DETAILED ACTION
This correspondence is responsive to the application and preliminary amendment filed on October 20, 2023. Claims 21-40 are pending in the case, with claims 21, 34 and 35 in independent form.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Summary of Detailed Action
Claims 21-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claims 35-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claims 24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite
Claims 21-22, 25, 28, and 31-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 21-34 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. Independent claims 21 and 34 recite training neural network modules of a first sub-model of the ML model to predict, using data captured by the plurality of static sensors, a direction corresponding to a shortest path to a target object, wherein the target object is detectable by at least one static sensor. It is not clear how the data captured by the plurality of static sensors is used for training neural network modules that aim to predict a direction corresponding to the shortest path to a target object. There are no details regarding how using data captured by the plurality of static sensors can training neural network modules of a first sub-model of the ML model to predict, much less a direction corresponding to a shortest path to a target object. For example, does the data captured include paths labeled for training neural network modules? Or, does the data captured include locations and paths labeled for training neural network modules? Or, are path features identified in the data captured and classified as shortest or not shortest? Or, is there some entirely different way of using the data captured by the plurality of static sensors for training neural network modules to predict a direction corresponding to the shortest path to a target object? Thus, the boundaries of claims 21 and 34 are unclear and the claims 21 and 34 are indefinite. Applicant may cancel claims 21 and 34 or amend claims 21 and 34 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. Claims 22-33 depend directly or indirectly from claim 21 and are rejected for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 21.
Claims 35-40 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. Independent claim 35 recites a sensor network comprising a plurality of static sensors, wherein each static sensor comprises a processor, coupled to memory, arranged to use a trained first sub-model of a machine learning, ML, model to: predict a direction corresponding to a shortest path to a target object, wherein the target object is detectable by at least one static sensor. It is not clear how a sensor network comprising a plurality of static sensors is arranged to use a trained first sub-model of a machine learning, ML, model to predict a direction corresponding to a shortest path to a target object. There are no details regarding how a sensor network comprising a plurality of static sensors is arranged, much less arranged to use a trained first sub-model of a machine learning, ML, model to predict a direction corresponding to a shortest path to a target object. For example, does the sensor network provide data that was used to train first sub-model of a machine learning, ML, model to predict a direction corresponding to a shortest path to a target object. Or, does the sensor network provide data arranged with path features extracted to use a trained first sub-model of a machine learning, ML, model to predict a direction corresponding to a shortest path to a target object. Or, does the sensor network provide data arranged with path labels to use a trained first sub-model of a machine learning, ML, model to predict a direction corresponding to a shortest path to a target object. Or does the sensor network provide data arranged in an entirely different manner to use a trained first sub-model of a machine learning, ML, model to predict a direction corresponding to a shortest path to a target object. Thus, the boundaries of claim 35 are unclear and claim 35 is indefinite. Applicant may cancel claim 35 or amend claim 35 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. Claims 36-40 depend directly or indirectly from claim 35 and are rejected for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 35.
Claims 24 and 27 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. Dependent claim 24 depends from claim 23 and recites aggregating, using the GCL sub-modules, the extracted information obtained from data captured by the static sensors in each various-hop graph. Thus, claim 24 implies that the hop-graph comprises sensor data. However, claim 23 from which claim 24 depends recites defining a set of various-hop graphs representing relations between the static sensors of the sensor network. It is not clear how a relation between the statice sensors can be expressed by data captured by the sensors. Claim 27 depends from claim 24 and is rejected for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 23. Applicant may cancel claims 24 and 27 or amend claims 24 and 27 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.
Claim 38 is 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. Dependent claim 38 recites wherein each static sensor transmits data captured by the static sensor to the static sensors in the sensor network, thereby enabling each static sensor to predict a direction from the static sensor to the target object. It is not clear how, much less why, each static sensor that are in the static sensor networks transmits data captured to itself and the other static sensors in the sensor network. Or are static sensors outside the sensor network capturing data that is transmitted to each static sensor in the sensor network? Or does the claim mean something else entirely? Applicant may cancel claim 38 or amend claim 38 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.
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 21-22, 25, 28, and 31-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) subject matter at a general, high-level of a method of navigation, comprising predict, using data captured by the plurality of static sensors, a direction corresponding to a shortest path to a target object, wherein the target object is detectable by at least one static sensor; and guide, using information received from the plurality of static sensors, the navigating device to the target object, which are mental processes or concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, or by a human using pen and paper. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(III). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 21-40 recite one of the four statutory categories of patent able subject matter and belong to the statutory class(es) of a process (method claims 21-33), a machine (system/apparatus claims 35-40), and an article of manufacture (non-transitory computer readable media claims 34).
Claim 21 recites a method, thus a process and one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter. However, claim 1 further recites for a navigation, comprising predict, using data captured by the plurality of static sensors, a direction corresponding to a shortest path to a target object, wherein the target object is detectable by at least one static sensor; and guide, using information received from the plurality of static sensors, the navigating device to the target object, which are mental processes or concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, or by a human using pen and paper. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(III).
The claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of:
A computer-implemented (an additional element 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. See also, MPEP 2106.05(f), MPEP 2106.04(d), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, footnote 30.).
training a machine learning, ML, model for (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
system comprising a navigating device (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
a sensor network comprising a plurality of static sensors that are communicatively coupled together (An additional element of extra-solution activity that courts have identified is well understood, routine and conventional activity for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the internet to gather data. See also, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50, footnote 31.).
training neural network modules of a first sub-model of the ML model to (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
training neural network modules of a second sub-model of the ML model to (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Further, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because implementation on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) cannot provide significantly more, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological field of use, and transmitting data over a network is well-understood, routine and conventional (MPEP 2106.05(d), does not meaningfully limit the claims (MPEP 2106.04(d)) and the combination of additional elements does not provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 22, dependent on claim 21, recites additional abstract ideas to predict the direction comprises extracting information from the data captured by each static sensor in the sensor network; and predicting, using the extracted information, the direction corresponding to the shortest path to the target object, which are mental processes or concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, or by a human using pen and paper. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(III).
The claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of:
wherein training the neural network modules of the first sub-model to (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
using a graph neural network, GNN, module of the first sub-model (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 25, dependent on claim 22, recites additional abstract ideas for wherein the target object is in line-of-sight of at least one static sensor and wherein extracting information comprises performing feature extraction on image data captured by the plurality of static sensors, which are mental processes or concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, or by a human using pen and paper. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(III).
The claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of:
the plurality of static sensors are visual sensors capturing image data (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
using a convolutional neural network, CNN, module of the first sub-model (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 28, dependent on claim 21, recites additional abstract ideas for wherein to guide the navigating device is performed after the predict the direction, which are mental processes or concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, or by a human using pen and paper. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(III).
The claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of:
training the neural network modules of the second sub-model to (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
neural network modules of the first sub-model have been trained to (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 31, dependent on claim 21, does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of:
wherein the neural network modules of the first and second sub-models are trained in a simulated environment (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 32, dependent on claim 31, does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of:
training a transfer module using a training dataset comprising a plurality of pairs of data, each pair of data comprising data from a static sensor in the simulated environment and data from a static sensor in a corresponding real world environment (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 33, dependent on claim 32, does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of:
replacing one or more of the neural network modules of the first sub-model of using corresponding neural network modules of the transfer module (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 34 recites a non-transitory machine readable media, thus an article of manufacture and one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter. However, claim 34 further recites for a navigation by predict, using data captured by the plurality of static sensors, a direction corresponding to a shortest path to a target object, wherein the target object is detectable by at least one static sensor; and to guide, using information received from the plurality of static sensors, the navigating device to the target object, which are mental processes or concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, or by a human using pen and paper. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(III).
The claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of:
A non-transitory machine readable media having instructions stored thereon (an additional element 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. See also, MPEP 2106.05(f), MPEP 2106.04(d), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, footnote 30.).
the instructions configured to cause a processor to train a machine learning, ML, model for (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
system comprising a navigating device (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
a sensor network comprising a plurality of static sensors that are communicatively coupled together (An additional element of extra-solution activity that courts have identified is well understood, routine and conventional activity for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the internet to gather data. See also, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50, footnote 31.).
training neural network modules of a first sub-model of the ML model to (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
training neural network modules of a second sub-model of the ML model to (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Further, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because implementation on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) cannot provide significantly more, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological field of use, and transmitting data over a network is well-understood, routine and conventional (MPEP 2106.05(d), does not meaningfully limit the claims (MPEP 2106.04(d)) and the combination of additional elements does not provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 35 recites a system, thus a machine and one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter. However, claim 35 further recites for a navigation to predict a direction corresponding to a shortest path to a target object, wherein the target object is detectable by at least one static sensor; and guide the navigating device to the target object using information received from the plurality of static sensors, which are mental processes or concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, or by a human using pen and paper. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(III).
The claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of:
system comprising: a sensor network comprising a plurality of static sensors, wherein each static sensor comprises a processor, coupled to memory, (an additional element 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. See also, MPEP 2106.05(f), MPEP 2106.04(d), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, footnote 30.).
arranged to use a trained first sub-model of a machine learning, ML, model to (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
a navigating device comprising a processor, coupled to memory, (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
arranged to use a trained second sub-model of the machine learning, ML, model to (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Further, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because implementation on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) cannot provide significantly more, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological field of use, and transmitting data over a network is well-understood, routine and conventional (MPEP 2106.05(d), does not meaningfully limit the claims (MPEP 2106.04(d)) and the combination of additional elements does not provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 36, dependent on claim 35, does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of:
wherein the plurality of static sensors in the sensor network are communicatively coupled together (An additional element of extra-solution activity that courts have identified is well understood, routine and conventional activity for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the internet to gather data. See also, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50, footnote 31.).
Claim 37, dependent on claim 36, does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of:
wherein a communication topology of the plurality of static sensors in the sensor network is connected (An additional element of extra-solution activity that courts have identified is well understood, routine and conventional activity for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the internet to gather data. See also, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50, footnote 31.).
Claim 38, dependent on claim 35, recites additional abstract ideas to predict a direction from the static sensor to the target object, which are mental processes or concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, or by a human using pen and paper. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(III).
The claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of:
wherein each static sensor transmits data captured by the static sensor to the static sensors in the sensor network, thereby enabling each static sensor to (An additional element of extra-solution activity that courts have identified is well understood, routine and conventional activity for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the internet to gather data. See also, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50, footnote 31.).
Claim 39, dependent on claim 35, does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of:
wherein the navigating device is communicatively coupled to at least one static sensor while the navigating device moves towards the target object (An additional element of extra-solution activity that courts have identified is well understood, routine and conventional activity for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the internet to gather data. See also, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50, footnote 31.).
Claim 40, dependent on claim 35, recites additional abstract ideas for wherein the target object is in line-of-sight of at least one static sensor, which are mental processes or concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, or by a human using pen and paper. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(III).
The claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of:
wherein the plurality of static sensors are visual sensors capturing image data (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23-27, 26, and 29-30 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if the rejections as being indefinite are overcome.
Claims 21-22, 25, 28, and 31-40 would be allowable if the abstract idea rejections are overcome and if the rejections as being indefinite are overcome.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-20020049530-A1, US-20210333793-A1, US-10706696-B1, US-20220269943-A1, US-11927969-B2, US-20190129436-A1.
Martin Gromniak et al., Deep Reinforcement Learning for Mobile Robot Navigation, July 2019, DOI:10.1109/ACIRS.2019.8935944 Conference: 2019 4th Asia-Pacific Conference on Intelligent Robot Systems (ACIRS)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BARBARA LEVEL whose telephone number is (303)297-4748. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM MT.
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, Mariela Reyes can be reached at (571) 270-1006. 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.
/BARBARA M LEVEL/ Examiner, Art Unit 2142
Prosecution Insights