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 § 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 1-20 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 system, method, and product for performing localization that is accomplished through a series of mental processes and/or mathematical concepts. 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 utilizing mathematical calculations. 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 1 (and its dependents) recite a method. Thus, the claim is a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 11 ( and its dependents) recite a system. Thus, the claim is a machine and/or manufacture, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 20 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 1, and similarly claims 11, and 20, recites the steps of:
converting, by the first device, the signals into a first complex amplitude;
constructing, by the first device, a correlation matrix based on the first complex amplitude and the second complex amplitude;
determining, by the first device, a line of bearing to the emitter based on the correlation matrix;
determining, by the first device, an emitter location based on the line of bearing
The “converting” step may be performed by evaluating the received/obtained signals which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation and evaluation.
The “constructing” step may be practically performed in the human mind with mathematical calculations using evaluation.
The “determining,…, a line of bearing…” may be practically performed in the human mind with mathematical calculations using evaluation and judgement.
The “determining,…, an emitter location…” may be practically performed in the human mind with mathematical calculations using evaluation and judgement.
Therefore, such steps of as claimed in claims 1, 11, and 20 encompass processes that can be performed mentally with mathematical calculations; thus, fall within “mental processes” and/or “mathematical concepts” groupings of abstract ideas.
In addition, dependent claims 2-10, and 12-19 further claiming information gleaned from the mental processes and/or mathematical calculations.
Regarding claims 2-10 and 12-19, the further “calculating” steps and “determining” steps may be practically performed in the human mind with mathematical calculations using observation, evaluation and judgement.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 also falls within the “mental processes” and/or “mathematical concepts” groupings 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 1, and similarly claim 11 and 20, are “obtaining,…, signals from an emitter…” and “obtaining,…, a second complex amplitude…”. These limitations, at a high-level of generality, merely recites data gathering steps for further analyzing/determining steps. As such, it amounts to no more than insignificant extra--solution activity to the judicial exception.
Also, the “broadcasting” and “displaying” steps of claims 1, and similarly claims 11 and 20, are additional elements that are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These limitations, at a high-level of generality, merely recites data communicating, gathering, and presenting steps. As such, it amounts to no more than insignificant extra--solution activity to the judicial exception.
The only additional elements of claim 2-4, 9, and similarly claims 12-14, are “broadcasting” and “obtaining” steps. These limitations, at a high-level of generality, merely recites data communicating and/or gathering steps. As such, it amounts to no more than insignificant extra--solution activity to the judicial exception.
Further, “a transceiver” as claimed in claim 11 acts only for data communication and gathering and do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity which simply provide what all transceivers provide. In addition, claims 11-20 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. 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 1-20 do 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 1-20 are allowed over prior art. However, 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 12,035,271 discloses systems and methods for detecting and locating a signal source. The system contains an antenna array with antennas, a control unit that is connected to the antenna array, and an evaluation unit to receive data from the control unit. The antennas are designed to acquire a signal emitted by the signal source. The control unit is designed to ascertain a cross-correlation or covariance matrix of a signal received from the antenna array, and to transmit the cross-correlation or covariance matrix to the evaluation unit. The evaluation unit is designed to ascertain a position of the signal source on the basis of the cross-correlation or covariance matrix received from the control unit.
US 8,723,730 discloses an emitter geolocation technique determines the geolocation of a radio frequency (RF) emitter using pair-wise line-of-bearing intersections that are derived from signal-to-noise ratios of transmitted signals received at a sensor. The technique may be employed with ground based vehicle or small unmanned air vehicles (UAV), and obtains reliable geolocation estimates of radio frequency (RF) emitters of interest.
US 2012/0032851 discloses a method of determining the location of an emitter source comprising the steps of receiving signal information from the source at a plurality of sensors; and simultaneously processing a large bandwidth, and all received signal information using the fundamental RF frequency that lay within the detection bandwidth, and simultaneously determining the relative time of arrival, of all detected signals, using their relative post FFT fundamental detected phases, and using analysis of these relative instantaneous phases to determine all signal source directions within the detected bandwidth. The invention also recites an apparatus comprising: a first sensor; at least one other sensor located remotely from the first sensor; a central processor connected to the first sensor and each of said other sensors for receiving signal information from each sensor relating to an emitter source and for determining location of emitter sources using their fundamental RF frequency and the technique above.
US 7,911,385 discloses a system for geolocating a radio frequency (RF) transmitter in the presence of multipath interference may include a plurality of RF receivers arranged in spaced relation. The system may also include a controller coupled to the plurality of receivers and configured to generate a plurality of measurements associated with the RF transmitter. The controller may also compute a plurality of ambiguity functions based upon the plurality of measurements and due to the multipath interference, and project the plurality of ambiguity functions onto a common geo-referenced grid. The controller may also detect a peak on the common geo-referenced grid indicative of a geolocation of the RF transmitter.
US 7,750,841 discloses apparatus for determining positional information relating to an object, comprising: means for receiving, comprising a plurality of receiving elements; detection means for detecting signals received at the receiving elements and for generating output signals representative of the received signals; and processing means operable to apply, for each receiving element, a process to the output signal generated from the signal received at that receiving element separately from any output signal generated from a signal received at any other receiving element, so as to obtain a respective value of a parameter representative of the signal received at that receiving element, the processing means being further operable to compare the values of the parameter thus obtained so as to, obtain positional information relating to the object.
US 7,176,831 discloses a system and method for detecting the position of a remote emitter where the emitter is emitting a radio frequency signal in a radio field. The system and method uses at least one receiver which is moveable within the environment of the radio field, each receiver measuring and recording the amplitude of the radio frequency signal and recording its precise location using a GNSS or GPS receiver. The data recorded is processed and compared to data predicted by the receiver(s) to estimate a location of remote emitter.
WO 98/47019 discloses a location system for identifying locations of emitters in a cellular telephone service area. Searching identifies active emitters in the service area to find the coarse areas in which active emitters are located, using selection criteria to designate one or more of the active emitters as selected emitters. Emitter signals are measured with a plurality of sensors each sensor at a different location. Groups of the sensors are tasked, one group of tasked sensors for each corresponding selected emitter. Each tasked sensor takes a measurement on an emitter signal transmitted by the corresponding selected emitter. The measurements are processed to determine the location of each selected emitter based on the measurements from the group of tasked sensors.
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