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
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 26 March 2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1 and 9 (and dependent claims 4-8 and 10-14) recite “A method for adjusting a spectral density used to compute a filtering solution, the method comprising: obtaining, by a processor, current error correction data for a current epoch, wherein the error correction data is used to correct errors introduced into the filtering solution; creating a rolling history that includes the current error correction data for the current epoch and previous error correction data for one or more previous epochs; computing, for the rolling history, a statistical value from the current error correction data and the previous error correction data; utilizing the statistical value with a baseline indicator to detect if a condition has occurred; and in response to determining that the condition has occurred, adjusting the spectral density used to compute the filtering solution for the current epoch.”
Claims 1 and 4-14, in view of the claim limitations, recite the abstract idea of “obtaining, by a processor, current error correction data for a current epoch, wherein the error correction data is used to correct errors introduced into the filtering solution; creating a rolling history that includes the current error correction data for the current epoch and previous error correction data for one or more previous epochs; computing, for the rolling history, a statistical value from the current error correction data and the previous error correction data; utilizing the statistical value with a baseline indicator to detect if a condition has occurred; and in response to determining that the condition has occurred, adjusting the spectral density used to compute the filtering solution for the current epoch.”
As a whole, in view of the claim limitations, but for the computer components and systems performing the claimed functions, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited “obtaining, by a processor, current error correction data for a current epoch, wherein the error correction data is used to correct errors introduced into the filtering solution; creating a rolling history that includes the current error correction data for the current epoch and previous error correction data for one or more previous epochs; computing, for the rolling history, a statistical value from the current error correction data and the previous error correction data; utilizing the statistical value with a baseline indicator to detect if a condition has occurred; and in response to determining that the condition has occurred, adjusting the spectral density used to compute the filtering solution for the current epoch.”; therefore, the claims recite mental processes and mathematical concepts. Accordingly, the claims recite a mental process and a mathematical concept, and thus, the claims recite an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of“[a] computer- implemented method” and “the method is carried out by one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions” as recited in claim 17, individually and when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 4-8, 10-14, 19 and 20 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B. As noted above, the aforementioned additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, as an order combination, are no more than mere instructions to implement the idea using generic computer components (i.e. apply it), and further, generally link the abstract idea to a field of use, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea; therefore, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Additionally, these recitations as an ordered combination, simply append the abstract idea to recitations of generic computer structure performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field as evinced by Applicant’s Specification at [0104] (describing that the disclosure is not limited to the disclosed implementations, but, on the contrary, is intended to cover modifications and equivalent arrangements that are within the spirit and scope of the appended claims). Furthermore, as an ordered combination, these elements amount to generic computer components performing repetitive calculations, receiving or transmitting data over a network, which, as held by the courts, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d); July 2015 Update, p. 7. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 4-8, 10-14, 19 and 20 do not transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea. Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use a generic arrangement of generic computer components and recitations of generic computer structure that perform well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions that are used to “apply” the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The primary reason for the allowance of claims 2 and 3 is the inclusion of the method for adjusting a spectral density used to compute a filtering solution that includes the steps of: utilizing the statistical value to compute a short-term average; utilizing the statistical value to compute a long-term average that represents the baseline indicator; computing a ratio value using the short-term average and the long-term average; determining that the condition occurred when the ratio value exceeds a threshold; using the adjusted spectral density as input to a model when the ratio value exceeds the threshold; and computing, by a filter influenced by one or more environmental operating conditions, the filtering solution using the model. It is these steps found in the claims, as they are claimed in the combination of, that has not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of claims 15 and 16 is the inclusion of the method for adjusting a spectral density used to compute a filtering solution that includes the steps of: obtaining, by the processor, other sensor data for one or more previous update epochs; creating a rolling history using the sensor data and the other sensor data; performing a statistical analysis using the sensor data and the other sensor data to generate a statistical analysis value; comparing the statistical analysis value to the at least one threshold value; in response to determining that the statistical analysis value exceeds the at least one threshold value, adjusting or maintaining the spectral density to the increased value; and in response to determining that the statistical analysis value does not exceed the at least one threshold value, adjusting or maintaining the spectral density to the steady state value. It is these steps found in the claims, as they are claimed in the combination of, that has not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
The primary reason for the allowance of claim 18 is the inclusion of the system for adjusting a spectral density used to compute a filtering solution that includes the module is further configured to: utilize the statistical value to compute a short-term average; utilize the statistical value to compute a long-term average that represents the baseline indicator; compute a ratio value using the short-term average and the long-term average; determine that the condition occurred when the ratio value exceeds a threshold; use the adjusted spectral density as input to a model when the ratio value exceeds the threshold; and compute, by a filter influenced by one or more environmental operating conditions, the filtering solution using the model. It is these limitations found in the claims, as they are claimed in the combination of, that has not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record which makes these claims allowable over the prior art.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bobye (US 12,455,384) discloses systems, methods, and media for analyzing multiple filters in a solution domain to identify filter instability. Dormody et al (US 10,514,258) disclose a system and a method for calibrating a sensor of a mobile device determine a first estimated position of the mobile device without using any measurement from the sensor of the mobile device, generate a second estimated position of the mobile device using a measurement from the sensor, estimate a sensor error of the sensor using the first estimated position and the second estimated position, and use the sensor error to determine a calibration value for adjusting one or more measurements from the sensor. Riley et al (US 10,247,828) disclose a Kalman filter (KF) that includes a recursive data estimation algorithm for modeling attributes or states of moving entities such as aircraft, people, and vehicles. Such attributes or states may include velocity and/or position.
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