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
This action is in reply to the application filed on 9/11/2023, the response and amendments filed 9/03/2025, and the response, amendments, and request for continued examination filed 3/05/2026.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9, and 11 are currently amended.
No claims have been added.
Claims 2, 7, 8, 10 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9, and 11 are currently pending and have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/05/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS(s)) submitted on 12/11/2023 has been received and considered.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings have overcome the objection and the previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 12/08/2025. While the amendments have made moot the 112(f) claim interpretations in claim 10, the term “measuring device” being interpreted under 112(f) in Claim 9 has not been cancelled as stated in the remarks filed 3/05/2026 but has moved within Claim 9 and has been copied into Claims 1 and 11. The claim interpretation has been propagated into the newly amended independent claims and the interpretation has been updated as appears to be the intent of the claims.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-12, filed 3/05/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-11 under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. While the examiner agrees that the fictional gravity term as presented in the specification and claims appears to be novel, the operations claimed as the inventive concept of the application are purely mathematical operations on gathered data that direct the claims to a judicial exception. The gathering of data from sensors constitutes mere data gathering in conjunction with an abstract idea under MPEP §2106.05(g) as insignificant extra-solution activity. Linking the mathematical processes presented in the claims to well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, such as the use of a Kalman filter, does not qualify the claim as “significantly more” as covered under MPEP §2106.05(d). Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC 101 has been maintained in substance and updated as necessitated by amendment to apply to amended claims 1, 3-6, 9, and 11.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the navigation device comprising an altimeter configured to measure an altitude of the navigation device” is repeated on lines 2-4. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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: “Measuring device” in claims 1, 9, and 11.
“Measuring device” uses the functional language “measuring” and the generic placeholder “device.” The claims do not include additional structure to this “measuring device” element.
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.
Therefore, the “measuring device” will be interpreted according to page 7 lines 32 – page 8 line 3 of the specification as “a satellite navigation receiver, for example a receiver of GPS type for Global Positioning System or a receiver of Galileo type, a device performing triangulation using vertices, the position of which is known, or a LIDAR device,” as appears to be the intent of the claims.
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 § 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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework considers whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention – method/process, machine/apparatus, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claim 1 is directed to a method. Claim 9 is directed to a device. Claim 11 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (a device). Accordingly, claims 1, 9, and 11 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A
Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo framework considers whether claims are “directed to” an abstract idea. That is, whether the claims recite an abstract idea (Prong 1) and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Prong 2).
Step 2A Prong 1
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (which collectively includes the guidance in the January 7, 2019 Federal Register notice and the October 2019 update issued by the USPTO as now incorporated into the MPEP, as supported by relevant case law), the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Specifically, independent claim 1 recites the following, with the abstract idea emphasized. (Additional elements (Prong 2, to be discussed in the subsequent section) are italicized):
A method of assisting navigation of a vehicle equipped with a navigation device, the navigation device comprising an altimeter configured to measure an altitude of the navigation device, the navigation device comprising an altimeter configured to measure an altitude of the navigation device, three accelerometers configured to measure a specific force, three gyroscopes configured to measure an angular speed of the navigation device, and a measuring device configured to obtain a position measurement, the method comprising the following steps:
- acquiring a priori values of kinematic variables of the navigation device, the kinematic variable comprising;
- an orientation of the navigation device, a current value of which is a current orientation matrix and a preceding value of which is a preceding orientation matrix,
- a speed of the navigation device, a current value of which is a current speed vector and a preceding value of which is a preceding speed vector and
- a position of the navigation device, a current value of which is a current position vector and a preceding value of which is a preceding position vector, the position depending on the altitude,
- determining updated values of the kinematic variables, by using a Kalman filter, comprising
- determining a vector modelling a gravity experienced by the navigation device, an intensity of the modelled gravity defined by a modulus of said vector increasing with the altitude of the navigation device, the vector being determined from the preceding position vector
PNG
media_image1.png
28
66
media_image1.png
Greyscale
using the formula
PNG
media_image2.png
28
341
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, wherein gréel, is an opposite of a modulus of a terrestrial gravity coming from a physically consistent model, rT is a radius of the Earth, and hn is the altitude of the navigation device measured by the altimeter;
- determining current values of the kinematic variables of the navigation device, from:
- respective preceding values of the kinematic variables,
- the vector modeling the terrestrial gravity experienced by the navigation device,
- determining a current uncertainty matrix representative of an uncertainty on the current orientation matrix, on the current speed vector and on the current position vector, from:
- a preceding uncertainty matrix representative of an uncertainty on the orientation matrix, on the preceding speed vector and on the preceding position vector;
- a transition matrix Fn defined by
PNG
media_image3.png
62
272
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, wherein fn is the specific force measured by the three accelerometers, and
Ω
n
T
is a transposed of a matrix representative of a rotation of the navigation device, obtained by transformation of the angular speed measured by the three gyroscopes;
- determining a correction from:
- the respective current values of the kinematic variables and
- the current uncertainty matrix, and
- the position measurement obtained by the measuring device; and
- updating the respective current values of the kinematic variables and of the current uncertainty matrix from the correction and from the current uncertainty matrix, so as to obtain the updated values.
These limitations, as drafted, are simple processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mathematical computations which set theoretical parameters for a simulation. For example, the claim encompasses computing updated kinematic variables using inputs of a computed matrix of uncertainty values, a model of gravity, a computed correction function, and several measured and previously stored values. The claim does not recite anything that precludes it from the mathematical concept grouping as specified in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). Claims 9 and 11 are independent claims that follow substantially the same mental processes in separate embodiments.
.Step 2A Prong 2
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), 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 such as 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.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
For the following reasons, the above-identified additional limitations, which are indicated in italics, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional elements that follow, these additional elements are all recited at a high level of generality:
equipped with a navigation device, the navigation device comprising an altimeter configured to measure an altitude of the navigation device, the navigation device comprising an altimeter configured to measure an altitude of the navigation device, three accelerometers configured to measure a specific force, three gyroscopes configured to measure an angular speed of the navigation device, and a measuring device configured to obtain a position measurement, the method comprising the following steps:
- acquiring a priori values of kinematic variables of the navigation device,
by using a Kalman filter,
- the position measurement obtained by the measuring device; and
- updating the respective current values of the kinematic variables and of the current uncertainty matrix from the correction and from the current uncertainty matrix, so as to obtain the updated values.
Regarding the additional limitations above, the limitations “measure an altitude of the navigation device, […] measure an altitude of the navigation device, […] measure a specific force, […] measure an angular speed of the navigation device, […] obtain a position measurement […] - acquiring a priori values of kinematic variables of the navigation device,[…] - the position measurement obtained by the measuring device; […] - updating the respective current values of the kinematic variables and of the current uncertainty matrix from the correction and from the current uncertainty matrix, so as to obtain the updated values.” amount to merely extra solution activity (i.e. sending and receiving data).
Regarding the recitation of “equipped with a navigation device, the navigation device comprising an altimeter […] the navigation device comprising an altimeter […] three accelerometers […] three gyroscopes […] and a measuring device […] by using a Kalman filter,” these elements link the use of the mathematical operations judicial exception to a particular technological environment with measurement devices and a modelling technique (Kalman filter) at a high level of generality.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not meaningfully transform the judicial exception into something more than mathematical operations nor do they integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitations of Claims 9 and 11 are analogous to the limitations of claim 1 and thus the analysis of claim 1 is applied to claims 9 and 11. Claim 9 additionally recites “a processing unit,” and Claim 11 additionally recites “a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising code instructions for causing a processing unit.”
The additional measurement equipment of Claim 9 amount to mere data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g) and are therefore considered insignificant extra-solution activity.
MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) states (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”.
The additional elements presented in claims 9 and 11 are all generic measurement and computer equipment for carrying out the abstract idea in a manner equivalent to “apply it,” and therefore do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, claim 1 does 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 reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims, individually or in combination, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in Claims 1, 9, and 11 amount to sending and receiving data, mere data gathering, instructions to “apply” the judicial exception, and are all recited at a high level of generality. The additional elements amount to sending and receiving data, which are well understood routine and conventional activity, and the use of Kalman filters in the field of vehicle navigation is also well understood routine and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) (II)). Wilkinson (US 20180128645) establishes the use of a Kalman filter with a gravity term as a corrective technique for inertial navigation systems. The sending and receiving of data also constitutes mere data gathering, which is insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(G)). Thus, claims 1, 9, and 11 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent Claims
The dependent claims 3-6 do not provide additional elements or a practical application to become eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 3: The method as claimed in claim 1, the current values being associated with a current time and the preceding values being associated with a preceding time, and wherein determining the current values of the kinematic variables and of the current uncertainty matrix comprises: - determining the current speed vector by adding to the preceding speed vector an integration, over a time interval between the preceding time and the current time, of a sum of a specific force of the navigation device and of the vector modelling the terrestrial gravity experienced by the navigation device,- determining of current position vector by adding to the preceding position vector an integration, over the time interval, of the preceding speed vector, - determining of current orientation matrix by multiplying the preceding orientation matrix by a matrix representative of a rotation of the navigation device.
The limitations of Claim 3 consist of additional mathematical operations and therefore are directed to the judicial exception.
Claim 4: The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein determining the correction comprises: - a subtraction of the current speed vector and of the measurement, and - a multiplication by a gain matrix.
The limitations of Claim 4 consist of additional mathematical operations and therefore are directed to the judicial exception.
Claim 5: The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein determining of the correction comprises: - a subtraction of the current position vector and of the measurement, and - a multiplication by a gain matrix.
The limitations of Claim 5 consist of additional mathematical operations and therefore are directed to the judicial exception.
Claim 6: The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein correction is a correction vector, and wherein updating the respective current values of the kinematic variables and of the current uncertainty matrix comprises:
- updating the current orientation matrix by multiplication of a rotation matrix of a first part of the correction vector and of the current orientation matrix,
- updating the current speed vector by adding to the speed vector a multiplication of the current rotation matrix and of a second part of the correction vector and
- updating the current position vector by adding to the current position vector a multiplication of the current rotation matrix and of a third part of the correction vector.
The limitations of Claim 6 consist of additional mathematical operations and therefore are directed to the judicial exception.
These additional claim limitations recite mental processes and further narrow the abstract idea. They do not constitute a practical application of the abstract idea and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims, individually or in combination, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon for prior art rejection is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20180128645 (Wilkinson) represents the closest prior art in describing a similar Kalman filter correction of inertial navigation system values including a gravity term, however Wilkinson fails to teach a fictional gravity term which increases with altitude.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY E GLADE whose telephone number is (703)756-1502. The examiner can normally be reached 4-5-9 7:30-16:30.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at (571) 270-3921. 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.
/ZACHARY E. F. GLADE/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights