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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding section 101, Applicant argues: “According to 2A - Prong One of the USPTO 2019 Guide, claim 1 does not recite any of the judicial exceptions such as mathematical relationships, formulas, or calculations. As currently recited in claim 1, the method and system for a position prediction and tracking of the positioning object with improved precision.”
Examiner notes that the claims are directed to calculation, therefore the claims recite a judicial exception directed to mathematical relationships. See precedential decision in Ex parte Desjardins, 2024-000567.
Applicant argues: “Current claim 1 also meets the requirements of 2A - Prong Two because the same is integrated into a practical application of tracking of positioning objects that can be performed with high precision by "predicting a position partway between the prior estimation position and the observation prediction position as the posterior estimation position at the prediction timing" and in cases of a plurality of the observation positions "out of the candidate positions that are calculated, calculating a position closest to the prior estimation position as the observation prediction position" (claim 1).”
Examiner notes that Applicant fails to identify a practical application as defined under the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. As noted in Ex parte Desjardins, 2024-000567, the calculation itself is not a practical application. The practical application must be both disclosed in Specification in terms of improving the structure or the operation of a computer and claimed with sufficient specificity.
Examiner suggests claiming structural elements responsible for measuring input positions and using the predicted positions in a particular practical application.
Regarding the newly amended claim language, Applicant argues: “However, Singh and Aomi do not disclose the claimed "a prior estimation position of the positioning object at a prediction timing" and "an observation prediction position of the positioning object at the prediction timing" and "predicting a position partway between the prior estimation position and the observation prediction position as the posterior estimation position at the prediction timing." Singh and Aomi do not teach or suggest the current features of claim 1.”
Examiner notes that while Applicant is allowed to be his own lexicographer in describing claim structures, Examiner must reject the claim based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed elements and not based on the presence of Applicant’s exact phrasing. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP 904.01(a). While Singh and Aomi do not use Applicant’s names for the data elements, they appear to disclosed the claimed method of calculations based on substantively similar data elements and for a substantively similar purpose.
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 directed to a statutory category, may nonetheless be ineligible for a patent if the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims recites judicial exceptions, such as “laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas.” Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 133 S.Ct. 2107, 2116, 186 L.Ed.2d 124 (2013), MPEP 2106(II). “The machine-or-transformation test is a useful and important clue, an investigative tool, for determining whether some claimed inventions are processes under § 101,” however, the mere presence of a machine tie or transformation of an object is not sufficient to render a claim patent eligible. Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 3232, 561 US 593, 177 L. Ed. 2d 792 (2010). The relevant question is whether the claimed elements, when considered individually and in combination, do significantly more than apply the judicial exception to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities commonly used in industry. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359, 573 U.S., 189 L. Ed. 2d 296 (2014). However, patent eligibility under § 101 may not “depend simply on the draftsman's art.” Id. at 2360 (quoting Flook, 437 U.S., at 593, 98 S.Ct. 2522); MPE 2106(II). In this regard, a recitation of generic or purely functional components configured to apply the judicial exception are not regarded to be substantially more than the judicial exception itself, because the phrasing does not offer “a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.” Id. (quoting Bilski at 610).
As a general guidance, the claims are directed to subject matter that is substantially similar to In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969) (An abstract idea rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, for claiming a process of analyzing data by selecting the data to be analyzed and by subjecting the data to a mathematical manipulation); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 U.S.P.Q. 673 (1972) (using common computing elements in conversion of numerical information is ineligible). These cases consider such subject matter ineligible in view of Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 573 U.S., 189 L. Ed. 2d 296 (2014). Applicant may find these cases useful in considering claim amendments.
Claims 1, 3, 5-11 are rejected as being directed toward patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101, under the “Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” issued on January 7, 2019 (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 4, 50) and in view of “2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence” published on July 17, 2024 (89 FR 58128) and in view of Ex parte Desjardins, 2024-000567.
The claims are directed to statutory categories of methods, apparata (device), articles of manufacture (non-transitory computer-readable storage medium). (under Step 1).
Upon analysis of the present claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation (under Step 2A, prong one), the claims appear to recite a judicial exception, an abstract idea directed to broad mathematical relationships (by allusion to empirical determinations without limitation to particular empirical equations or algorithms) of calculating or predicting positions of the object based on other positions of the object determined at different times.
The claims include several categories of this abstract idea: information (positions of a positioning object, prediction timings) providing very broad and sometimes indefinite descriptions of data to be used, collecting information (); outputting information (), and/or analyzing information at a high degree of algorithmic generality (calculating, predicting). These categories have been identified as abstract ideas in Ex parte Desjardins, 2024-000567 as well as by the Federal Circuit as summarized in Electric Power Group, LLC v. ALSTOM SA, 830 F. 3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016):
Information as such is an intangible. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT & T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 451 n.12, 127 S.Ct. 1746, 167 L.Ed.2d 737 (2007); Bayer AG v. Housey Pharm., Inc., 340 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we have treated collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas. See, e.g., Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1349; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'l Ass'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014); CyberSource Corp. 1354*1354 v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In a similar vein, we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category. See, e.g., TLI Commc'ns, 823 F.3d at 613; Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1351; SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Labs., SA, 555 Fed.Appx. 950, 955 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011); SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1301; Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589-90, 98 S.Ct. 2522, 57 L.Ed.2d 451 (1978); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67, 93 S.Ct. 253, 34 L.Ed.2d 273 (1972). And we have recognized that merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis. See, e.g., Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347; Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Upon consideration of the record (under Step 2A, prong two), Examiner did not find that the additional elements of the present claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that 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 judicial exception.” The additional elements, when considered individually or in a claim as a whole, “ computer-readable storage medium, a computer to execute a process, a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory and the processor configured to …, ”, do not seem to reflect a substantive improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field under the standards of the present judicial guidance; (the calculations are performed at a broad and practically indefinite level without a practical output or a practical application of the calculation); do not seem use a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim (a general purpose computer executing vaguely defined calculations is not a particular machine); do not seem to effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (calculation of data is not a transformation of matter to a different state).
This is further evidenced in that the additional elements, merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. linked to a computer or other well-established activities in the art).
Finally, the claimed elements, when considered individually and in combination (under step 2B), do not seem to provide an Inventive Concept that is “significantly more” than the ineligible subject matter. The claims simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry (i.e. computer and memory or computer readable media) to the judicial exception, at a high level of generality (configured to, causes a computer to execute a process).
The claims should be amended to include meaningful limitations within the technical field.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 3, 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210341920 to Singh (“Singh”) also cited in an IDS, in view of US 20210357659 to Aomi (“Aomi “) also cited in an IDS.
Regarding Claim 1: “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing therein a position prediction program that causes a computer to execute a process comprising: (See “a non-transitory device on which computer-readable data, programming instructions or both are stored. … "processor" and "processing device" refer to a hardware component of an electronic device that is configured to execute programming instructions” Singh, Paragraphs 71-72.)
calculating, from a position that is on an extended line of a trail of a posterior estimation positions of a positioning object at a plurality of prediction timings in the past, and that is at a distance from the posterior estimation positions at a last prediction timing, to which the positioning object is predicted to advance by a next prediction timing, prior estimation position of the positioning object at a prediction timing; (For example: “For generating predictions and forecasting trajectories [trail lines], the task for the model may be framed as: given the past input coordinates of a vehicle trajectory Vi as Xi=(x',, y, for time steps t={1, . . . , Tabs}, predict the future coordinates Yi=(x',,y,') for time steps {t=Tobs+1, . . . , Tpred}.” Singh, Paragraph 30. In this example, posterior estimation positions can be exemplified by positions from timings t={1, . . . , Tabs}, and a third position can be at one of the prediction timings {t=Tobs+1, . . . , Tpred}.)
calculating, based on the posterior estimation position at the last prediction timing out of the plurality of prediction timings and an observation position that is in real space of the positioning object … an observation prediction position of the positioning object at the prediction timing; and (For example: “For generating predictions and forecasting trajectories, the task for the model may be framed as: given the past input coordinates of a vehicle trajectory Vi as Xi=(x',, y, for time steps t={1, . . . , Tabs}, predict the future coordinates Yi=(x',,y,') for time steps {t=Tobs+1, . . . , Tpred}.” Singh, Paragraph 30. In this example, posterior estimation position at the last prediction timing can be exemplified by a position at a time such as Tabs-1, a observation position can be at a later time such as Tabs, and the fourth position can be at one of the prediction timings {t=Tobs+1, . . . , Tpred}.)
[observation position of the positioning object] calculated from image data received from a shooting device after the last prediction timing, (“The perception data may include information relating to one or more objects in the environment of the autonomous vehicle 101. For example, the perception subsystem 122 may process sensor data (e.g., LiDAR or RADAR data, camera images, etc.) in order to identify objects … the perception subsystem may also determine [calculate], for one or more identified objects in the environment, the current state of the object. The state information may include, without limitation, for each object: current location;” which exemplifies a observation position. See Singh, Paragraph 26.)
wherein the calculating of the observation prediction position includes: … in a case in which a plurality of the observation positions are calculated between after the last prediction timing and the prediction timing, calculating each of candidate positions of the positioning object at the prediction timing by using each of a plurality of the observation positions that have been calculated, and (For example: “For generating predictions and forecasting trajectories, the task for the model may be framed as: given the past input coordinates of a vehicle trajectory Vi as Xi=(x',, y, for time steps t={1, . . . , Tabs},” in Singh, Paragraph 30. In this example the fifth positions can correspond to observation positions at timings in the range t={1, . . . , Tabs}.)
out of the positions that are calculated, calculating a position closest to the prior estimation position as the observation prediction position.” (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, the similarity between the prior estimation position and the observation prediction positions is that they are claimed as “positioning object at the prediction timing,” therefore the predetermined condition for the observation prediction position can be the same timing. In Sing, Paragraph 30, this can be exemplified by the positions calculated at Tabs.)
“predicting a position partway between the prior estimation position and the observation prediction position as the posterior estimation position at the prediction timing, (Singh Paragraph 30 indicates that “second” positions at future prediction timings {t=Tobs+1, . . . , Tpred} can be predicted based on any previously predicted “third and fourth” positions at previous prediction timings t={1, . . . , Tabs}.
Cumulatively, Aomi teaches another possible embodiment, where the position determinations that were determined previously can be used to produce other position determinations using filters in the context of tracking an object over time based on previously determined tracking results: “The searching area setting unit 112 may predict the motion of each object using the motion model of the corresponding object calculated from the past tracking result. … In some embodiments, the predicted position may be included in the tracking information. The integral tracking unit 200 may include the value which is obtained using a Kalman filter” Aomi, Paragraphs 84-86. In these cases, the order of position determinations does not need to correspond to the order in which the object occupied those positions; thus the predicted position can be partway between an observation position and another prediction position.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of Singh to predict a posterior estimation position at some timing from third and fourth positions having a different timing, in the manner taught in Aomi, in order to “calculate the predicted position in consideration of time differences between the current time and the times of the past frames.” Aomi, Paragraphs 84-86 and Singh, Paragraph 30.
Finally, in reviewing the present application, there does not seem to be objective evidence that the claim limitations are particularly directed to: addressing a particular problem which was recognized but unsolved in the art, producing unexpected results at the level of the ordinary skill in the art, or any other objective indicators of non-obviousness.
Regarding Claim 3: “The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing therein the position prediction program according to claim 1, wherein the calculating of the observation prediction position includes, in a case in which the observation position is calculated before a predetermined amount of time elapses from the last prediction timing, calculating the observation prediction position based on the posterior estimation position at a timing earlier than the last prediction timing out of the plurality of prediction timings and the observation position.” (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, positions at an earlier time can be calculated based on input positions determined at respectively earlier times. Singh teaches: “For generating predictions and forecasting trajectories, the task for the model may be framed as: given the past input coordinates of a vehicle trajectory Vi as Xi=(x',, y, for time steps t={1, . . . , Tobs}, predict the future coordinates Yi=(x',,y,') for time steps {t=Tobs+1, . . . , Tpred}.” Singh, Paragraph 30. In this case if Tobs-1 represents the current frame instead of Tobs, then the entire notation can be represented with “-1” to perform the same prediction method for a frame at an earlier time.)
Claim 5 is rejected for reasons stated for Claims 1 and 3.
Claim 6 “An information processing device,” is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 1, and because the prior art teaches: “a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory and the processor configured to: …” (See “The terms "memory," "memory device," "data store," "data storage facility" and the like each refer to a non-transitory device on which computer-readable data, programming instructions or both are stored. … "processor" and "processing device" refer to a hardware component of an electronic device that is configured to execute programming instructions” Singh, Paragraphs 71-72.)
Claim 7 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 5 in view of the Claim 6 rejeciton.
Claim 8 is rejected for reasons stated for Claims 6, 1 and 3.
Claim 9, “A position prediction method,” is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 1, because the medium of claim 1 implements the steps of Claim 9.
Claim 10 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 3 in view of the Claim 9 rejection.
Claim 11 is rejected for reasons stated for Claims 9, 1 and 3.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-7940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thu. 9am - 8pm.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at (571)272-7383. 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.
/MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights