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 1-10 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.
Initially, the following is noted.
“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing recent cases wherein the court expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment); E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Interpretation of descriptive statements in a patent’s written description is a difficult task, as an inherent tension exists as to whether a statement is a clear lexicographic definition or a description of a preferred embodiment. The problem is to interpret claims ‘in view of the specification’ without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims.”); Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1869-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Although the specification discussed only a single embodiment, the court held that it was improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where, as a matter of logic or grammar, the language of the method claims did not impose a specific order on the performance of the method steps, and the specification did not directly or implicitly require a particular order). When an element is claimed using language falling under the scope of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph (often broadly referred to as means- (or step-) plus- function language), the specification must be consulted to determine the structure, material, or acts corresponding to the function recited in the claim, and the claimed element is construed as limited to the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (see MPEP § 2181- MPEP § 2186).
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (referring to “the danger” of importing claim limitations from the specification). See also Varco, L.P. v. Pason Sys. USA Corp., 436 F.3d 1368, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (stating how the Federal Circuit “will not at any time” bring in claim limitations from the specification); Comark Commc'ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186-67 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (following that limitations from the specification are not to be read into the claims).
The claims fail to clearly and distinctly define the metes and bound of the inventive subject matter. Applicant appears to be attempting to incorporate limitations from the specification into the claims, which as noted above is improper.
Regarding claim 1, and similarly claim 6, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: determining/generating and storing of a geopolygon indicating a spoofing region so as to provide to the device. Such omission leaves doubts of what encompasses such polygon since the claim fails to provide any clear and definite meaning of how such geopolygon is determined/generated so as to be obtained by the device.
It is Applicant’s responsibility to draft a clear and concise set of claims defining the metes and bounds of Applicant’s invention. Applicant should review all of the outstanding claims in response hereto. All of the claims should be reviewed for issues related to clarity and scope as the errors/issues are not constrained to those listed above.
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 1-10 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 devices and method for compensating for spoofed satellite signals. 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 1 (and its dependents) recites a method. Thus, the claim is a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 6 (and its dependents) recites a device. 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 claim 6, recites:
A method for compensating for spoofed satellite signals, the method comprising:
determining movement of the device into or within a threshold proximity to the spoofing region based on a determined location of the device and the geopolygon indicating the spoofing region;
responsive to determining the movement of the device into or within the threshold proximity to the spoofing region, adjusting a positioning unit of the device from a first configuration to a second configuration, wherein, while in the second configuration, the positioning unit is configured to disregard the at least one GNSS signal when determining a position estimate of the device; and
determining, with the positioning unit, the position estimate of the device based on a first set of GNSS signals, excluding the at least one GNSS signal, received by the positioning unit while the positioning unit is in the second configuration.
The “determining movement of the device…” step may be performed by observing and evaluating the movement which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation.
The “adjusting a positioning unit of the device…” step may be performed by evaluating whether the movement is near or into a spoofed region which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation and judgement.
The “determine the position estimate of the device…” step may be performed by judging that the movement is near or into spoofed region and estimating/determining a device’s location which may be practically performed in the human mind using evaluation, judgement, and opinion.
Therefore, such steps of as claimed in claim 1 and 6 encompass processes that can be performed mentally; thus, fall within “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
In addition, dependent claims 2-5 and 7-10 further claiming information gleaned from the mental process.
Regarding claims 2-5 and 7-10, the further steps of determining the position estimate as claimed may be practically performed in the human mind using evaluation, judgment, and opinion.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-5 and 7-10 also falls 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 1, and similarly claim 6, is “obtaining, by a device, a geopolygon indicating a spoofing region, the spoofing region comprising a region in which at least one Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) signal corresponding to a GNSS satellite has been determined to be spoofed”. 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. In addition, a GNSS receiver, a wireless communication receiver, and an inertial sensor as claimed in claims 2-4 and 7-10 act only for data gathering and do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extrasolution activity which simply provide what all GNSS receiver, wireless communication receiver, and an inertial sensor provide. Further, claims 6-10 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 1-10 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 1-10 are allowed over prior art. However, 35 USC 112(b), and 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 2025/0067879 discloses a system and method are described for mitigating the jamming or spoofing of information that is used in a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) geolocation system. In an area of interest where accurate geolocation information is critical—for example, at an airport, harbour, or other locations where accurate navigation is critical—several receiving stations having known and pre-determined geolocations are positioned. These receiving stations receive location signals from a constellation of geolocation satellites, and send the information about received signals to a central processing hub. The processing hub includes facilities to compare location information received by a particular receiving station and to determine whether the location information received by that receiving station from a particular satellite is consistent with known location information about that receiving station. In the event that there is a discrepancy between the known location information and the received location information, the processing hub can send a warning signal. In one embodiment of the invention, the system and method include a backup geolocation system; when it is determined that the GNSS geolocation system is determined to be inaccurate or unavailable, a secondary location system can be switched to. The backup geolocation system can be a land-based location system such as eLORAN.
US 12,436,294 discloses a user equipment (UE) receives a spoofing alert message from either a server or an internet-of-things (IOT) device that indicates whether a spoofed Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) condition is present. Based on determining that the spoofing alert message indicates that a spoofed GNSS condition is present, the UE determines, based on the spoofing alert message, a location of a spoofer broadcasting a spoofed GNSS signal, determines, based on the location of the spoofer and a current location of the UE, that the UE is within a receiving area of the spoofed GNSS signal, and determines a position of the UE without using the spoofed GNSS signal.
US 2022/0338014 discloses methods, apparatus, and products for evaluating trustworthiness of GNSS-based location estimates. In one aspect, a method comprises obtaining observation information corresponding to one or more access points observed by a computing device during a time period; obtaining a GNSS-based location estimate indicating an estimated location of the computing device during at least a portion of the time period; determining an access points count corresponding to a number of the one or more observed access points that satisfy a distance criteria relative to the GNSS-based location estimate; comparing the determined access point count to a pre-defined threshold access points count; and based on results of the comparison, providing, by the processor, an indication of whether or not the GNSS-based location estimate is trustworthy. The method may be performed by one or more processors in a cloud-based computing system in response to an API call from the computing device.
US 11,815,607 discloses an invention in which in conditions in which Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) signal spoofing is likely occurring, a GNSS receiver may be operated in a reduced operational state with respect to one or more GNSS bands that are likely being spoofed. According to embodiments, a reduced operational state with regard to a GNSS band may comprise performing one or more of the following functions with respect to that GNSS band: disabling data demodulation and decoding, disabling time setting (e.g., time of week (TOW), week number, etc.) disabling acquisition of unknown/not visible satellites, disabling satellite differences, disabling error recovery, reducing non-coherent integration time, and duty cycling the power for one or more receiver blocks associated with the GNSS band.
US 11,709,274 discloses a method of determining a location of a mobile device in the presence of a spoofing signal includes obtaining current position information associated with the mobile device, determining a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) signal search window for acquiring GNSS signals associated with a satellite based on the current position information, searching a GNSS signal associated with the satellite based on the GNSS signal search window, and determining updated position information of the mobile device based on at least information of the GNSS signal associated with the satellite.
US 11,442,174 discloses techniques for detecting and excluding spoofed Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) signals. Using position data acquired from inertial sensors, a line of sight (LOS) estimation can be determined to various satellites. This data can be compared with range data provided by a GNSS receiver, for example, by subtracting the LOS estimations with corresponding GNSS ranges. The difference can then be compared to an appropriate threshold to determine whether GNSS spoofing is present. Additionally, the non-spoofed GNSS signals can be used to generate an updated position solution, which is verified by an integrity algorithm. If verified, the updated position solution can be used to calculate the position of the vehicle. However, if not verified, the disclosed techniques can adjust the thresholds used to determine GNSS spoofing and perform additional iterations of integrity monitoring to acquire a verified positioning solution.
US 11,079,241 discloses an embodiment of a semiconductor package apparatus may include technology to acquire location related information, acquire local area characteristic information, and verify the location related information based on the local area characteristic information.
US 2016/0370469 discloses an on-board unit includes a positioning section, a positioning result storage section, and a processing section. The positioning section is configured to output a positioning result showing a current position of a vehicle based on a positioning signal received from an artificial satellite. The positioning result storage section is configured to store the positioning result in relation to a time. The processing section is configured to detect a spoofing based on whether a movement of the vehicle satisfies a given condition, by using a past positioning result stored in the positioning result storage section and a current positioning result measured by the positioning section.
US 9,182,495 discloses a system and method for monitoring integrity of a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS). Integrity of a GNSS location is assessed based on a comparison of the GNSS location with one or more locations received from at least one other GNSS. Integrity of the GNSS location is also assessed based on a comparison of the GNSS location with one or more locations obtained from signals generated by one or more known located emitters. Integrity of the GNSS location is also assessed based on a comparison of the GNSS location with historical data, which may include contextual information of recent GNSS locations of a user equipment, measurements made by an inertial navigation system of the user equipment, and prior measurements made by the user equipment during similar paths. An integrity warning is outputted when one or more of the integrity assessments indicate a loss of integrity of GNSS.
US 7,800,533 discloses a system and method for determining whether an estimated location of a wireless device includes one or more forged satellite measurements. An estimated location of the wireless device may be determined from signals received from a first set of satellites, and a set of residuals obtained as a function of the estimated location. The obtained set of residuals may then be compared to a reference set of residuals. If the comparison between the obtained set and reference set of residuals is less than a predetermined threshold, then the estimated location may be identified as having one or more forged satellite measurements.
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