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 .
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 19, how and in what manner virtual antenna positions are determined based on the phase shift configuration data and physical antenna positions is unclear and not readily understood. Applicant's disclosure and claimed limitation are a laundry list of abstract variables and a result, without specifically providing how to combine the variables to produce the result as claimed.
Also regarding claims 1, 10 and 19, the claims are rejected as being incomplete for omitting essential step(s) or an end result. The omitted step(s) is the step(s) wherein the claimed limitation is actually doing something tangible with the end result, i.e. the determined at least one navigation parameter (i.e. claim 1); of the derived GNSS information (i.e. claims 10 and 19) is put to use or output a concrete result.
Other claims are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim(s).
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 10-11, 15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the method and product for determining virtual antenna positions that is accomplished through a series of mental processes. The claims also require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all claims elements, both individually and in combination, are directed to the manipulation of data by a general purpose computer and/or performing by a person. Thus, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217—18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75—77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices {Alice, 573 U.S. at 219—20, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas {Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594—95 (1978)); and mental processes {Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” {Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” {id. at 184 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267—68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour {Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Supreme Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 192 (“We view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract...is not accorded the protection of our patent laws,…and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent- eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].”” Id. ((alteration in the original) quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requiring] generic computer implementation fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of § 101. USPTO’s January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“Memorandum”). Under Step 2A of that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Analysis
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim 10 ( and its dependents) recites a method. Thus, the claim is a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 19 ( and its dependent) recites a product. Thus, the claim is a machine and/or manufacture, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One – Recitation of Judicial Exception
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, we evaluate whether the claims recites a judicial exception. For abstract ideas, Prong One represents a change as compared to prior guidance because we here determine whether the claim recites mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes.
Claim 10, and similarly claim 19, recites the steps of:
determining virtual antenna positions corresponding to the output of each of the plurality of RF nulling circuits based on the physical antenna positions and the respective phase shift configuration data from each of the RF nulling circuits; and
The “determining” steps may be performed by evaluating and determining the virtual antenna positions based on the received information which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, opinion, and judgement.
Therefore, such steps of as claimed in claims 10 and 19 encompass processes that can be performed mentally; thus, fall within “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
In addition, dependent claims 11, 15, and 20 further claiming information gleaned from the mental processes and/or mathematical calculations.
Regarding claims 11, 15, and 20, the further steps of determining at least one navigation parameter as claimed may be performed based on the received information which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, and judgment.
Therefore, dependent claims 11, 15, and 20 also fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Since the claims recite an abstract idea, the analysis proceeds to Prong Two to determine whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two – Practical Application
If a claim recites a judicial exception, in Prong Two we next determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not directed to the judicial exception. This evaluation requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The only additional elements of claim 10, and similarly claim 19, are “receiving radio frequency (RF) signals from each of a plurality of antennas coupled to a vehicle, wherein each antenna is configured to receive signals from a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS); receiving a physical antenna position of each of the plurality of antennas; receiving phase shift configuration data of the RF signals from an output of each of a plurality of RF nulling circuits; providing GNSS information derived from the RF signals and the virtual antenna positions to a navigation system”. These limitations, at a high-level of generality, merely recites data gathering or communicating steps. As such, it amounts to no more than insignificant extra--solution activity to the judicial exception. Further, the claims require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all claims elements, both individually and in combination, are directed to the manipulation of data by a general purpose computer and/or performing by a person. Accordingly, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Step 2B – Inventive Concept
For Step 2B of the analysis, it is determined whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, convention” in the field.
As stated above, claims 10-11, 15, and 19-20 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Since this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements amount to no more than data gathering steps and mental processes. Merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide an inventive concept.
The courts have considered the following examples to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 are allowed over prior art. However, 35 USC 112(b) rejection must be overcome
Claims 10-20 are allowed over prior art. However, 35 USC 112(b) and/or 35 USC 101 rejections must be overcome.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11,914,054 discloses systems and methods for estimating attitude and heading. The systems and methods utilize carrier phase single difference (CSD) measurements or carrier phase double difference (CDD) measurements and a validation test for CSD or CDD measurement residuals. The systems and methods include applying a wrapping function with limit of ±half of the GNSS carrier signal wavelength to CSD or CDD measurement residuals to generate refined CSD or CDD measurement residuals and validating the refined CSD or CDD measurement residuals variance to determine valid CSD or CDD measurements. By using the validated CSD and CDD measurements, the systems and methods enable low grade hybrid inertial navigation systems to estimate attitude and heading with integrity and without a magnetometer or the need for integer ambiguity resolution even during the static or steady phases of flight/operation.
US 11,262,458 discloses embodiments relate to a smart antenna module resistant to Radio Frequency Interference (RFI) saturation for dual-frequency GNSS receivers. In some embodiments, a dynamically configured antenna module architecture can be for a dual-band (or multi-frequency) GNSS receiver that can adapt to different RFI conditions by performing corresponding working modes. For example, some embodiments of the smart antenna can measure (e.g., using a power detector) the power of an incoming multi-frequency signal to determine when the multifrequency signal is saturated. Then, using control logic the smart antenna can determine which frequency in the multi-frequency signal is usable and isolate (e.g. using radio frequency components) a frequency that is not saturated. A position estimate can then be generated based on the isolated multi-frequency signal.
US 2015/0212211 discloses various arrangements for using a multi-global navigation satellite system (GNSS) mobile device. Embodiments may include a first GNSS unit configured to receive satellite positioning signals and create baseband data. Embodiments may include a second GNSS unit configured to receive the baseband data from the first GNSS unit. The second GNSS unit may, based on the baseband data, determine pseudorange data. The first and second GNSS units may communicate via a baseband interface configured to transfer the baseband data from the first GNSS unit to the second GNSS unit.
US 2009/0115657 discloses a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver system includes a first mobile GNSS receiver and a second mobile GNSS receiver. The first mobile GNSS receiver includes: a first receiver logic for receiving satellite signals and determining positioning related information according to the satellite signals; a data provider logic for providing at least an assisted data according to the positioning related information; and a first communication interface for outputting the assisted data. The second mobile GNSS receiver includes a second communication interface, for communicating with the first communication interface to receive the assisted data from the communication interface; a data collector logic for collecting assisted information from the assisted data; and a second receiver logic for determining positioning information of the second mobile GNSS receiver according to the assisted information and satellite signals.
CN 204068870 discloses an utility model claims a down-conversion unit of double system for GNSS satellite navigation receiver, comprising a frequency channel and a local oscillation signal generating circuit ADs GNSS, the GNSS down-conversion path comprises a mixer and a double channel filter, the mixer is used for receiving GPS signal, a Glonass signal after down-conversion to obtain the GPS intermediate frequency signal, a Glonass frequency signal, two passband bandwidth of the channel filter are gating GPS, intermediate frequency signal Glonass signal after down-conversion, the oscillation signal generation circuit for each channel provides a specific GNSS down-conversion frequency of the local oscillator signal. The utility model uses resource AD sampling signal and FPGA processing chip shared by GPS and Glonass down-conversion radio frequency channel, reduces four down-conversion paths for the whole machine, saves half of the save volume and power consumption.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUONG P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 10:00-10:00 EST.
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, JACK KEITH can be reached at (571) 272-6878. 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.
/CHUONG P NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights