DETAILED ACTION
Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application.
Priority
2. No priority was claimed in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/19/2024 was received. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
4. The drawings submitted on 3/05/2024 are in compliance with 37 CFR § 1.81 and 37 CFR § 1.83 and have been accepted by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 Non-Statutory
5. 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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A method of gravity prospecting with an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), comprising:
measuring total acceleration of a UAV during a gravity survey mission with a strapdown gravity sensor mounted to the UAV;
receiving a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) satellite signal at the UAV;
receiving a correction factor signal from a Real-time Kinematic (RTK)-GNSS base station at the UAV;
obtaining kinematic acceleration of the UAV using the GNSS satellite signal and the correction factor signal;
removing the kinematic acceleration of the UAV from the total acceleration of the UAV to obtain an effective gravitational acceleration;
performing frequency filtering on the effective gravitational acceleration by applying a low pass filter to determine a low-frequency region of the effective gravitational acceleration; and
determining a gravity anomaly based on the low-frequency region.
11. A system for gravity prospecting, comprising:
an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) including:
a processor and a memory operably coupled to the processor,
a strapdown gravity sensor configured to measure total acceleration of the UAV during a gravity survey mission, and
a GNSS transceiver configured to receive a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) satellite signal and a correction factor signal and determine a kinematic acceleration of the UAV using the GNSS satellite signal and the correction factor signal; and
a gravity data processing engine configured to:
remove the kinematic acceleration of the UAV from the total acceleration of the UAV to obtain an effective gravitational acceleration,
perform frequency filtering on the effective gravitational acceleration by applying a low pass filter to determine a low-frequency region of the effective gravitational acceleration, and
determine a gravity anomaly based on the low-frequency region.
19. A method of gravity prospecting with an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), comprising:
measuring kinematic acceleration of the UAV using a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) satellite signal and a Real-time Kinematic (RTK)-GNSS base station correction factor signal;
measuring gravitational acceleration in a body frame (b-frame) of the UAV with a gravity sensor;
associating the kinematic acceleration with the gravitational acceleration; and
isolating a gravity anomaly signal in the gravitational acceleration using the kinematic acceleration.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claims 1 and 19 belong to a statutory category, namely they are process claims. Likewise, claim 11 is a system claim
Under Step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 is found to include at least one judicial exception, that being a mathematical concept and/or mental process. This can be seen in the claim limitation of “removing the kinematic acceleration of the UAV from the total acceleration of the UAV to obtain an effective gravitational acceleration; performing frequency filtering on the effective gravitational acceleration by applying a low pass filter to determine a low-frequency region of the effective gravitational acceleration; and determining a gravity anomaly based on the low-frequency region.”, which is the judicial exception of a mental process and/or a mathematical concept because it is merely a data evaluation including calculations, and/or judgements capable of being performed mentally.
Under Step 2A, prong 1, claim 11 is found to include at least one judicial exception, that being a mathematical concept and/or mental process. This can be seen in the claim limitation of “remove the kinematic acceleration of the UAV from the total acceleration of the UAV to obtain an effective gravitational acceleration, perform frequency filtering on the effective gravitational acceleration by applying a low pass filter to determine a low-frequency region of the effective gravitational acceleration, and determine a gravity anomaly based on the low-frequency region.”, which is the judicial exception of a mental process and/or a mathematical concept because it is merely a data evaluation including calculations, and/or judgements capable of being performed mentally.
Under Step 2A, prong 1, claim 19 is found to include at least one judicial exception, that being a mathematical concept and/or mental process. This can be seen in the claim limitation of “associating the kinematic acceleration with the gravitational acceleration; and isolating a gravity anomaly signal in the gravitational acceleration using the kinematic acceleration.”, which is the judicial exception of a mental process and/or a mathematical concept because it is merely a data evaluation including calculations, and/or judgements capable of being performed mentally.
Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
In addition to the abstract ideas recited in claim 1, the claimed method recites additional elements including “measuring total acceleration of a UAV during a gravity survey mission with a strapdown gravity sensor mounted to the UAV; receiving a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) satellite signal at the UAV; receiving a correction factor signal from a Real-time Kinematic (RTK)-GNSS base station at the UAV; obtaining kinematic acceleration of the UAV using the GNSS satellite signal and the correction factor signal;” (claims 1, 11, and 19) which are merely data gathering steps recited at a high level of generality and therefore merely amount to “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,”. The claims also recite or imply a “processor” (claims 1, 11, and 19) however the “processor” is recited at a high level of generality, e.g. Spec. [page 9-10, lines 13-22 & 1-14] describing a variety of different types of “processors” that may be used, and merely amounts to the use of computer technology as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or the use of “processors” to perform the predictions, that are otherwise abstract, is merely an attempt at limiting the abstract to a particular field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The generic data gathering, processing, and output steps, and other elements, are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed system. For instance, nothing is done with the determined gravity anomaly.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use, and/or merely insignificant extra-solution activity (claims 1, 8, and 15). Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and output, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, and electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document).
Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that claim 1, as well as claims 11 and 19, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-10, 12-18, and 20, merely further expand upon the algorithm/abstract idea and do not set forth further additional elements therefore these claims are found ineligible for the reasons described for independent claims 1, 11, and 19.
See Supreme court decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International, et al.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
9. Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gabell US 2019/0219733 in view of Childers et al. Airborne gravimeter: An investigation of filtering
With regards to claim 1, Gabell US 2019/0219733 teaches method of gravity prospecting with an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), comprising:
measuring total acceleration of a UAV during a gravity survey mission with a strapdown gravity sensor mounted to the UAV; (paragraph 0035, 0070, 0091)
receiving a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) satellite signal at the UAV; (paragraph 0016)
receiving a correction factor signal from a Real-time Kinematic (RTK)-GNSS base station at the UAV; (paragraph 0070)
obtaining kinematic acceleration of the UAV using the GNSS satellite signal and the correction factor signal; (paragraph 0029)
removing the kinematic acceleration of the UAV from the total acceleration of the UAV to obtain an effective gravitational acceleration; (paragraph 0070)
Gabell does not appear to explicitly disclose performing frequency filtering on the effective gravitational acceleration by applying a low pass filter to determine a low-frequency region of the effective gravitational acceleration; and determining a gravity anomaly based on the low-frequency region.
Childers et al. (Airborne gravimeter: An investigation of filtering) teaches performing frequency filtering on the effective gravitational acceleration by applying a low pass filter to determine a low-frequency region of the effective gravitational acceleration; and determining a gravity anomaly based on the low-frequency region. (abstract)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the Gabell invention to include the low pas filtering and anomaly detection taught by Childers et al. to arrive at the claimed invention as unlike all other gravity measurement methods, airborne gravimetry has the potential to recover an accurate gravity field any place on Earth. (introduction, lines 1-3)
With regards to claim 2, Gabell US 2019/0219733 teaches the gravity anomaly is below a ground surface. (Paragraph 0034)
With regards to claims 3 and 12, Gabell US 2019/0219733 teaches the strapdown gravity sensor is a gravimeter mounted in a body frame (b-frame) of the UAV, and wherein the gravimeter changes orientation with the UAV. (paragraphs 0015-0016)
With regards to claim 4, Gabell US 2019/0219733 teaches the measuring total acceleration includes transforming acceleration measured in the b-frame to acceleration in a navigation frame (n-frame). (paragraph 0005-0008)
With regards to claim 5, Gabell US 2019/0219733 teaches the GNSS satellite signal triggers the strapdown gravity sensor to measure the total acceleration. (paragraph 0008)
With regards to claim 6, Gabell US 2019/0219733 teaches removing the kinematic acceleration of the UAV from the total acceleration of the UAV comprises subtracting the kinematic acceleration from the total acceleration. (paragraph 0007)
With regards to claim 7, Gabell US 2019/0219733 discloses the claimed invention except for positional accuracy of equal to or less than 3 cm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a positional accuracy equal to or less than 3cm , since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With regards to claim 8, Gabell US 2019/0219733 teaches the GNSS satellite signal is GNSS-derived kinematic location and the correction factor signal include a correction factor, wherein the GNSS-derived kinematic location is corrected by the correction factor, and wherein the kinematic acceleration is obtained by double differentiating the GNSS-derived kinematic location corrected by the correction factor.
With regards to claims 9 and 17, Gabell US 2019/0219733 discloses the claimed invention except for a constant elevation between 0.05 m and 80 m above a ground surface. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a constant elevation between a particular range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With regards to claims 10 and 18, Gabell US 2019/0219733 discloses the claimed invention except for flying the UAV at a speed between 0 m/s and 60 m/s. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to fly the UAV at a speed between 0 m/s and 60 m/s , since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With regards to claim 11, Gabell US 2019/0219733 teaches system for gravity prospecting, comprising:
an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (paragraph 0035) including: a processor and a memory operably coupled to the processor, (Paragraph 0071& 0074)
a strapdown gravity sensor configured to measure total acceleration of the UAV during a
gravity survey mission, (paragraph 0035, 0070, 0091) and
a GNSS transceiver configured to receive a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) satellite signal and a correction factor signal and determine a kinematic acceleration of the UAV using the GNSS satellite signal and the correction factor signal; (paragraph 0070) and
a gravity data processing engine configured to:
remove the kinematic acceleration of the UAV from the total acceleration of the UAV to obtain an effective gravitational acceleration, (paragraph 0070)
Gabell does not appear to explicitly disclose performing frequency filtering on the effective gravitational acceleration by applying a low pass filter to determine a low-frequency region of the effective gravitational acceleration; and
determining a gravity anomaly based on the low-frequency region.
Childers et al. (Airborne gravimeter: An investigation of filtering) teaches performing frequency filtering on the effective gravitational acceleration by applying a low pass filter to determine a low-frequency region of the effective gravitational acceleration; and determining a gravity anomaly based on the low-frequency region. (abstract)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the Gabell invention to include the low pas filtering and anomaly detection taught by Childers et al. to arrive at the claimed invention as unlike all other gravity measurement methods, airborne gravimetry has the potential to recover an accurate gravity field any place on Earth. (introduction, lines 1-3)
With regards to claim 13, Gabell US 2019/0219733 teaches the gravity data processing engine is located on at least one of the UAV or a ground base station. (paragraph 0035)
With regards to claim 14, Gabell US 2019/0219733 teaches a GNSS satellite communicatively coupled to the GNSS transceiver and configured to transmit the GNSS satellite signal; and a Real-time Kinematic (RTK)-GNSS base station communicatively coupled to the GNSS satellite and configured to transmit the correction factor signal.
With regards to claim 15, Gabell US 2019/0219733 teaches the strapdown gravity sensor is not mounted on a stabilization platform. (Paragraph 0013)
With regards to claim 16, Gabell US 2019/0219733 teaches the strapdown gravity sensor uses the GNSS satellite signal to measure the total acceleration. (Paragraph 0008)
With regards to claim 19, Gabell US 2019/0219733 teaches method of gravity prospecting with an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), comprising:
measuring kinematic acceleration of the UAV using a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) satellite signal and a Real-time Kinematic (RTK)-GNSS base station correction factor signal; (paragraph 0070)
measuring gravitational acceleration in a body frame (b-frame) of the UAV with a gravity sensor; (paragraphs 0015-0016)
associating the kinematic acceleration with the gravitational acceleration; (paragraph 0070) and
isolating a gravity anomaly signal in the gravitational acceleration using the kinematic acceleration. (paragraph 0070)
With regards to claim 20, Gabell US 2019/0219733 teaches associating the kinematic acceleration with the gravitational acceleration comprises triggering the gravity sensor to measure the gravitational acceleration with the GNSS satellite signal. (paragraph 0007-0008)
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Humphrey et al. US 2006/0004519 teaches a method and system for synchronizing geophysical survey data.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADITYA S BHAT whose telephone number is (571)272-2270. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am-6pm.
13. 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.
14. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby Turner can be reached on 571-272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
15. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/ADITYA S BHAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 September 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights