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 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 15 September 2025 has been considered. An initialed copy of form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of claims 1-37 under 35 U.S.C. 101, see REMARKS, filed 05 August 2025, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant references Example 40 of the Office’s eligibility guidance and asserts that the instant claims, similar to Example 40, are directed to an improvement in magnetic mapping. However, it is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See MPEP 2106.05(a), 6th paragraph. Applicant, in describing the improvement, states that “[s]pecifically, the method limits portions of the trajectories being incorporating into a magnetic map based on similarities in the trajectories determined at least in part by one or more correlation analysis performed on at least portions of the trajectories.” See REMARKS at page 13. The asserted improvement, as described by Applicant, is provided in the claim recitations that the Examiner has identified as abstract ideas. Therefore, the Examiner concludes that the claims are not directed toward an improvement because the asserted improvement is found entirely in the abstract idea.
Applicant then references Example 42 of the Office’s eligibility guidance and asserts that the instant claims, similar to Example 42, recites a combination of additional elements that represent a specific improvement over prior art systems. Applicant, in describing the improvement, states that “[s]pecifically, the additional elements recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by, in particular embodiments, allowing access to geomagnetic maps that can be regularly updated with increasingly accurate information as increasing numbers of magnetic navigation devices obtain field measurements and transmit information to the system’s servers.” See REMARKS at page 15. However, gathering an analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result has been identified by the courts as not sufficient to show an improvement to technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II), Example iii. Accessing a geomagnetic map by a computer is gathering data using a conventional technique. Performing localization or navigation using the geomagnetic map using a computer analyzing information using a conventional technique. Therefore, the Examiner concludes that the claims are not directed toward an improvement because the asserted improvement is merely gathering and analyzing information.
Finally, Applicant references Example 45 of the Office’s eligibility guidance and asserts that the instant claims, similar to Example 45, does more than merely link the judicial exception to a technical field. The Examiner notes, however, that generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and its corollary, applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, is an analysis of additional elements, not abstract ideas. In other words, does the additional element use or apply the judicial exception or just generally link the judicial exception to a particular environment. The additional elements in the instant claims do not use or apply the judicial exception. The geomagnetic map is used to perform localization or navigation, but localization or navigation are abstract ideas. Therefore, the Examiner concludes that the claims do not recite additional elements that use or apply the judicial exception.
Based on the above, the previous rejections under § 101 are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the previous rejections of claims 1-37 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, see REMARKS, filed 15 September 2025, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejections are withdrawn.
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 “a geomagnetic map that incorporates one or more portions of one or more trajectories from one or more magnetic-measurement devices . . ., 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” and “by the computing device, performing localization of navigation using the geomagnetic map”. Independent claims 13, 25, and 37 recite substantially similar limitations. Incorporating trajectories comprising magnetic measurements based on similarities in the trajectories determined by correlation analysis may be performed mentally or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, a person may mentally perform correlation analysis on the trajectories to determine similarities in the trajectories and may subsequently incorporate those trajectories into the map. Further, 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” and “magnetic measurements in an area collected by magnetic-measurement devices over a period of time”. 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. Collecting magnetic measurements by magnetic-measurement devices is also 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. Further, magnetic-measurement devices that collect magnetic measurements in an area is well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Berkovich et al. (US 2020/0103477 A1), as but one example, disclose a device 100 that can be moved in space to obtain magnetic field measurements that may be used to build a fingerprint map. See ¶ [0034].
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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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 at 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
Prosecution Insights