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
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 of U.S. Application No. 18/551605 filed on 09/21/2023 have been examined.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
101 Analysis- Step 1
The claims are directed to a method for processing aerial vehicle positional data (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1-20 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
An information processing method executed by one processor or executed by a plurality of processors in cooperation, the method comprising: an estimation step of estimating a relative position or a relative attitude of an aerial vehicle with respect to a moving body; an acquisition step of acquiring information related to a distance between the moving body and the aerial vehicle; and a switching step of switching an estimation method for estimating the relative position or the relative attitude of the aerial vehicle, based on the information related to the distance.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “estimating…”, “acquiring…”, “switching…” in the context of this claim encompasses a judging a vehicle position and if the vehicle is close enough to enter a mode i.e landing mode. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An information processing method executed by one processor or executed by a plurality of processors in cooperation, the method comprising: an estimation step of estimating a relative position or a relative attitude of an aerial vehicle with respect to a moving body; an acquisition step of acquiring information related to a distance between the moving body and the aerial vehicle; and a switching step of switching an estimation method for estimating the relative position or the relative attitude of the aerial vehicle, based on the information related to the distance.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “estimating…”, “acquiring…”, “switching…” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (vehicle controller) to perform the process. In particular, the estimating and acquiring steps from the sensors and from the external source are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle data for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The switching step results step on the machine interference is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of processing position data and determine location of the vehicle based on distance), and amounts to mere post solution switch steps based on vehicle relative distance to landing region, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the data processing steps merely describes how to generally “estimating…”, “acquiring…”, “switching…” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose processor. The processing method is recited at a high level of generality and merely evaluating data based on vehicle position.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract
idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the estimating, acquiring and switching … amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “processor…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “processor…,” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites high level units of data processing vehicle information, and the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle controller is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLCv. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. The additional limitation of processing the information is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-17 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application [provide concise explanation]. Therefore, dependent claims 2-17 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1
Therefore, claim(s) 2-17 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Regarding claim 18, applicant recites a processing device performing functionalities identical to those of the method of claim 1. The integration of a processing device in claim 18 does not integrate the judicial exception of claim 1 into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 19, applicant recites a processing program performing functionalities identical to those of the method of claim 1. The integration of a processing program in claim 19 does not integrate the judicial exception of claim 1 into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 20, applicant recites a processing system performing functionalities identical to those of the method of claim 1. The integration of a processing system in claim 20 does not integrate the judicial exception of claim 1 into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Regarding claims 18-20, Claim limitation “estimation unit…”, “acquisition unit…” and “switching unit…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “estimates”, “acquires”, “switches” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 11 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to not have corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 18-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim element “estimation unit…”, “acquisition unit…” and “switching unit…”” is a limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function. Application does not disclose any means in the specification.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Christiana et al. [US 2021/0109546 A1], hereinafter referred to as Christiana.
As to Claim 1, 18, 19 and 20, Christiana discloses an information processing method executed by one processor or executed by a plurality of processors in cooperation ([see at least 0007 and 0036]), the method comprising: an estimation step of estimating a relative position or a relative attitude of an aerial vehicle with respect to a moving body ([see at least Fig. 2, 0012, 0035, 0049, 0050 and 0061]); an acquisition step of acquiring information related to a distance between the moving body and the aerial vehicle ([see at least Fig. 2, 0012, 0035, 0049, 0050 and 0061]); and a switching step of switching an estimation method for estimating the relative position or the relative attitude of the aerial vehicle, based on the information related to the distance ([see at least Fig. 2, 0035, 0038, 0039 and 0057]).
As to Claim 2, Christiana discloses an information processing method, wherein the switching step switches the estimation method from a first estimation method to a second estimation method different from the first estimation method when it is estimated that the aerial vehicle is shifted to a state not satisfying a first criterion related to closeness in distance to the moving body ([see at least Fig. 2, 0035, 0038, 0039 and 0057]).
As to Claim 3, Christiana discloses an information processing method, wherein the switching step switches the estimation method from the second estimation method to the first estimation method or to a third estimation method, which is neither the first estimation method nor the second estimation method, when it is estimated that the aerial vehicle is shifted to a state satisfying a second criterion regarding closeness in distance to the moving body ([see at least Fig. 2, 0035, 0038, 0039 and 0057]).
As to Claim 4, Christiana discloses an information processing method, wherein the acquisition step acquires information from a sensor mounted on the aerial vehicle as the information related to the distance, and the switching step estimates a distance between the moving body and the aerial vehicle based on the information from the sensor, and switches the estimation method from the first estimation method to the second estimation method when the estimated distance is longer than a predetermined distance ([see at least Fig. 2, 0035, 0038, 0039 and 0057]).
As to Claim 5, Christiana discloses an information processing method, wherein the moving body is a moving body that moves on water or land, the acquisition step acquires altitude information of the aerial vehicle as the information related to the distance, and the switching step switches the estimation method from the first estimation method to the second estimation method when an altitude of the aerial vehicle becomes higher than a predetermined altitude ([see at least Fig. 2, 0035, 0038, 0039, 0050, 0055 and 0057]).
As to Claim 6, Christiana discloses an information processing method, wherein the acquisition step acquires information that enables determination of a region of the moving body occupied in an image captured by the aerial vehicle as the information related to the distance, and the switching step switches the estimation method from the first estimation method to the second estimation method 80 when a ratio of the region of the moving body with respect to the image captured by the aerial vehicle becomes lower than a predetermined ratio ([see at least 0059 and 0062]).
As to Claim 7, Christiana discloses an information processing method, wherein the acquisition step acquires information regarding feature points of the moving body detected from an image captured by the aerial vehicle as the information regarding the distance, and the switching step checks matching between the feature points detected in an image at a past predetermined time point and the feature points detected in an image at a current time point, and switches the estimation method from the first estimation method to the second estimation method when the number of matched feature points is smaller than a predetermined number ([see at least 0044, 0059 and 0062]).
As to Claim 8, Christiana discloses an information processing method, wherein the first estimation method is a method of estimating the relative position or the relative attitude of the aerial vehicle based on a coordinate system relative to the moving body, and the second estimation method is a method of estimating the relative position or the relative attitude of the aerial vehicle based on a stationary coordinate system ([see at least 0044, 0055, 0059 and 0062]).
As to Claim 9, Christiana discloses an information processing method, further comprising an image classification step of classifying an image captured by the aerial vehicle into a plurality of regions by a predetermined image classification technology, wherein the estimation step includes: estimating the relative position or the relative attitude of the aerial vehicle based on information of a region of the moving body in the image when estimating the relative position or the relative attitude of the aerial vehicle using the first estimation method, and estimating the relative position or the relative attitude of the aerial vehicle based on information regarding a region of the moving body in the image and information regarding a region other than the region of the moving body in the image when estimating the relative position or the relative attitude of the aerial vehicle using the second estimation method ([see at least Fig. 2, 0035, 0038, 0039, 0050, 0055 and 0057]).
As to Claim 10, Christiana discloses an information processing method, wherein the image classification step classifies an image captured by the aerial vehicle into a plurality of regions by semantic segmentation or instance segmentation ([see at least 0059, 0039 and 0062]).
As to Claim 11, Christiana discloses an information processing method, wherein the estimation step estimates the relative position or the relative attitude of the aerial vehicle based on information regarding feature points detected from the region of the moving body in the image when estimating the relative position or the relative attitude of the aerial vehicle using the first estimation method ([see at least 0044, 0055, 0059 and 0062]).
As to Claim 12, Christiana discloses an information processing method, wherein the estimation step estimates the relative position or the relative attitude of the aerial vehicle based on information regarding the region of the moving body in the image and information regarding a region of a stationary structure when estimating the relative position or the relative attitude of the aerial vehicle using the second estimation method ([see at least 0059]).
As to Claim 13, Christiana discloses an information processing method, wherein the moving body is a ship that moves on water, and the estimation step estimates the relative position or the relative attitude of the aerial vehicle based on information regarding the region of the moving body in the image and information regarding a region which is a region other than the region of the moving body and which is a region excluding a water surface and moving objects other than the moving body when estimating the relative position or the relative attitude of the aerial vehicle using the second estimation method ([see at least 0026, 0041, 0061 and 0062]).
As to Claim 14, Christiana discloses an information processing method, wherein the estimation step estimates the relative position or the relative attitude of the aerial vehicle by tracking the moving body in the image using a bounding box when estimating the relative position or the relative attitude of the aerial vehicle using the second estimation method ([see at least Fig. 2, 0035, 0038, 0039 and 0057]).
As to Claim 15, Christiana discloses an information processing method, wherein the aerial vehicle is configured to use a predetermined position on the moving body as a home point and the method further comprising: a path retention step of retaining a flight path from take-off of the aerial vehicle from the home point to a point where the aerial vehicle is shifted to a state not satisfying the first criterion; and a flight control step of controlling a flight of the aerial vehicle so that the aerial vehicle returns to the home point by reversely following the retained flight path when the aerial vehicle returns to the home point ([see at least Fig. 2, Fig. 4, 0035, 0045 and 0058]).
As to Claim 16, Christiana discloses an information processing method, wherein the flight control step controls the flight of the aerial vehicle by finding a relative position at which the aerial vehicle is shifted to a state not satisfying the first criterion by allowing the aerial vehicle to circle in sky over the moving body in a case where the aerial vehicle returns to the home point so as to allow the flight of the aerial vehicle to reversely follow the flight path from the relative position ([see at least Fig. 2, Fig. 4, 0035, 0045 and 0058]).
0As to Claim 17, Christiana discloses an information processing method, wherein the aerial vehicle is a drone ([see at least Fig. 2, Fig. 4, 0035, 0045 and 0058]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAZAN A SOOFI whose telephone number is (469)295-9189. The examiner can normally be reached on Flex schedule.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached on 572-272-1516. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YAZAN A SOOFI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668