DETAILED ACTION
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 1-10 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 claim recites “providing necessary model-based information based on the estimated parameters, thereby improving the accuracy and robustness of model-based control, navigation, and sensor fusion of the unmanned surface vessel,” but said limitation is not supported in the original disclosure, as the specification does not even mention any navigation or sensor fusion, etc.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without being integrated into a practical application and do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Utilizing the two step process adopted by the Supreme Court (Alice Corp vs CLS Bank Int'l, US Supreme Court, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) and the recent 101 guideline, Federal Register Vol. 84, No., Jan 2019)), determination of the subject matter eligibility under the 35 USC 101 is as follows: Specifically, the Step 1 requires claim belongs to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). If Step 1 is satisfied, then in the first part of Step 2A (Prong one), identification of any judicial recognized exceptions in the claim is made. If any limitation in the claim is identified as judicial recognized exception, then proceeding to the second part of Step 2A (Prong two), determination is made whether the identified judicial exception is being integrated into practical application. If the identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, then in Step 2B, the claim is further evaluated to see if the additional elements, individually and in combination, provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. If the element and combination of elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial recognized exception itself, then the claim is ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Looking at the claims, the claims satisfy the first part of the test 1A, namely the claims are directed to one of the four statutory class, apparatus and method. In Step 2A Prong one, we next identify any judicial exceptions in the claims. In Claim 1 (as a representative example), we recognize that the limitations “constructing an augmented state estimation problem considering an external disturbance for the unmanned surface vessel; augmented state vectors comprising a state vector of the unmanned surface vessel, a parameter vector of an unmanned surface vessel model, and an unknown input vector representing a modeling error of an unmanned surface vessel system and the external disturbance the state vector consists of the positions, yaw angles, velocities, and yaw rate of the unmanned surface vessel, depending on a real-time input vector and a measurement vector of the unmanned surface vessel system, employing an adaptive robust unscented Kalman filtering method having process noise covariance matrix constraints and based on the combination of a maximum cross entropy criterion and a minimum mean square error criterion which is subsequently used to drive motors of the unmanned surface vessel and determine its rotation speed, method for estimating the process noise covariance matrix, wherein the process noise covariance matrix is used to characterize the magnitude of external random disturbances acting on the unmanned surface vessel, the method comprising: estimating a noise covariance matrix On by employing an innovation-based adaptive method: introducing covariance matrix constraints according to a known structure and dividing a process noise covariance matrix Q, to be estimated into a diagonal block without structure constraints and a diagonal block with structure constraints; and finally, employing KL divergence to construct and solve the following optimization problem:
PNG
media_image1.png
472
664
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
72
636
media_image2.png
Greyscale
are abstract idea, as they recite mathematical concept. Similar rejections are made for other independent and dependent claims. With the identification of abstract ideas, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong two, where with additional elements and taken as a whole, we evaluate whether the identified abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application.
In Step 2A, Prong two, the claims additionally recite “receiving an input vector comprising a control signal from a shipborne controller for driving motors of the unmanned surface vessel, measuring the state vector based on the data obtained by GPS and IMU,” but said limitation is merely directed to insignificant data collection activity, recited at high level of generality. The claims additionally recite “a control signal from a shipborne controller, which is subsequently used to drive motors of the unmanned surface vessel,” but said limitation, recited at high level of generality, is merely directed to generic environment of the unmanned vessel and its control. The claims additionally recite “computer system, memory, processor,” but said limitations are merely directed to general purpose computer for implementing the abstract idea. The claims also recite “unmanned surface vessel,” but said limitation is merely a field of use. The claims additionally recite “providing necessary model-based information based on the estimated parameters, thereby improving the accuracy and robustness of model-based control, navigation, and sensor fusion of the unmanned surface vessel,” but said limitation is merely an intended use. In short, the claims do not provide sufficient evidence to show that they are more than a drafting effort to monopolize the abstract idea. As such, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Consequently, with the identified abstract idea not being integrated into a practical application, we proceed to Step 2B and evaluate whether the additional elements provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Step 2B, the claims additionally recite “receiving an input vector comprising a control signal from a shipborne controller for driving motors of the unmanned surface vessel, measuring the state vector based on the data obtained by GPS and IMU,” but said limitation is merely directed to insignificant data collection activity, recited at high level of generality, that is well-understood, routine and conventional. The claims additionally recite “a control signal from a shipborne controller, which is subsequently used to drive motors of the unmanned surface vessel,” but said limitation, recited at high level of generality, is merely directed to generic environment of the unmanned vessel and its control, that is well-understood, routine and conventional. The claims additionally recite “computer system, memory, processor,” but said limitations are merely directed to general purpose computer for implementing the abstract idea, that are also well-understood, routine and conventional. Furthermore, the claims also recite “unmanned surface vessel,” but said limitation is merely a field of use that is also well-understood, routine and conventional. Finally, the claims additionally recite “providing necessary model-based information based on the estimated parameters, thereby improving the accuracy and robustness of model-based control, navigation, and sensor fusion of the unmanned surface vessel,” but said limitation is merely an intended use. As such, the claims do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Summary, the claims recite abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application, and do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more. As such, taken as a whole, the claims are ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In Response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The focus of the claimed invention is in estimating the parameters of an unmanned surface vessel, an abstract idea. Various additional elements are recited, but they are directed to insignificant data collection activity. The additional elements are also recited at high level of generality, and is yet another evidence of their insignificance to the focus of the claimed invention. The claims additionally recite in regard to thereby improving the control, navigation and sensor fusion (and at high level of generality), but they are merely directed to intended usage of the claimed invention, and such intended use cannot cure the 101 rejection. As such, the 101 rejection is maintained.
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 HYUN D PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7922. The examiner can normally be reached 11-4.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/HYUN D PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights