Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites “a pose calibration method for an aerospace magnetometer, comprising the following steps: S1: mounting…S5: repeating S2 and S3 in an on-orbit state, and comparing a photographing result with the reference database to obtain a length and angle of the stretching rod”, which is a process.
Step 2A, Prong One: the claim recites an abstract idea as follows:
The claim recites the steps “S4: comparing…and S5: repeating S2 and S3 in an on-orbit state, and comparing a photographing result with the reference database to obtain a length and an angle of the stretching rod” which encompasses mathematical calculation.
The claimed invention thus recited as an abstract idea. Claim 1 recites mathematical concepts and/or mental processes, that may be carried out in human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper in simple situations. The claim does not recite a particular equation or algorithm for making the recited combining and performing steps, this just means that the abstract idea is being recited broadly enough to monopolize all possible equations or algorithms that might be used (Please also see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), (B), (C), and (D).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of the steps is that those steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation (data gathering in S2 and S3: taking first and second photos and S4: comparing photos to obtain a reference database), evaluation (S4: comparing and S5: comparing photographing result with the reference database), judgment, and opinion (S5: comparing a photographing result with the reference data to obtain a length and an angle of the stretching rod). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Practical application? No.
The steps S4 and S5 encompasses insignificant extra solution. The recited steps S4 and S5 only recite the outcome without any details about how the outcome is accomplished. The “(obtained) length and angle of the stretching rod” encompasses insignificant extra solution and merely data. The use of the “(obtained” length and angle of the stretching rod” is unlimited. The steps S4 and S5 are not performed by any particular device.
Claim 1 when viewed as a whole or in ordered combination does not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter (see MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Per MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a), the claim as a whole does not provide an improvement to other technology or technical field.
The recited “magnetometer, camera, and stretching rod” are not particular device. They are recited as tools which are used to perform the abstract idea.
Step 2B: the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, for reasons that are analogous to the discussion of additional elements at Prong 2.
Dependent claim 2 adds a limitation which are not particular device. They are recited as tools which are used to perform the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 3 adds a limitation which is data merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements.
Dependent claims 4-7 add limitations which is data gathering, mathematical calculation, insignificant extra solution merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements.
Conclusion
Claims 1-7 are patentably distinguishable over the prior art.
Arth et al. (USPN. 9996936) discloses a mobile device includes memory coupled to a processing unit. The memory is adapted to store program code for determining a 6DOF pose of an image and the processing unit is configured to access and execute instructions included in the program code. When the instructions are executed by the processing unit, the processing unit directs the apparatus to: create one or more static representations of an input image; create a dynamic representation of the input image from an estimated 6DOF pose and a 2.5D reference map; measure a correlation error between the dynamic representation and the one or more static representations; adjust the estimated 6DOF pose according to the correlation error; update the dynamic representation according to the adjusted 6DOF pose; and output the adjusted 6DOF pose in response to meeting an output threshold (Abstract; cols. 4-6).
Brockers et al. (USPAP. 20200130864) discloses an unmanned aerial system (UAS) vehicle autonomously takes off from a take-off landing-charging station and autonomously executes a mission. The mission includes data acquisition instructions in a defined observation area. Upon mission completion, the UAS autonomously travels to a target landing-charging station and performs an autonomous precision landing on the target landing-charging station. The UAS autonomously re-charges via the target landing-charging station. Once re-charged, the UAS is ready to execute a next sortie. When landed, the UAS autonomously transmits mission data to the landing-charging station for in situ or cloud-based data processing (Abstract; Pars. 57-63).
Vissiere et al. (USPN. 11592512) discloses A method for calibrating a magnetometer. The magnetometer travels through (Si) a set of path positions, and acquires (S2) a plurality of measurements of the magnetic field. Trajectory information (S3) is provided representative of the location and the orientation of a point integral with the magnetometer. The measurements of the magnetic field are matched up (S4) with the trajectory information. A determination (S5) is made of calibration parameters of the magnetometer by the minimization of a cost function involving, for a plurality of determination times, at least the calibration parameters, a measurement of the magnetic field, and a relationship linking the change in a magnetic field with the change in the location and in the orientation of the magnetometer derived from the trajectory information (Abstract; cols. 8-12).
Regarding claim 1, the closest prior art of record either alone or in combination fails to anticipate or render obvious the combination wherein “S2: in a ground state, completely expanding a stretching rod mounted on the vehicle body, and taking first photos…S5: repeating S2 and S3 in an on-orbit state, and comparing a photographing result with the reference database to obtain a length and an angle of the stretching rod” in combination with other limitations in the claims as defined by Applicants.
Claims 2-7 depend from claim 1 and therefore are also patentably distinguishable over the prior art.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gao (CN 121946499) discloses an industrial robot motion pose error calibration method based on constraint solving, comprising: S1, collecting joint angle, end coordinate and temperature data of multiple measuring points; S2, using the thermal elongation to modify the kinematics model and constructing a parameter identification model; S3, constructing a mixed integer non-linear constraint pool according to the mechanical limit; S4, introducing a semi-fixed planning relaxation variable to convert the non-convex constraint into a linear matrix inequality; S5, combining the original dual inner point method and the alternating direction multiplier method to iteratively solve the optimal kinematics parameter correction amount; S6, introducing the square root information filter improving mechanism to correct the square root factor of the state vector, and calculating the updated nominal kinematics parameter; S7, judging the observability based on the error Jacobian matrix condition number and repeating the calibration. The invention solves the problem of precision reduction caused by thermal error, and improves the identification precision, numerical value stability and self-adaptive calibration ability of the robot kinematics parameter (Abstract; Pages 4 and 5).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-2718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Andrew M Schechter can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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.
/PHUONG HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 June 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights