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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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, 4-14, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 (Currently Amended) – recites a method includes: Obtaining current error-correction data for a current epoch → creating a rolling history (current + previous epochs) → computing a statistical value from the history → utilizing the statistical value with a baseline indicator to detect if a condition has occurred → in response, adjusting the spectral density to generate an adjusted spectral density → computing the filtering solution for the current epoch using a model with the adjusted spectral density.
• Step 1: Process → statutory.
• Step 2A Prong 1: Yes – abstract idea (mathematical calculations + mental processes of collecting data, computing statistics, comparing to a baseline, and deciding to adjust a parameter).
• Step 2A Prong 2: No integration into a practical application. Generic “processor,” “model,” and “filtering solution” are recited at a high level of generality. No improvement to computer functionality or to the filter beyond applying the abstract adjustment rule.
• Step 2B: No inventive concept. Rolling history + statistical detection + parameter adjustment are well-understood, routine, conventional activities in adaptive filtering.
• Conclusion: Ineligible.
Claim 4 (Currently Amended) – states that the current error-correction data is generated during an update procedure implemented by a Kalman filter.
• Conventional source of error-correction data in the art. Does not change the abstract character or supply an inventive concept.
• Conclusion: Ineligible.
Claim 5 (Currently Amended) – states that the filtering solution is computed by a filter influenced by one or more environmental operating conditions comprising temperature, vibrations, magnetic field, or inclusion/exclusion of a potential disturbance.
• Lists conventional environmental variables. Purely functional and high-level; no specific technical improvement.
• Conclusion: Ineligible.
Claim 6 (Currently Amended) – further defines: baseline value is a steady-state value based on steady-state environmental conditions; the adjusted spectral density has a greater value than the spectral density prior to adjustment when a temperature/vibration/magnetic-field change (or rate of change) or a potential disturbance is detected; and the increased spectral density causes increased weight to be applied to error-correction values in the model.
• Still pure mathematics / data analysis + conventional consequence of raising process noise. No practical application or inventive concept.
• Conclusion: Ineligible.
Claim 7 (Currently Amended) – states that the statistical value is computed using a statistical analysis comprising RMS, absolute accumulation, standard deviation, or a slope.
• Merely names conventional statistical tools. Reinforces the mathematical nature of the abstract idea.
• Conclusion: Ineligible.
Claim 8 (Original) – states that the current error-correction data is inertial measurement unit (IMU) error-correction data.
• Conventional data type in INS/Kalman filtering. No eligibility impact.
• Conclusion: Ineligible.
Independent Claim 9 (Original) – recites a method includes: Obtaining sensor data for a current epoch that measures/detects environmental operating conditions → comparing a sensor data value to at least one threshold → if exceeds threshold, adjust/maintain spectral density to an increased value; if not, adjust/maintain to a steady-state value → computing the filtering solution based on the filter using the chosen spectral-density value.
• Step 1: Process → statutory.
• Step 2A Prong 1: Yes – abstract idea (data collection, threshold comparison, conditional parameter adjustment – mental process / mathematical concept).
• Step 2A Prong 2: No. Generic processor + conventional sensor data + filter. No technological improvement.
• Step 2B: No inventive concept. Threshold-based switching of a noise parameter is routine.
• Conclusion: Ineligible.
Claim 10 (Original) – states that the sensor data includes temperature, vibration, and/or magnetic-field data.
• Conventional sensors. No change.
• Conclusion: Ineligible.
Claim 11 (Original) – Further comprising: using, by the filter operating in a disturbed environment, a model that uses the increased spectral-density value → computing the filtering solution using the model.
• Conventional “apply it” language. No practical application or inventive concept.
• Conclusion: Ineligible.
Claim 12 (Original) – states that the filter is an INS filter.
• Conventional environment only.
• Conclusion: Ineligible.
Claim 13 (Currently Amended) – Further comprising: using, by the filter operating in a steady-state environment, a model that uses the steady-state spectral-density value → computing the filtering solution using the model.
• Symmetric to Claim 11; still conventional.
• Conclusion: Ineligible.
Claim 14 (Original) – states that the filter is an INS filter.
• No change.
• Conclusion: Ineligible.
Independent Claim 17 (Currently Amended) – recites a system includes: A memory + a processor coupled to the memory, the processor executing a module configured to: obtain current error-correction data → create rolling history → compute statistical value → utilize statistical value with baseline indicator to detect condition → adjust spectral density to generate an adjusted spectral density → and a filter executed by the processor configured to compute the solution using a model with the adjusted spectral density.
• Step 1: Machine / system → statutory.
• Step 2A Prong 1: Yes – same abstract idea as Claim 1.
• Step 2A Prong 2: No. Generic memory, processor, module, and filter. Purely functional claiming of the abstract steps.
• Step 2B: No inventive concept. Same conventional activities as Claim 1, merely implemented on generic hardware.
• Conclusion: Ineligible.
Claim 19 (Original) – states that the filter is an INS filter.
• Conventional environment only.
• Conclusion: Ineligible.
Claim 20 (Currently Amended) – states that the filter is influenced by environmental operating conditions comprising temperature, vibrations, magnetic field, or inclusion/exclusion of a potential disturbance.
• Same as Claim 5. No eligibility impact.
• Conclusion: Ineligible.
Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1, 4-14, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 15, 16 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4-14, 17, 19 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AN H DO whose telephone number is (571)272-2143. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:00am-4:00pm.
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, Ricardo Magallanes can be reached on 571-272-5960. 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.
/AN H DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights