DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office action is responsive to the communication filed on 02/01/2024. The claims 1- 7 & 9 are pending, of which the claim(s) 1, 7, & 9 is/are in independent form.
The claim 8 was cancelled during the preliminary amendment filed on 02/01/2024.
Claimed Elements Definition
“cyber space”: Spec, para. 014, this element is described as “for example, a database that stores information including identifiers in the cyber space of the object and positional information of the object”. Thus, any computer system is interpreted as cyber space.
“projection”/project: Spec, para. 014, “corresponds to storage of information in a database constituting the cyber space”. Thus, sending data/information about an object for storage or process into one or more computer systems rather than discarding/not further processing is interpreted as “project the object to the cyber space”.
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.
Following limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
In claims 1- 7 & 9:
“positioning means of the object in the physical space”: Spec, [0020], GNSS positioning calculation result (position) delivered by the object itself. See fig. 5 shows sensors link GNSS at the object (phone) itself and other nearby sensors like camera
“means other than the positioning means”: Fig. 5 & Spec, para. 036: means other than the positioning means of the object (A) may be any of the NW side positioning means, the image positioning means, and the laser positioning means, or may be other means. Further, a plurality of positioning means may be included in the means other than the positioning means of the object (A)., Spec, para0 53 shows “LiDAR”.
In claim 3:
“one or multiple means”: See, spec [057] such as Camera image, IMES, Wi-Fi, Sonic Positioning Bacon, Atmospheric pressure positioning
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- 7 & 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to Judicial Exception (“abstract idea”) without significantly more.
As to claim 1:
1. A multi-factor collating system in a cyber-physical system in which a physical space and a cyber space are connected by a network, the multi-factor collating system comprising:
[a] a computer including a memory and a processor configured to:
[b] determine whether to project an object onto the cyberspace, based on first positional information that is positional information of the object obtained by positioning means of the object in the physical space, and second positional information that is positional information of the object obtained by means other than the positioning means; and
[c] project the object to the cyber space, in response to a determination that the object is to be projected to the cyber space.
1. Step 1: Yes. The claim is to a system with a computer, which is one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
2. Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes. The claim(s) recite(s) limitations of “determine whether to project an object onto the cyberspace, based on first positional information that is positional information of the object ” and “determination that the object is to be projected to the cyber space”. These limitations as claimed, under BRI in light of the specification, cover performance of the limitation in human’s mind but for the recitation of the generic computer element, namely for a computer. That is, other than reciting of “a computer including a memory and a processor configured to” and “obtained by positioning means” (self-reporting sensors like GNSS, GPS sensor, see fig. 5) and “by means other than the positioning means” (like any other sensors (like camera) other than those self-reporting sensors), nothing in the claim limitations preclude the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. As very broadly described in applicant’s specification, the cyber space is defined as a computer system (e.g., database, see para. 014) and physical space is the location where the object is located. The word “project” is described as storing/forwarding information in the computer network. See para. 025. For example, whether to project an object onto the cyber space cover determining if it is appropriate/good to store/forward the measured position information into some computer system or not. For this determination of whether to project, as discussed in the specification, the claim covers evaluating already collected first position information for the object obtained directly from the object and the information about the object collected from other secondary sources/sensors. If there is a match (not a big discrepancy, see fig. 8, S105) between two collected positions, a determination of projecting (forwarding/storing) the object can be made. Otherwise, the collected information would be misleading/incorrect and hence should not be projected (stored/forwarded) to the cyberspace. This type of the determination can be practically performed in human’s mind via an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion.
Human mind can clearly evaluate first position information and second position information to judge whether to project (not to discard) the object information to the cyberspace/computer network or not. Please note that if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, as in this case for a computer, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim 1 recites mental processing type of the abstract idea.
3. Step 2A, Prong 2: No. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element(s) of (1) “a computer including a memory and a processor”, (2) “obtained by positioning means of the object” (like local GPS/GNSS sensor, see applicant’s fig. 5) and (3) “obtained by means other than the positioning means” (like camera, laser sensors). The limitation of the preamble “multi-factor collating system in a cyber-physical system in which a physical space and a cyber space are connected by a network, the multi-factor collating system comprising” also can be called another additional element. Here, all of these three additional elements are performing their native functions or are merely being used to automate the abstract idea by using computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitation of the preamble is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, namely a computer system (cyber space) collecting and processing data (location type) about object located in a physical system. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The individual and combination of additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the above abstract idea other than using the generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea into a computer system. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
4. Step 2B: No. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the all three additional element(s) of amount(s) to no more than or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The specification does not provide any indication that the “computer” and the (GPS/GNSS sensor of the object) and camera like secondary sensors are anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer components. The preamble is akin to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements even when considered separately and in combination do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the mental processes. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 7 & 9, the claimed subject matter of these claims are a process/method and non-transitory computer-readable recording medium respectively. Therefore, they are directed to patent eligible subject matter. Examiner notes that these claims substantially recite the similar limitations as that of the claim 1. Accordingly, they also recite abstract idea (“mental processes”) without providing a practical application and an inventive step for the similar reasons set forth above in claim 1. The claims 7 & 9 are not patent eligible under 101.
Regarding claims 2- 6, they depend on the claim 1 and therefore recite the same abstract idea and additional elements as in claim 1. They also recite other new limitations. However, these new limitations also can be practically performed in human’s mind, therefore are still abstract. Accordingly, the claims 2- 6 fail to provide a practical application in step 2A prong 1 and an inventive concept in Step 2B. These claims are not patent eligible under 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3- 4, 7, & 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Harper et al. ( US 20160282475 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Harper teaches a multi-factor collating system [“FIG. 1 shows system 100, which includes wireless communication network 110 and GNSS network 140”] in a cyber-physical system in which a physical space [area around the mobile device 130] and a cyber space [server computer (like MLC 120+ LC 125) that monitors/receives data for the monitored mobile device 130/530] are connected by a network [using wired/wireless data transmission network to provide information of the object to the computer], the multi-factor [using various measuring sources/factors such as GNSS of the mobile device, U-TDOA measurements, receiver 151- 152] collating system comprising: (Fig. 1, [017, 039]);
a computer [computer used by the MLC 120 like MLC 420 of fig. 4] including a memory and a processor configured to: ([059]);
[a] determine [1Fig. 2 “whether the selected location is sufficiently accurate at step 234”] whether to project [per spec, para. 014, ‘project’ is interpreted as to save (not to discard/ignore or data forwarding) the data in a computer database/cyber space] an object [“mobile device 130 may be any type of wireless device”] onto the cyberspace, based on (i) first positional information [Fig. 2, calculated location of steps 214: “mobile device 130 determines a full set of GPS measurements by locking onto the satellites 141-144, and provides the full set of GPS measurements to the MLC 120”] that is positional of the object obtained by positioning means [GNSS/GPS sensor of the mobile device 130 for self-reporting the location] of the object in the physical space, and (ii) second positional information [location calculated in step 226] that is positional information of the object obtained by means [any other location measuring sources (e.g., “full set of U-TDOA measurements has been received” sources) except the embedded sensor of the mobile/object] other than the positioning means ([024, 036- 040], Figs. 1- 2); and
[b] project [“geographic location may also be provided to entities tasked with responding to the initial location request”. Providing the location information to the requesting parties rather than dropping the location information not being accurate enough is interpreted as project the object to the cyberspace] the object to the cyber space, in response to [Fig. 2, Yes in S324, the location prediction is accurate for the mobile device ] a determination that the object is to be projected to the cyber space ([040-041]).
