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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 11 March 2024 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Preliminary Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of a preliminary amendment prior to the first office action. The examiner has reviewed the amendment and determined that no new matter was submitted. As such, the preliminary amendment is being considered.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on application EP23187762.2 filed 26 July 2023.
It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the priority document as required by 37 CFR 1.55. The aforementioned priority document is formally and respectfully requested by the examiner.
The file record indicates an attempt by the Office to electronically retrieve, under the priority document exchange program, the foreign priority document but failed to retrieve the document on 26 December 2024 and 18 April 2025. For further questions or assistance please contact the Patent Electronics Business Center (UBC): EBC Customer Support Center 1-866-217-9197 (toll-free); 571-272-4100 (local); M-F 6AM-Midnight (Eastern Time); PDX@USPTO.gov (email).
The examiner will examine the application under the presumption that said priority documents will be filed properly during the course of prosecution and will therefore perform the search and consideration of prior art with respect to the claimed priority date.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 22 on page 4 of the specification states "1x1meter", mistakenly lacking a space between the "1" and "meter".
Line 9 of page 14 appears to be missing content and contain typographical errors. The sentence states "A technical effect of the xx is that is helps in generating…"; the examiner is unsure what is intended by "xx" and "is that is helps" is improper grammar.
The examiner notes that the specification generally contains a number of translation and/or grammar issues. Page 21 Lines 13-15 appear to contain grammar mistakes including a fragment of a first sentence, as an example. General review is respectfully requested.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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 examiner notes that, as described in the corresponding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) sections, that "first set of positions" and "first set of probability mappings" is interpreted to include single values. In the case of a single position and a single probability, the "combination" is the single position and probability. Claim 5 depends upon claim 1 and further clarifies that multiple positions are necessary but this limitation is not present in parent claim 1, and so broader interpretation is afforded for the independent claim. See corresponding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection below.
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” (in addition to limitations that do use “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 limitations use 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 limitations are:
“means of transportation” – claim 3
“detection means” – claim 4, 9, 12
“computing unit” – claim 9
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid it 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Regarding “means of transportation”, specification page 11 uses the term “means of transportation” but does not explicitly say what the means may be or what they should be interpreted as. While “vehicles” are generally described in other places in the disclosure, the term is not limiting and “vehicle” is equally broad (indefinite). As no corresponding structure is given, a 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is provided below.
Regarding “detection means”, specification page 16 and claims 4 and 12 give examples of what constitutes “detection means” but includes ambiguous examples such as “visual observations” and “triangulation”, leading the examiner to believe that particular structure is not claimed. As no corresponding structure is given, a 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is provided below.
Regarding “computing unit”, specification page 15 gives examples of what constitutes a computing unit. Page 15 includes that just “a memory” is a computing unit and opens interpretation to a non-physical computing unit, leading the examiner to believe that particular structure is not claimed.
Claim 9 then recites a system comprising data and non-concrete structure; the system then lacks sufficient structure to adequately allow the examiner to understand what physical component is claimed in the system claim. As no corresponding structure is given, a 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is provided below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 9, 10, and 14-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 9, and 15 state “are above predetermined value” and should state “are above a predetermined value”.
Claim 3 mistakenly left out a space between “claim” and “1”.
Claim 10 states “where in” instead of “wherein”.
Claim 14 states “is in portable device” and should state “is in a portable device”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
PART I – 35 U.S.C. 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15 (all independent claims, and then all dependent claims by dependency) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
First (and most importantly), the examiner notes that the core of the invention rests in the “forming a first set of probability mappings…” (as seen in independent claims 1, 9, and 15) limitation, but adequate support to describe how the probability mappings are formed is not given. When attempting to ascertain claim meaning and scope, the examiner consulted the specification but was unable to find the appropriate support to determine how the most crucial part of the invention is determined.
Page 19 gives the most detail, stating that "as an example" (and therefore, not definitive), a probability equaling 1 is assigned to areas with a line of sight between the drone operator and the drone. This would cause an almost infinite number of locations depending on the amount of clutter in the environment. For instance, in an open field miles long and wide, the entire "area" would be a "1". Additionally, "line of sight" depends upon the assumption that 1) the drone is controlled by line of sight (as stated in the specification), 2) that the person has some semblance of average eyesight to see the drone from a distance, 3) the person is at a certain height, 4) the size of the drone is known (a small drone is harder to see), and 5) an operating range must be known (in the case of a large dirigible drone; an operator may be able to see it from another side of a city but the range of communication may be limited). This is further complicated in that applicant appears to be describing a probability of 0.5 when "it is fifty-fifty that drone can be seen (such as sparse forest area)." This appears to be a gross over-generalization, as the examiner is unsure how it is determined that "it is fifty-fifty that drone can be seen".
Even acting under the presumption that mere line of sight results in a satisfactory model, applicant only discloses a species of determining a location based on line of sight but is claiming the genus of determining the location based on any form of probability map. The examiner has ultimately determined that the instant application lacks sufficient disclosure to claim any form of probability determination as currently recited in the independent claims (instead of the line of sight map as noted above) and does not allow a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to understand, make, and use the invention. In order to prevent misunderstanding, the examiner does not agree that sufficient disclosure is provided for line of sight maps either, but notes that this is at least the most-discussed option that the examiner was able to locate.
As the core of the claimed invention resides in the creation of the probability maps, the examiner notes that insufficient detail is given to allow a POSITA to understand how the probability map is generated. Mere provision of a single overgeneralization of a "line of sight" example and note that it may be created by a generic machine learning model is insufficient and does not reasonably convey how the invention performs the claimed function.
Second, claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically, claim 3 recites two concerning limitations, the first being “detecting a possible means of transportation”, the second being “determining…a vehicle access probability mapping to determine where the possible means of transportation can access”. Both of the aforementioned limitations encouraged the examiner to review the specification in order to ascertain what constitutes a means of transportation, how a means of transportation is determined, how a probability mapping to determine where possible means of transportation can access is determined, among other questions.
However, the examiner was unable to locate in the specification a description of how a means of transportation is detected and how the aforementioned mapping is created. Page 11 of the specification ambiguously states “The method involves gathering information, analyzing patterns, or conducting investigations to determine the mode of transportation used by the drone operator. The term ‘vehicle access probability mapping’ refers to using the map information to create a probability map that indicates vehicle access to different areas…”. Put simply, the examiner was unable to locate where in the specification it is disclosed how the system/method performs this action. As described further in the corresponding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection, the act of “detecting a possible means of transportation” and determining a map of any area for “where the possible means of transportation can access” is indefinite and the specification does not provide the detail regarding how this may be possible. The specification describes in a few places that road networks are used to establish a higher or lower probability (a species of using a road network map to apply a probability weighting/modification to the first mapping), but the claim language appears to claim a map that includes all possible vehicle accesses (a genus) without describing how this may be performed.
Ultimately, the examiner asserts that the applicant’s disclosure does not provide sufficient written description to provide a POSITA with the understanding of how the invention works or how to make or use the claimed invention through claim to an apparent ability to detect any form of transportation and an all-inclusive access map to help find a drone operator, nor is sufficient detail given to convey that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Third, claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically, claim 7 states “using simulated set of positions to obtain a simulated probability mapping”. The examiner (as noted in the corresponding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection) is unsure of what object/person/location is simulated and in the case of the drone, how the simulated positions are determined and differ from the measured position (as recited in the independent claim). The specification was consulted and Page 13 describes a generic simulation but does not describe how the simulation works in sufficient detail to reasonably convey to a POSITA how the simulated positions reveal different data than the claimed probability mappings of the independent claim. The examiner notes that if the method is intended to find a current position of an operator, is the intent to state that historical simulations were run in order to train a machine learning model in order to influence the probability map generated in real time? The examiner ultimately believes that the link between an apparent real time system and simulation is not provided in order to understand what is intended by the use of a simulator or how the invention works with this simulator.
As all independent claims (1, 9, and 15) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), all dependent claims are rejected by dependency.
PART II – 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
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 1-15 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.
First, throughout the claim set and including all independent claims (1, 9, and 15), the applicant appears to utilize expressions including variables (such as “(x,y)” in claims 1 and 15, “(p11)” in claim 9, “(x1,y1,z1)” in claims 1, 9, and 15, etc.). However, the expressions are not necessarily explicitly defined (such as by explicitly, not by way of example, stating that x and y are coordinates in two dimensions). Further, independent claims 1 and 15 utilize different expressions when compared with independent claim 9 (“(x,y)” vs “(p11)”) and lead to ambiguity to if there is a different claimed meaning. Without importing the specification into the claims, the examiner notes that “(x,y)” implies a single point in two dimensions, whereas “(p11)” does not necessarily imply the same, it could mean an area such as that shown on Figure [1c]. Further, since claim 9 does not recite a location “area” but lists (p11), this appears to also not follow the established meaning from the specification (the examiner expected to see (x,y) in claim 9 at least for consistency). The examiner recommends rewording instances of providing expressions with explicit and exact terminology, such as “A method for finding a two-dimensional location [[(x,y)]] of a drone operator within an area…”.
Second, throughout the claim set, the applicant describes a “first set of positions” (such as in each independent claim—1, 9, 15). The examiner referenced the specification and found that the final paragraph on page 7 appears to provide some form of definition for “first set of position”. However, the information provided is ambiguous and counter to the apparent meaning, as the paragraph describes “The term ‘first set of position’ refers to the position information of the drone during the first instance (or first period of time…)” and “Optionally, the first set of positions may include but is not limited to a coordinate, a postal code, an address,…”. The examiner is unsure if a “set of positions” includes just a single position or if multiple positions are required in light of the apparent redefinition. “Set” may imply more than one, but the specification appears to provide an apparent definition that allows only one position to read upon the claim language. Similarly, the recitation of “first set of probability mappings” referred the examiner to the specification wherein page 9 states “The term ‘first set of probability mapping’ refers to the probability of locating the location of the drone operator within the area”, thus implying that a single map or even a single probability value reads on this language despite the use of the word “set”. See corresponding Claim Interpretation section.
Third, claim 3 states “detecting a possible means of transportation of the drone operator”. The term “possible” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “possible” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As “possible” forms of transportation are not limited to conventional means such as car, train, plane, etc. and may extend to an infinite amount of other choices without any support to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim language, the claim is rendered indefinite.
Fourth, claim 3 recites “determine where the possible means of transportation can access”; this is a phrase which renders the claim indefinite. The specification does not provide the requisite knowledge/support to allow a POSITA to understand the metes and bounds of the claim language. For example, a road may be intended by the claim language (see the example given on page 11 of the specification wherein “The vehicle access probability mapping includes road networks, terrain conditions, and other features that may influence the feasibility and accessibility of vehicles in the locations” is described). However, “can access” is a term of relative degree. For instance, a low sedan may only be able to travel on flat paved roads whereas a purpose built off road vehicle may be able to access more areas. Further still, “transportation” does not limit the claim language to road based vehicles; is a helipad included? Further, is a mere open area sufficient to allow a vertical take-off and landing vehicle to pick up or drop off the operator? An air-dropped Humvee “can access” almost any location as long as it is not expected to return. The claim language is ambiguous to the point of indefiniteness and the examiner is unsure that sufficient specification support exists for determining a map that any vehicle “can access”.
Fifth, claim 7 recites “using simulated set of positions to obtain a simulated probability mapping”, however “simulated set of positions” is not described in enough detail to reasonably convey what is intended. The metes and bounds of the claim language are unclear to the point of indefiniteness. First, the examiner is unsure what object/person/location the “simulated set of positions” refers to. Since parent claim 1 obtains a position (set of positions) of the drone based on detected position, the examiner is unsure what the “simulated position” refers to if not the detected position. Second, the examiner is unsure how the simulated set of positions is obtained. Page 13 of the specification discusses a generic simulation process but merely states that “simulation techniques” are used. How is the simulated set of positions obtained, how does it differ from historical data, and how does knowing where an operator may be when the drone is in a different position (simulated position) when compared to the detected position (actual position)? The claim reads as a high-level “a simulation is run to see where the operator may be located and combined with the determined position mapping” with no further detail given. See corresponding 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection.
Sixth, certain 35 U.S.C. 112(f) terms lack sufficient structure. Claim limitations “means of transportation”, “detection means”, and “computing unit” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Regarding “means of transportation”, specification page 11 uses the term “means of transportation” but does not explicitly say what the means may be or what they should be interpreted as. While “vehicles” are generally described in other places in the disclosure, the term is not limiting and “vehicle” is equally broad (indefinite). As no corresponding structure is given, a 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is provided below.
Regarding “detection means”, specification page 16 and claims 4 and 12 give examples of what constitutes “detection means” but includes ambiguous examples such as “visual observations” and “triangulation”, leading the examiner to believe that particular structure is not claimed. As no corresponding structure is given, a 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is provided below.
Regarding “computing unit”, specification page 15 gives examples of what constitutes a computing unit. Page 15 includes that just “a memory” is a computing unit and opens interpretation to a non-physical computing unit, leading the examiner to believe that particular structure is not claimed.
Claim 9 then recites a system comprising data and non-concrete structure; the system then lacks sufficient structure to adequately allow the examiner to understand what physical component is claimed in the system claim.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The examiner notes that the above limitations/phrases are indefinite and fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention of the instant application. Consistent with USPTO examination practices, for purposes of compact prosecution, the claim limitations will be treated as best understood by the Examiner, which according to broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), would mean that the examiner could follow any one or more of the interpretations discussed above.
As all independent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and the dependent claims to do not resolve this deficiency, all dependent claims are also rejected. Thus, claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1-8 are directed to a method, claims 9-14 are directed to a system, and claim 15 is directed to an apparatus. Therefore, claims 1-15 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in MPEP 2106, the claims are to analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groupings of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A method for finding a location (x, y) of a drone operator within an area (A), the method comprising:
- obtaining map information of the area;
- detecting a first set of positions (x1, y1, z1) of a drone;
- forming a first set of probability mappings based on the respective positions of the first set of positions and the obtained map information, wherein each of the first probability mappings provides, respectively a first probability of the location of the drone operator;
- combining the first set of probability mappings together to obtain a combined probability mapping of the location of the drone operator; and
- selecting as prospective location area (p11) of the drone operator, the location area in which values of the combined probability mappings are above predetermined value.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. The act of “obtaining map information…” corresponds to a human surveying their environment, noting sightlines, buildings, intersections, etc. The act of “detecting a first set of positions…” may be accomplished by mere eyesight; the human attempting to locate the operator may observe the general position of the drone. The act of “forming a first set of probability mappings…” corresponds to the mental process a human would perform to narrow down which areas may or may not be viable (a human would see that a window is blocked by a large sign and that this area is not a viable location due to lack of line of sight). The act of “combining the first set…” corresponds to is merely a compilation step, wherein the human would recall that a set of areas did and/or did not meet the criteria for viable locations to see the drone from. Finally, a human would be able to weigh the options of viable locations where an operator may be located and determine that one is more likely than another. Therefore, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in MPEP 2106, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), 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 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.”
In the present case, there are no additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea. Thus, there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and the limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
The claim 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. As the entirety of the claim may reasonably be performed in the human mind, the claim recites a mental process without significantly more. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible and as such, the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claims 9 and 15, the claims recite analogous limitations to claim 1 above, and are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 9, the examiner notes (in addition to the claim interpretation and corresponding 35 U.S.C. 112 sections above) that the system does not appear to have concrete structure. As such, “a geospatial data” may reasonably be the received vision of the layout of the area. Similarly, the “detection means” could reasonably be eyesight. Finally, the “computing unit” can reasonably be a human brain. Therefore, claim 9 also does not have any additional limitations beyond the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 15, a non-transitory memory is recited. However, the non-transitory memory is merely a generic computing component recited as an attempt to generally link the abstract idea to a technological environment using a generic component, which amounts to no more than insignificant extra solution activity. Mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is similarly ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding dependent claims 2-8 and 10-14, the claims specify and/or further limits similar to the previously addressed abstract idea above and does not recite additional limitations that present a practical application nor amount to “significantly more” for analogous reasons above.
Regarding claims 2 and 5: Claims 2 and 5 merely appear to recite that a second set of data and/or a second iteration is performed (merely further limiting the abstract idea).
Regarding claim 3: Claim 3 appears to recite that means of transportation may be detected and paths of travel may impact the probability map (merely further limiting the abstract idea as a human would generally be able to identify vehicles and paths into or out of the area of concern)
Regarding claims 4 and 12: Claims 4 and 12 provide detection means, but includes generic examples such as “visual detection”, “visual observations”, and “detection of sound” (merely further limiting the abstract idea as a human generally can see and hear where a drone may be using eyes and ears).
Regarding claim 6: Claim 6 appears to describe that historical data may be consulted in order to determine where an operator may be located (merely further limiting the abstract idea as an experienced human may have performed the task of finding a drone operator before and learned that they prefer open sight lines on top of buildings, for instance, and prioritize these areas).
Regarding claim 7: Claim 7 appears to utilize simulation (merely further limiting the abstract idea as a human “simulates” by imagining where the adversary would be by placing themselves into the shoes of the adversary/drone operator).
Regarding claim 8: Claim 8 merely recites that machine learning is utilized (simply generally links the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment without altering or affecting how the steps of the abstract idea are performed - see MPEP 2106.05(h) - using a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform the above-noted abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claims 10 and 11: Claims 10 and 11 recite that a generic user interface is provided, and in the case of claim 11, with a heatmap as a type of display (simply generally links the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment without altering or affecting how the steps of the abstract idea are performed - see MPEP 2106.05(h) - using a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform the above-noted abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claims 13 and 14: Claims 13 and 14 merely recite that data may be stored locally or remotely (simply generally links the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment without altering or affecting how the steps of the abstract idea are performed - see MPEP 2106.05(h) - using a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform the above-noted abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Thus, all pending claims (1-15) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
Claims 1-10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mashhadi et al. (NPL – “Can the Operator of a Drone Be Located by Following the Drone’s Path?”, Published 25 June 2020, PDF provided with this office action, hereinafter Mashhadi) in view of Heikkila et al. (US 2017/0064515 A1; hereinafter Heikkila).
Regarding independent claims 1 (method), 9 (system), and 15 (non-transitory memory computer program product): Mashhadi discloses A method for finding a location (x, y) of a drone operator within an area (A), the method comprising: (per claim 1) / A system for finding prospective locations (p11) of a drone operator within an area (A), the system comprising: (per claim 9) / A computer program product comprising a [non-transitory machine-readable data storage medium] having stored thereon program instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to execute steps of finding a location (x, y) of a drone operator within an area (A) by: (per claim 15) (Section [2, 3.1], Mashhadi discloses a method, system, and computer program product to locate a drone operator in an environment. AirSim is disclosed as a simulator with an application programming interface (API) in a system connected to at least flight controllers)
obtaining map information of the area; (per claim 1) / a geospatial data; (per claim 9) / obtaining map information of the area; (per claim 15) (Section [2], Mashhadi discloses that AirSim contains environmental information such as sun gazes, obstructions, roads, city blocks, etc. (all of which are considered map/geospatial information))
detecting a first set of positions (x1, y1, z1) of a drone; (per claim 1) / a detection means to detect a first set of positions (x1, y1, z1) of a drone; ( per claim 9) / detecting a first set of positions (x1, y1, z1) of a drone; (per claim 15) (Section [2] and Figure [2], Mashhadi discloses detecting a series of points in three dimensions (X, Y, Z) corresponding to a flight path of the drone)
forming a first set of probability mappings based on the respective positions of the first set of positions and the obtained map information, wherein each of the first probability mappings provides, respectively a first probability of the location of the drone operator; (per claim 1) / a computing unit configured to form a first set of probability mappings based on the respective positions of the first set of positions and a map information from the geospatial data, wherein each of the first probability mappings provides, respectively a first probability of a location of the drone operator; (per claim 9) / forming a first set of probability mappings based on the respective positions of the first set of positions and the obtained map information, wherein each of the first probability mappings provides, respectively a first probability of the location of the drone operator; (per claim 15) (As noted above, the system/computer product is based on an AirSim simulator, which is a “computing unit”. Section [3, 3.1], Mashhadi discloses forming a “guess” (probability mapping) as to the viewpoint of the operator based on the drone positions/path and environmental data)
[combining] the first set of probability mappings together to obtain a combined probability mapping of the location of the drone operator; and (per claim 1) / [combine] the first set of probability mappings together to obtain a combined probability mapping of the location of the drone operator; and (per claim 9) / [combining] the first set of probability mappings together to obtain a combined probability mapping of the location of the drone operator; and (per claim 15) (The examiner notes that, as further described in the claim interpretation section, as only one “set” of probability mappings reads on the claim language due to the descriptions/definitions given in the specification, the use of a single map/guess/etc. reads upon the claim language. Section [3, 3.1], Mashhadi discloses forming a “guess” (probability mapping) as to the viewpoint of the operator based on the drone positions/path and environmental data)
selecting as prospective location area (p11) of the drone operator, the location area in which values of the combined probability mappings are [above predetermined value]. (per claim 1) / select as prospective locations of the drone operator, the locations in which values of the combined probability mappings are [above predetermined value]. (per claim 9) / selecting as prospective location area (p11) of the drone operator, the location area in which values of the combined probability mappings are [above predetermined value]. (per claim 15) (Section [3, 3.1], Mashhadi discloses forming a “guess” (probability mapping) as to the viewpoint of the operator based on the drone positions/path and environmental data)
Regarding non-transitory machine-readable data storage medium, this is implicit in the disclosure of Mashhadi (as the AirSim program implicitly runs on some form of non-transitory computer).
However, Heikkila, in a similar field of endeavor of mobile device tracking, teaches non-transitory machine-readable data storage medium (Paragraph [0152], Heikkila teaches that the computer program may be stored in non-transitory memory)
Mashhadi and Heikkila are in a similar field of endeavor of mobile device tracking. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Mashhadi to explicitly disclose that non-transitory memory is present, as this is implicitly disclosed in Mashhadi through recitation of a computer-based simulator and a controller (Mashhadi, Section [2]). Heikkila is used as a reference to show that it is well-known to have a computer program stored in non-transitory memory.
Further, regarding combine[ing] the set of probability maps, the examiner notes that in the event that multiple maps/data points are intended, Heikkila, in a similar field of endeavor of mobile device tracking, teaches combine[ing] the first set of probability mappings together to obtain a combined probability mapping of the location of the [drone] operator (Paragraph [0026, 0075, 0109, 0111, 0118, 0121, 0136, 0141] and Figure [4-5], Heikkila teaches combining data from multiple data sets to increase obtained a combined probability map)
Mashhadi and Heikkila are in a similar field of endeavor of mobile device tracking. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Mashhadi to include a combination of probability maps as taught by Heikkila in the interest of increasing accuracy of the location determination (Heikkila, Paragraph [0048]).
Finally, regarding select[ing] as prospective location area (p11) of the drone operator, the location area in which values of the combined probability mappings are above predetermined value, the examiner notes that this is implicitly disclosed in Mashhadi, as the identification of a location typically requires choosing a highest probability location (above a predetermined value includes being higher than every other disclosed location).
However, Heikkila, in a similar field of endeavor of mobile device tracking, teaches select[ing] as prospective location area (p11) of the [drone] operator, the location area in which values of the combined probability mappings are above predetermined value (Paragraph [0032, 0122], Heikkila teaches that the location with the highest overall probability is selected. As noted, the location with a highest probability is also “above predetermined value” when the lower probability locations are the other values)
Mashhadi and Heikkila are in a similar field of endeavor of mobile device tracking. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Mashhadi to include explicit disclosure that the location is chosen based on exceeding the probability of every other identified location (above predetermined value) as taught by Heikkila in the interest of increasing accuracy of the location determination by choosing the highest probability area (Heikkila, Paragraph [0048, 0122])
In summary, the primary reference Mashhadi discloses a method/system/computer product to predict the location of a drone operator based on environmental data and the perceived location of the drone. Heikkila resolves the noted difference of combination of probability maps to select a highest probable location to locate a mobile device in addition to computer memory structure.
Regarding claim 2: Parent claim 1 is rendered obvious by Mashhadi in view of Heikkila. Mashhadi further discloses the obtained map informa