DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 8/26/2025. In the amendment, claims 1-2 and 6-7 have been amended. Overall, claims 1-10 are pending in this application.
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 .
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “motion state estimation acquisition module”, “motion state estimation prediction result acquisition module”, “Kalman linear filter initialization module” and “navigation system correction module” in claim 6 (corresponding structures are processor with computer program to perform the functions (see Fig.4 and paragraphs 84-88 of applicant’s disclosure).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claims 1 and 6 respectively recite, steps of “obtaining a motion state estimation value by filtering according to the current motion state estimation and an attribute of the sensor measurement value” and function of “motion state estimation prediction result acquisition module, configured to obtain a plurality of motion state estimation values by filtering according to the current motion state estimation and a pluralities of attribute of the plurality of sensor measurement values” however the steps of “obtaining a motion state estimation value by filtering according to the current motion state estimation and an attribute of the sensor measurement value " and function of “motion state estimation prediction result acquisition module, configured to obtain a plurality of motion state estimation values by filtering according to the current motion state estimation and a pluralities of attribute of the plurality of sensor measurement values” within claims 1 and 6 respectively can cover all possible attribute of the sensor measurement values since the scope of “attribute” can cover all possible things or values of sensor measurement values (which are not disclosed in the applicant’s disclosure) therefore a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed would not have recognized that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention in view of the disclosure since the disclosure does not disclose all possible ways of performing the steps or function as recited in claims 1 and 6 (see MPEP 2163.I and II). The examiner suggests amending claims 1 and 6 by reciting limitations from claim 2.
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 1-10 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.
In Reference to Claim 1
In lines 5-7 recites “an attribute of the sensor measurement value” however, it is now clear as to what “an attribute” of the sensor measurement value is intending to describe in light of the description since the “attribute” can be anything, even the value itself such that met and bound of the claims is not clearly ascertainable. For the purposes of treating the claim under prior art, the language is interpreted as merely describing the sensor measurement value.
In lines 8-9 recites “if the motion state estimation prediction results converge” however, it is not clear as to what is required by the claim since the claim does not recite as to what is converging (such as multiple values or lines). For the purposes of treating the claim under prior art, the languages is interpreted as angle gain error is converged.
In Reference to Claim 6
In lines 6-8 recites “a pluralities of attribute of the plurality of sensor measurement values” however, it is now clear as to what “a pluralities of attribute” of the sensor measurement values are intending to describe in light of the description since the “attribute” can be anything, even the value itself such that met and bound of the claims is not clearly ascertainable. For the purposes of treating the claim under prior art, the language is interpreted as merely describing the sensor measurement value.
In lines 10-11 recites “if the prediction results of the motion state estimation converge” however, it is not clear as to what is required by the claim since the claim does not recite as to what is converging (such as multiple values or lines). For the purposes of treating the claim under prior art, the language is interpreted as angle gain error is converged.
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.
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is to a “computer readable medium” and the plain and ordinary meaning of “computer-readable storage media” includes both statutory and non-statutory subject matter such as non-statutory carrier waves, therefore does not possess concrete structure that would qualify as a device or part under the definition of a machine (See MPEP 2106.03 II) (See, e.g., Mentor Graphics v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d at 1294-95, 112 USPQ2d at 1134).
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
[101 Analysis Step 1]
Step 1, of the 2019 Guidance, first looks to whether the claimed invention is directed to a statutory category, namely a process, machine, manufactures, and compositions of mater.
The claims 1 is directed to a method of an integrated navigation system (i.e. process) and claims 6 and 9-10 are directed to an initialization device, a computer-readable storage medium (only the interpretation which can be a physical device) and an electronic device of the integrated navigation system a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (i.e. machine). Thus, claims 1, 6 and 9-10 are one of four the statutory categories (Step 1: YES).
[101 Analysis Step 2A, Prong I]
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent Claims 1 and 6 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites:
An initialization method of an integrated navigation system comprises:
acquiring a current motion state estimation of an aircraft and a sensor measurement value;
obtaining a motion state estimation value by filtering according to the current motion state estimation and an attribute of the sensor measurement value, and obtaining a motion state estimation prediction result by performing a prediction based on the motion state estimation value;
inputting the motion state estimation value into a Kalman linear filter to initialize the Kalman linear filter if the motion state estimation prediction results converge;
correcting the navigation system according to the initialized Kalman linear filter.
Claim 6 recites:
An initialization device of the integrated navigation system comprises:
motion state estimation acquisition module, configured to acquire a current motion state estimation of an aircraft and a plurality of sensor measurement values;
motion state estimation prediction result acquisition module, configured to obtain a plurality of motion state estimation values by filtering according to the current motion state estimation and a pluralities of attribute of the plurality of sensor measurement values, and predicting a motion state estimation prediction results based on the plurality of motion state estimation values;
Kalman linear filter initialization module, configured to input the plurality of motion state estimation values into a Kalman linear filter to initialize the Kalman linear filter if the prediction results of the motion state estimation converge;
navigation system correction module, configured to correct the navigation system according to the initialized Kalman linear filter.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations(s) constitute a “mathematical concept” and “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretations, the claim covers mathematical formula and performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “obtaining …”, “to obtain” and “inputting”, “to input” in the context of the claim encompasses a person calculating values by mathematical equations. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
[101 Analysis Step 2A, Prong II]
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
Claim 1 recites:
An initialization method of an integrated navigation system comprises:
acquiring a current motion state estimation of an aircraft and a sensor measurement value;
obtaining a motion state estimation value by filtering according to the current motion state estimation and an attribute of the sensor measurement value, and obtaining a motion state estimation prediction result by performing a prediction based on the motion state estimation value;
inputting the motion state estimation value into a Kalman linear filter to initialize the Kalman linear filter if the motion state estimation prediction results converge;
correcting the navigation system according to the initialized Kalman linear filter.
Claim 6 recites:
An initialization device of the integrated navigation system comprises:
motion state estimation acquisition module, configured to acquire a current motion state estimation of an aircraft and a plurality of sensor measurement values;
motion state estimation prediction result acquisition module, configured to obtain a plurality of motion state estimation values by filtering according to the current motion state estimation and a pluralities of attribute of the plurality of sensor measurement values, and predicting a motion state estimation prediction results based on the plurality of motion state estimation values;
Kalman linear filter initialization module, configured to input the plurality of motion state estimation values into a Kalman linear filter to initialize the Kalman linear filter if the prediction results of the motion state estimation converge;
navigation system correction module, configured to correct the navigation system according to the initialized Kalman linear filter.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract into a practical applications.
Regarding the additional limitations of “acquiring a current motion state estimation of an aircraft and a sensor measurement value”, “correcting the navigation system according to the initialized Kalman linear filter”, “motion state estimation acquisition module, configured to acquire a current motion state estimation of an aircraft and a plurality of sensor measurement values” and “navigation system correction module, configured to correct the navigation system according to the initialized Kalman linear filter” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a sensor and a computer (processing circuitry of a computer system) to perform the process. In particular, the “acquiring…” step can be performed via a person by using a sensor as recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data via a person), and the function of “to acquire…” amounts to mere data gathering from a processor, the “correcting…” step and the function of “to correct” can be merely sending a signal (such as via processor), which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “module”, “sensor”, and “navigation system” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function; general sensor; and navigation system performing generic navigation function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and sensor and navigation functions.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical filed, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use 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 not more than drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
[101 Analysis Step 2B]
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claims 1 and 6 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a processor with navigation system to perform the acquiring…, correcting…, to acquire…, and to correct…amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component in navigation system.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “acquiring a current motion state estimation of an aircraft and a sensor measurement value”, “correcting the navigation system according to the initialized Kalman linear filter”, “motion state estimation acquisition module, configured to acquire a current motion state estimation of an aircraft and a plurality of sensor measurement values” and “navigation system correction module, configured to correct the navigation system according to the initialized Kalman linear filter” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-5 and 7-10 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be directed towards statutory subject matter. The claims merely recite: abstract idea. Each of the further limitations expound upon the abstract ideas and do not recite additional elements integrating the abstract ideas into a practical application or additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional. Therefore, dependent claims 2-5 and 7-10 are similarly rejected as being directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Therefore, claims 1-10 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-6 and 8-10 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pub No. US 2011/0288772 A1 to Tanino (Tanino).
In Reference to Claim 1
An initialization method of an integrated navigation system comprises:
acquiring a current motion state estimation of an aircraft (via GPS #10) and a sensor measurement value (via sensor (20) (see Tanino Fig.1 and paragraphs 33-36);
obtaining a motion state estimation value by filtering according to the current motion state estimation and an attribute of the sensor measurement value (the calculation process of the orientation change amount and the traveling distance in step S100, the orientation change amount is calculated based on the output angle of the gyroscope 22 and in step S200, the relative trajectory is calculated and the error based on the variation of the output voltage (i.e., the zero point) of the gyroscope 22 corresponding to the angular speed of zero (deg/sec) is corrected) (in steps S100-S200 of Fig. 4), and obtaining a motion state estimation prediction result by performing a prediction based on the motion state estimation value (in step S300, the heading and the absolute position are calculated) (Tanino further teaches that Steps S100 to S300 in FIG. 4 correspond to a traveling trajectory estimating element, in Fig.8, step S502 corresponds to the attachment angle gain error estimating element, step S504 corresponds to the determination element) (see Tanino Fig.4 and Fig.8 and paragraphs 78, 81, 87-88, 91-96 and 121);
inputting the motion state estimation value into a Kalman linear filter (Kalman filter B) to initialize the Kalman linear filter (Kalman filter B) if the motion state estimation prediction results converge (Tanino teaches that in step S505, the error covariance is inherited and Tanino also teaches that the first Kalman filter corresponding to the attachment angle gain error is converged so that the attachment angle gain error is accurately estimated, and performing step S506, the Kalman filter switching flag is set so as to estimate the angular speed gain error with using the Kalman filter B) (see Tanino Fig.8 and paragraphs 108-111, 119);
correcting the navigation system according to the initialized Kalman linear filter (Tanino teaches to correcting each error of the angular speed signal, the speed signal and the GPS signal based on estimated corresponding error) (see at least Tanino Figs. 4, 7 and 8 and paragraphs 33-36, 78, 87-88, 91-96, 111, 113, 119, 121 and 129).
In Reference to Claim 3
The method according to Claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein performing the prediction based on the motion state estimation value to obtain the motion state estimation prediction result, comprises:
performing a prediction operation on at least one motion state estimation value using a preset prediction formula of a nonlinear complementary filter to obtain the motion state estimation prediction result of at least one motion state estimation (Tanino teaches that the error estimating element corrects an error of the non-linear gain property of the angular speed sensor) (see at least Tanino Figs. 4, 7, 8 and 11 and paragraphs 26-27, 115-116 and 123-125).
In Reference to Claim 5
The method according to Claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the motion state estimation comprises at least one of the following parameters: velocity, attitude, acceleration, angular velocity, magnetic force, and air pressure (see at least Tanino Figs. 4, 7 and 8 and paragraphs 33-36, 78, 87-88, 91-96, 111, 113, 119, 121 and 129).
In Reference to Claim 6
An initialization device of the integrated navigation system comprises:
motion state estimation acquisition module (50), configured to acquire a current motion state estimation of an aircraft (via GPS #10) and a plurality of sensor measurement values (via sensor (20) (see Tanino Fig.1 and paragraphs 33-36);
motion state estimation prediction result acquisition module (50), configured to obtain a plurality of motion state estimation values by filtering according to the current motion state estimation and a pluralities of attribute of the plurality of sensor measurement values (the calculation process of the orientation change amount and the traveling distance in step S100, the orientation change amount is calculated based on the output angle of the gyroscope 22 and in step S200, the relative trajectory is calculated and the error based on the variation of the output voltage (i.e., the zero point) of the gyroscope 22 corresponding to the angular speed of zero (deg/sec) is corrected) (in steps S100-S200 of Fig. 4), and predicting a motion state estimation prediction results based on the plurality of motion state estimation values (in step S300, the heading and the absolute position are calculated) (Tanino further teaches that Steps S100 to S300 in FIG. 4 correspond to a traveling trajectory estimating element, in Fig.8, step S502 corresponds to the attachment angle gain error estimating element, step S504 corresponds to the determination element) (see Tanino Fig.4 and Fig.8 and paragraphs 78, 81, 87-88, 91-96 and 121);
Kalman linear filter initialization module (50), configured to input the plurality of motion state estimation values into a Kalman linear filter (Kalman filter B) to initialize the Kalman linear filter (Kalman filter B) if the prediction results of the motion state estimation converge (in step S505, the error covariance is inherited and performing step S506, the Kalman filter switching flag is set so as to estimate the angular speed gain error with using the Kalman filter B) (see Tanino Fig.8 and paragraphs 108-111, 119);
navigation system correction module (50), configured to correct the navigation system according to the initialized Kalman linear filter (Tanino teaches to correcting each error of the angular speed signal, the speed signal and the GPS signal based on estimated corresponding error) (see at least Tanino Figs. 4, 7 and 8 and paragraphs 33-36, 78, 87-88, 91-96, 111, 113, 119, 121 and 129).
In Reference to Claim 8
The device according to Claim 6 (see rejection to claim 6 above), wherein the motion state estimation prediction result acquisition module is specifically configured to:
performing a prediction operation on at least one motion state estimation value using a preset prediction formula of a nonlinear complementary filter to obtain the motion state estimation prediction results of at least one motion state estimation (Tanino teaches that the error estimating element corrects an error of the non-linear gain property of the angular speed sensor) (see at least Tanino Figs. 4, 7, 8 and 11 and paragraphs 26-27, 115-116 and 123-125).
In Reference to Claim 9
A computer-readable storage medium storing computer programs, wherein when the programs are executed by a processor (50) using the initialization method of the integrated navigation system according to Claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above) (see at least Tanino Figs. 4, 7 and 8 and paragraphs 33-36, 78, 87-88, 91-96, 111, 113, 119, 121 and 129).
In Reference to Claim 10
An electronic device (50), comprising a memory, a processor, and a plurality of computer programs stored on the memory and executable on the processor (50), wherein when the processor (50) executes the computer programs, the initialization method of the integrated navigation system according to Claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above) is implemented (see at least Tanino Figs. 4, 7 and 8 and paragraphs 33-36, 78, 87-88, 91-96, 111, 113, 119, 121 and 129).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanino in view of Pub No. US 2018/0038712 A1 to Altrichter (Altrichter).
In Reference to Claim 2
Tanino teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The method according to Claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein obtaining the motion state estimation value by filtering according to the current motion state estimation and the attribute of the sensor measurement value, comprises:
adopting a nonlinear complementary filter, and adopting a complementary filter according to a frequency attribute of the current motion state estimation and the sensor measurement value (Tanino ;
obtaining the motion state estimation value by fusing a results of complementary filtering (via step S504) (see at least Tanino Figs. 4, 7 and 8 and paragraphs 33-36, 78, 87-88, 91-96, 111, 113, 119, 121 and 129).
Tanino teaches that step of obtaining the motion state estimation value by filtering (is performed by Kalman filter) and that it can be nonlinear complementary filter and a (linear) complementary filter however does not teach (bolded and italic recitations above) as to not being both. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to Kalman filter can be both nonlinear complementary filter and a (linear) complementary filter. For example, Altrichter teaches that Kalman filter can be based on both nonlinear filter and a linear filter (see at least Altrichter paragraphs 73, 128 and 179). Thus, it would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art that applying the known technique taught by Altrichter to the integrated navigation system of Tanino would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved system, namely, a system that both nonlinear filter and a linear filter in Tanino to obtaining the motion state estimation value by filtering.
In Reference to Claim 7
Tanino teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The device according to Claim 6 (see rejection to claim 6 above), wherein the motion state estimation prediction result acquisition module is specifically configured to:
adopting a nonlinear complementary filter, and adopting a complementary filter according to a plurality of frequency attribute of the current motion state estimation and the plurality of sensor measurement values; and
obtaining the motion state estimation by fusing the results of complementary filtering (via (see at least Tanino Figs. 4, 7 and 8 and paragraphs 33-36, 78, 87-88, 91-96, 111, 113, 119, 121 and 129).
Tanino teaches that step of obtaining the motion state estimation value by filtering (is performed by Kalman filter) and that it can be nonlinear complementary filter and a (linear) complementary filter however does not teach (bolded and italic recitations above) as to not being both. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to Kalman filter can be both nonlinear complementary filter and a (linear) complementary filter. For example, Altrichter teaches that Kalman filter can be based on both nonlinear filter and a linear filter (see at least Altrichter paragraphs 73, 128 and 179). Thus, it would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art that applying the known technique taught by Altrichter to the integrated navigation system of Tanino would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved system, namely, a system that both nonlinear filter and a linear filter in Tanino to obtaining the motion state estimation value by filtering.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanino in view of Pub No. US 2018/0353140 A1 to Speier et. al. (Speier).
In Reference to Claim 4
Tanino teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The method according to Claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), after obtaining the motion state estimation prediction results by prediction based on the motion state estimation values, the method further comprises:
calculating the motion state estimation prediction results (in step S300, the heading and the absolute position are calculated) at a calibration time; and
acquiring an actual parameter values of the aircraft in a motion state (via sensor 20) (in step S100) at the calibration time;
determining that the motion state estimation prediction result (in step S300, the heading and the absolute position are calculated) converge if the motion state estimation prediction results at the calibration time and the actual parameter values conform to a preset convergence relationship (step S505) (see at least Tanino Figs. 4, 7 and 8 and paragraphs 33-36, 78, 87-88, 91-96, 111, 113, 119, 121 and 129).
Tanino teaches to determine if the motion state estimation prediction results converge however Tanino does not teach (bolded and italic recitations above) as to performing the step of if determining the motion state estimation prediction results converge at a calibration time. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the step of determining the motion state estimation prediction results converge at a calibration time. For example, Speier teaches to perform the step of determining the motion state estimation prediction results converge at a calibration time. Speier further teaches that performing such step provides fast convergence time (see at least Speier Fig.1 and paragraphs 97). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Tanino to perform the step of determining the motion state estimation prediction results converge at a calibration time as taught by Speier in order to provide fast convergence time.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that “Patent Examiners Should Interpret Claims in Light of the Specification The court has recently indicated that the PTO should apply the principles of Phillips v. AWH during prosecution rather than the PTO's current practice of giving claims their "broadest reasonable interpretation." In re Johnston (Fed. Cir. 2006). The Patent Office may use a dictionary in defining the patent applicant's claim terms only when the patent specification did not otherwise provide any interpretation. The specification have provided sufficient definition for the term. It is clear from the Specification that "attribute" refers to any possible information, can should be broadly interpreted as such. These claims have been amended, it should be noted that such amendment traverses this rejection”. The examiner disagree with the applicant since case that the applicant cites “In re Johnston (Fed. Cir. 2006)” does not states that the PTO cannot giving claims their "broadest reasonable interpretation" during patent examination process and further just because the claims should be interpreted in light of the specification however it is generally considered improper to read limitations contained in the specification into the claims. See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 162 USPQ 541 (CCPA 1969) and In re Winkhaus, 527 F.2d 637, 188 USPQ 129 (CCPA 1975), which discuss the premise that one cannot rely on the specification to impart limitations to the claim that are not recited in the claim (see MPEP 2173.05(q)). And as noted in the rejection that the met and bound of the recitation “attribute” or now amended “attribute” are not ascertainable since it can cover anything. Further the applicant has not amended or argued regarding the 112(b) rejection to claims 1 and 6 lines 8-9 and 10-11 respectively “if the motion state estimation prediction results converge” therefore 112(b) rejections have not been overcome.
The applicant argues that “Claims 1-10 were rejected for lacking patentable subject matter eligibility in view of Mayo. Claim 1 satisfies all three inquiries for Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis of Process Claims involving Laws of Nature. Withdrawal of this rejection is respectfully requested” however the examiner disagree with the applicant since in claim 9 recites “A computer-readable storage medium storing computer programs” includes both statutory and non-statutory subject matter such as non-statutory carrier waves, therefore does not possess concrete structure that would qualify as a device or part under the definition of a machine (See MPEP 2106.03 II) (See, e.g., Mentor Graphics v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d at 1294-95, 112 USPQ2d at 1134). Further Claims 1-10 are rejected under 101 abstract idea that integration of an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon into a practical application may be eligible for patent protection and it is noted in the rejection above however the applicant has not shown why the claims are eligible for patent protection (see 2106.05(b)-(c)).
The applicant argues that “In examining the portion of the cited reference that the examiner has referred the applicant to, there is no description of obtaining a motion state estimation value by filtering” however the examiner disagree with the applicant since the claim as recited do not positively recite as to how the filtering is performed therefore Tanino does teaches that “error based on the variation of the output voltage (i.e., the zero point) of the gyroscope 22 corresponding to the angular speed of zero (deg/sec) is corrected” and “S200, the relative trajectory is calculated. First, the gain-corrected orientation change amount calculated with using the equation F27 is added to the relative orientation, which is obtained previously, so that the relative orientation is updated” in paragraphs 80 and 87 which can be interpret in BRI as filtered.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pub No. US 2018/0340779 A1 to Faulkner et. al. (Faulkner) teaches correcting the navigation system based on Kalman filter of measured sensor value.
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 BRANDON DONGPA LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3525. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at (571) 270-3832. 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.
/BRANDON D LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662 November 28, 2025