Regarding claim 3, Harper teaches the multi-factor collating system according to claim 1, wherein the second positional information includes one or multiple items of positional information obtained by one or multiple means [“retrieves measurements from location measurement units (LMU s) 116-119 of a terrestrial positioning system” or “GNSS receivers 151 and 152”] ([019, 022]), and
the processor performs projection (the MLC provides location data to the requesting parties like 911 responders) to the cyber space, using most probable positional information [“calculated location having the smallest uncertainty at a given confidence is selected” among via the GPS calculated location or via U-TDOA measured location] among the first positional information and the one or multiple items of positional information or positional information estimated based on at least one positional information among the first positional information or the one or multiple items of positional information ([022, 040]).
Regarding claim 4, Harper teaches the multi-factor collating system according to claim 1, wherein the processor determines whether to project [accurate or not in S324] the object to the cyber space, based on continuity of position transition of the object, continuity of base station connection [continue reading all U-TDOA measurements in S224 and S216] of the object, or continuity of projection of the object, in addition to a comparison result [“the uncertainties associated with the calculated GPS location, UTDOA location and hybrid location are compared with one another”. The claim covers every possible comparison including comparison of error/uncertainties] between the first positional information and the second positional information ([036, 040]).
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Thus, only in summary Harper teaches a multi-factor collating method executed by a computer [MLC 120 shown in fig. 4] in a multi-factor collating system in a cyber-physical system in which a physical space and a cyber space are connected by a network, the multi-factor collating method comprising: (Figs. 1-2);
determining [is the calculated location of the phone is accurate enough to forward determination] whether to project an object [mobile device 130] onto the cyber space, based on first positional information [“location of the mobile device 130 based on the received GPS measurements”] that is positional information of the object obtained by positioning means of the object in the physical space, and second positional information [“received U-TDOA measurements at step 226”] that is positional information of the object obtained by means other than the positioning means; and projecting [Step 236, “In an embodiment, the geographic location may be provided to the calling application of the mobile device 130 via the wireless communication network 110”] the object to the cyber space, when the object is determined to be projected to the cyber space by the determining (Figs. 1-2, [036-041]).
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Thus, Harper teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having computer readable instructions stored thereon, which when executed, cause a computer to execute a method in a multi-factor collating system [system 100] in a cyber-physical system in which a physical space and a cyber space [at the MLC 120] are connected by a network the method comprising: (Claim 13, Fig. 1);
determining [Fig. 2, S324: “determines whether the selected location is sufficiently accurate at step 234”], whether to project an object [mobile device 130] onto the cyberspace, based on first positional information [“the received GPS measurements, the MLC 120 calculates a location of the mobile device 130 based on the received GPS measurements”] that is positional information of the object obtained by positioning means of the object in the physical space, and second positional information [“the terrestrial positioning system included in the wireless communication network 110 is a U-TDOA”] that is positional information of the object obtained by means other than the positioning means ([036- 040]); and
projecting [responding to the request of the location of S205 at S236 by informing 911 about the location of mobile device] the object to the cyber space, when the object is determined to be projected to the cyber space by the determining (Fig. 2, [040-041]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harper (US 20160282475 A1) in view of Smith et al. (US 20070252760 A1).
Regarding claim 2 Harper teaches the multi-factor collating system according to claim 1, wherein the processor determines a reliability [uncertainty is an indication of the accuracy of the calculated GPS location] of the first positional information ([040]). Harper further teaches the processor comparing [“the calculated GPS location, UTDOA location and hybrid location are compared with one another”] the first positional information with the second positional information, and determines whether to project the object to the cyber space based on the reliability ([040-041], Fig. 2).
However, Harper fails to teach determining the reliability/accuracy is based on the comparing the first positional information with the second positional information.
