(s) implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
the additional element(s) effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
the additional element(s) applies or uses 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Examples in which the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application include:
the additional element(s) merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
the additional element(s) adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
the additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
In the instant application, claims 1, 11 and 16 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Claim 1 recites the additional elements “by a computing device, accessing a geomagnetic map that incorporates one or more portions of one or more trajectories from one or more magnetic-measurement devices comprising magnetic measurements in an area collected by the magnetic-measurement devices over a period of time, wherein the portions of the trajectories were incorporated into the magnetic map based on similarities in the trajectories determined at least in part by one or more correlation analyses performed on at least portions of the trajectories”. Independent claims 13, 25, and 37 recite substantially similar limitations. Claim 13 also recites the additional element “One or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media embodying software that is operable when executed to”, while claim 25 recites the additional elements “one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media coupled to one or more of the processors and comprising instructions when executed by one or more of the processors to cause the system to” and claim 37 recites “a means for accessing a geomagnetic map” and “a means for performing localization or navigation”. Examiner interprets the means for accessing a geomagnetic map and a means for performing localization or navigation of claim 37 as the one or more processors and one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media coupled to one or more of the processors and comprising instructions when executed by one or more of the processors to cause the system to of claim 25. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not integrate the exception into a practical application. Data gathering is extra-solution activity. Accessing a geomagnetic map using a computing device (claim 1), non-transitory storage media (claim 13), or processors executing instructions stored in storage media (claims 25 and 37) is data gathering. These additional element do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Further, merely using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Performing localization or navigation using a computing device (claim 1), non-transitory storage media (claim 13), or processors executing instructions stored in storage media (claims 25 and 37) is just using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception. These additional element do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Therefore, claims 1, 13, 25, and 37 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception.
Finally, even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception renders the claim eligible under §101. Examples that are not enough to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea include 1) mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, 2) simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, 3) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and 4) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are not enough to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examples of generic computing functions that are not enough to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea include 1) performing repetitive calculations, 2) receiving, processing, and storing data, 3) electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, 4) electronic recordkeeping, 5) automating mental tasks, and 6) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data.
In the instant application, claims 1, 13, 25, and 37 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this particular application, the same analysis above in determining whether the recited additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception is applicable to determine if the additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Further, requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry is not enough to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Receiving or transmitting data over a network is an example of a generic computing function. Accessing a geomagnetic map, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., the computing device receiving data from another computing device.
Based on the above analysis, claims 1, 13, 25, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 2-12, 14-24, and 26-36 further define the previously-identified abstract idea, i.e., performing localization of navigation, and/or the previously-identified additional element, i.e., accessing a geomagnetic map. However, even as further defined, performing localization or navigation may still be performed mentally. Additionally, even as further defined, accessing the geomagnetic map is still data gathering. Therefore, claims 2-12, 14-24, and 26-36 do not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Larsen (US 2019/0277638 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Larsen discloses a magnetic-inertial global positioning system and teaches:
by a computing device, accessing a geomagnetic map (at 306, a predetermined magnetic field profile may be accessed from a memory – see at least Fig. 7 and ¶ [0042]; magnetic field profile may be associated with a global magnetic field anomaly map – see at least ¶ [0016]) that incorporates one or more portions of one or more trajectories from one or more magnetic-measurement devices comprising magnetic measurements in an area collected by the magnetic-measurement devices over a period of time, wherein the portions of the trajectories were incorporated into the magnetic map based on similarities in the trajectories determined at least in part by one or more correlation analyses performed on at least portions of the trajectories (CLAIM INTERPRETATION: Examiner interprets the underlined recitation as non-limiting. The method step is ‘accessing a geomagnetic map’. The underlined portion of the recitation does not include any additional method steps. Rather, it is merely non-limiting language that generally describes how the map was created. COMPACT PROSECUTION: Should Applicant consider amending the claims to recite additional claim steps based on the underlined portion, Examiner directs Applicant’s attention to the prior art of record but not relied on near the end of this examination and the application of this prior art to reject claims 1-21 of Applicant’s related application 17/494,454. See Detailed Action dated 20 December 2021); and
by the computing device, performing localization or navigation using the geomagnetic map (at 308 an ambient magnetic field is compared with the predetermined magnetic field profile to determine an approximate longitude along a determined approximate latitude to deterring an approximate global position of the platform – see at least Fig. 7 and ¶ [0042]).
Regarding claim 2, the claim recitation is interpreted by Examiner as non-limiting. The method of claim 1 does not include a method step of “performing the correlation analyses and incorporating into the geomagnetic map portions of the trajectories”. Further defining a method step that does not exist via additional steps, e.g., comparing, storing, comparing, and continuing to store, is non-limiting. Again, in claim 1, Applicant is claiming a method step of ‘accessing a geomagnetic map’. The recitations in claim 2 describe how the map was generated, but do not further define or add to the method step of accessing a geomagnetic map.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recitation is interpreted by Examiner as non-limiting. Claim 3 further defines the geomagnetic map as the baseline magnetic map of claim 2. However, the recitations of claim 2 have been interpreted as non-limiting.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recitation is interpreted by Examiner as non-limiting. Claim 4 further defines the weighting recited in claim 2. However, the recitations of claim 2 have been interpreted as non-limiting.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recitation is interpreted by Examiner as non-limiting. Claim 5 further defines the correlation analysis recited in claim 1. However, the correlation analysis in claim 1 has been interpreted as non-limiting.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recitation is interpreted by Examiner as non-limiting. Claim 6 further defines the magnetic measurements recited in claim 1. However, the magnetic measurements in claim 1 has been interpreted as non-limiting.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recitation is interpreted by Examiner as non-limiting. Claim 7 further defines the magnetic measurements recited in claim 1. However, the magnetic measurements in claim 1 has been interpreted as non-limiting.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recitation is interpreted by Examiner as non-limiting. The method of claim 1 does not include a method step of “incorporating portions of the trajectories into the geomagnetic map”. Further defining a method step that does not exist via additional steps, e.g., creating one or more portions of the trajectories, is non-limiting.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recitation is interpreted by Examiner as non-limiting. The method of claim 1 does not include a method step of “incorporating portions of the trajectories into the geomagnetic map”. Further defining a method step that does not exist via additional steps, e.g., updating, is non-limiting.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recitation is interpreted by Examiner as non-limiting. Claim 10 further defines the correlation analysis recited in claim 1. However, the correlation analysis in claim 1 has been interpreted as non-limiting.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recitation is interpreted by Examiner as non-limiting. Claim 11 further defines the correlation analysis recited in claim 1. Further defining a method step that does not exist via additional steps, e.g., determining a correspondence, is non-limiting.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recitation is interpreted by Examiner as non-limiting. The method of claim 1 does not include a method step of “incorporating portions of the trajectories into the geomagnetic map”. Further defining a method step that does not exist via additional steps, e.g., updating one or more trust levels, is non-limiting.
Regarding claim 13, 25, and 37, these claims recite substantially similar limitations as claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 14 and 26, these claims recite substantially similar limitations as claim 2 and are rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding claim 15 and 27, these claims recite substantially similar limitations as claim 3 and are rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
Regarding claim 16 and 28, these claims recite substantially similar limitations as claim 4 and are rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
Regarding claim 17 and 29, these claims recite substantially similar limitations as claim 5 and are rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
Regarding claim 18 and 30, these claims recite substantially similar limitations as claim 6 and are rejected for the same reasons as claim 6.
Regarding claim 19 and 31, these claims recite substantially similar limitations as claim 7 and are rejected for the same reasons as claim 7.
Regarding claim 20 and 32, these claims recite substantially similar limitations as claim 8 and are rejected for the same reasons as claim 8.
Regarding claim 21 and 33, these claims recite substantially similar limitations as claim 9 and are rejected for the same reasons as claim 9.
Regarding claim 22 and 34, these claims recite substantially similar limitations as claim 10 and are rejected for the same reasons as claim 10.
Regarding claim 23 and 35, these claims recite substantially similar limitations as claim 11 and are rejected for the same reasons as claim 11.
Regarding claim 24 and 36, these claims recite substantially similar limitations as claim 12 and are rejected for the same reasons as claim 12.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Haverinen et al. (US 2016/0116290 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON L TROOST whose telephone number is (571)270-5779. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-4pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached on 313-446-6519. 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.
/AARON L TROOST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666