Smith teaches a multi-factor collating system in a cyber-physical system in which a physical space and a cyber space are connected by a network, the multi-factor collating system comprising: a computer including a memory and a processor configured to: determines a reliability of the first positional information by comparing [ “compare self-reported position data with other sources, to determine whether the self-reported position data is accurate.”] the first positional information with the second positional information ([025, 038]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to (1) combine Smith and Harper because they both related to computer determining location using multiple factors including GNSS and other sources and (2) modify the computer of Harper to additionally determine accuracy of the position/location reported by the mobile device by comparing the similarity on the values with the location reported by other sources as in Smith to validate the self-reported location data of the mobile device (Smith [046]). Furthermore, doing so would allow a user to be informed via an alert message when the self-reported location has big discrepancy with other means of measurements (Smith [038]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harper (US 20160282475 A1) in view of Young et al. (US 20200309533 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Harper teaches the multi-factor collating system according to claim 1, wherein the processor determines [calculated location is accurate enough to report determination in S324] whether to project the object to the cyber space, based on MLC itself predicting (“MLC 120 is then able to calculate the location of the mobile device 130 using at least the GNSS measurements”) the location of the mobile device 130 since it has more processing power] of the object, in addition to a comparison result [“uncertainties associated with the calculated GPS location, UTDOA location and hybrid location are compared with one another”] between the first positional information and the second positional information ([021, 040]).
Harper fails to teach determines whether to project the object to the cyberspace, based on a difference between real-time positional information of the object and positional information obtained by position prediction of the object as claimed.
Young teaches a multi-factor collating system comprising a processor to determines whether [sensor quality index is high] to project the object to the cyber space, based on a difference [“whether the difference between the location indicated by the captured GNSS information/data and the ground truth location of the vehicle 5 satisfies a threshold requirement”] between real-time positional information [“the ground truth location”] of the object and positional information obtained [“the captured GNSS information”] by position prediction ([072]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to (1) combine Young and Harper because they both related to a computer/cyberspace recording of the predicted location of an object placed onto a physical space to be notified to other requesting parties and (2) modify the computer of Harper to determine whether to project the object (forward the location information to the emergency services) to the cyber space also based on a difference between real-time positional information of the object and positional information obtained by position prediction of the object as in Young. Doing so would allow to identify whether the GNSS sensor is clearly poor so that the location predicted using the information from the poor GNSS sensor will not be forwarded to the 911 services (Young [072] & Harper [024]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harper (US 20160282475 A1) in view of Egawa et al., (JP 2010182007 A, the cited paragraphs are from machine translated FOR document).
Regarding claim 6, Harper teaches the multi-factor collating system according to claim 1, wherein the processor determines whether to project the object to the cyber space,
Harper fails to teach the processor determines whether to project the object to the cyber space based on a collation history indicating whether to permit projection with respect to the object.
Egawa relates to a computer (cyberspace) configured to collection position of an object located in a physical space ([001, 029]). Specifically, Egawa teaches a multi-factor collating system comprising a processor to determine [“included in the black list (S201: YES), the frame is discarded in S202”] whether to project the object [“vehicle”] to the cyber space, based on a collation history [“vehicle that has transmitted an incorrect position has its vehicle ID registered in the black list”] indicating whether to permit projection with respect to the object ([044, 077, 0126-0127]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to (1) combine Egawa and Harper because they both related to a multi-factor collecting system to receive position/location information from the physical object and (2) modify the computer of Harper to incorporate missing limitations (consider collection history of the location of the past to determine whether to project the object to the cyberspace) as in Egawa. Doing so would allow the MLC of the Harper to be extra careful or discard the request about reporting the location of the black-listed mobile device(s) known to intentionally provide incorrect location to avoid damaging the reputation of the MLC with emergency services (Egawa [044, 077] & Harper [024]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Bruemmer et al. (US 20140049429 A1) teaches object positional information variances for each of the one or more disparate position determination techniques ([014, 050, 065]).
2) Toda et al. (US 20180259333 A1) teaches the difference between the GNSS position and the backup position (the difference in coordinates in each axis direction) is larger than the threshold, the reliability determining module 80E may determine that the GNSS position and the backup position do not match with each other ([0109]).
3) Han et al. (US 20200413264 A1) teaches the registration module 206 locates a remote vehicle 112 based on GPS data or any other sensor data reported by the remote vehicle 112 (this can be referred to as a self-reported positioning of the remote vehicle 112 ([082]).
Contacts
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANTOSH R. POUDEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2347. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:30 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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/SANTOSH R POUDEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 See step S205 in fig. 9.