02DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
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 the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on March 22, 2024. Claims 1 – 24 are pending and examined below.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure .
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
The Applicant is reminded that the abstract should be a statement that meets the range of 50 to 150 words. 37 CFR 1.72 requires that the abstract may not exceed 150 words. The current abstract is 171 words, and consequently exceeds the abstract requirement.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
In claims 1 – 4, the limitation “ubiquitous localization solution” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “solution” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
a. a ubiquitous localization solution (ULS) in claims 1 - 4
Since these limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, they are being 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.
An ubiquitous localization solution is a component within a control unit illustrated in Figure 10 and as explained in [0010] of the disclosure. Fig. 10 illustrates wherein when there is a systemic error with GNSS providing position data to a vehicle, aerial imagery comprising high-resolution images relative to ground sample distances are used to reconcile and/or establish truth in the vehicle position. [0010] of the disclosure further denotes that “the ubiquitous localization solution (ULS) utilizes Aerial Imagery datasets as a reference for localization. These datasets consist of high-resolution images captured at a Ground Sample Distance (GSD) of 7-15cm or 15-30cm. This GSD provides enough detail for the system to accurately determine the position of a vehicle or device”.
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.
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 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 claims 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 § 101
8. 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 – 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
35 U.S.C. § 101 –Analysis – Step 1
Claims 2 and 4 are directed to methods of calculating and/or ascertaining a geolocation and/or position (i.e., a process). Claims 1 and 3 are system claims with instructions executed by a processor (i.e. an article of manufacture). Claim 16 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium with instructions executed by a processor (i.e. an article of manufacture). Therefore, claims 1 - 4 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
35 U.S.C. § 101 – Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, 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. See MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
A claim does not recite a mental process when it contains limitation(s) that cannot practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitation(s).
Independent claim 4 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below in bold) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejections. Claim 4 recites:
A method for creating a real-time map, comprising:
collecting geospatial data from a dual-purpose vehicle equipped with a 3D geospatial mapping kit;
determining a precise location of the dual-purpose vehicle using a ubiquitous localization solution (ULS) and aerial imagery datasets [recites an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes. (Observation, Evaluation, Judgement, Opinion)];
processing the collected geospatial data and the precise location using a map generation module to
create a real-time map representation of the environment. [Recites an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes. (Observation, Evaluation, Judgement, Opinion)]
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, “determining…” in the context of this claim encompasses those person(s) applying observations, evaluations, and judgment to calculate and/or ascertain a geolocation and/or position of the vehicle and “creating…” generating in the context of this claim encompasses applying observations, evaluations, and judgment to produce a map visualization of the environment. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
35 U.S.C. § 101 – 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 idea 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 (application) activity and post-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”):
A method for creating a real-time map, comprising:
collecting geospatial data from a dual-purpose vehicle equipped with a 3D geospatial mapping kit [pre-solution activity (data gathering) using generic sensors];
determining a precise location of the dual-purpose vehicle using a ubiquitous localization solution (ULS) and aerial imagery datasets [recites an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes. (Observation, Evaluation, Judgement, Opinion)];
processing the collected geospatial data and the precise location using a map generation module to
create a real-time map representation of the environment. [Recites an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes. (Observation, Evaluation, Judgement, Opinion)]
For the following reasons, 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 “collecting…” means acquiring, geospatial information / data, but nevertheless does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above. The Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (i.e. the claimed processor) to perform the process.
In particular, the collecting 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 geospatial of the vehicle within the environment, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the execution of the instructions by the ”processor” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of forecasting information based on a determined amount of use) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra solution (application) activity and post-solution activity that merely comprise an insignificant application of the results of acquiring data from generic / conventional sensors and computer components. Lastly, the “vehicle controller” (i.e. the one or more processors) merely describes applying the abstract idea using generic computer components.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations 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 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 limitations do NOT integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
35 U.S.C. § 101 – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 4 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) 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 vehicle processor (computer) controller to perform the “determining…” in the context of this claim encompasses those person(s) applying observations, evaluations, and judgment to calculate and/or ascertain a geolocation and/or position of the vehicle and “creating…” generating in the context of this claim encompasses applying observations, evaluations, and judgment to produce a map visualization of the environment… amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component and performing insignificant application of the results of the mental process. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
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.
Using additional sensors and using generic computers to perform determining and calculating steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities of automating a mental process, because the background recites conventional sensors and the vehicle controller is a conventional computer within a vehicle, 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, LLC v. 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.
Dependent claims 5 – 9. 21 and 23; 10 – 14, 22, and 24; and 15 – 17; and 18 - 20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims 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. Specifically, claims 5 – 9. 21 and 23; 10 – 14, 22, and 24; and 15 – 17; and 18 - 20 merely further define the “determining” ~ triangulating the precise location of the dual-purpose vehicle by cross-matching geospatial data” steps; i.e. further define the mental process. Therefore, it can clearly be seen that dependent claims 5 – 9. 21 and 23; 10 – 14, 22, and 24; and 15 – 17; and 18 - 20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1 - 4.
Therefore, claims 1 – 24 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to ASHLEY L. REDHEAD, JR. whose telephone number is (571) 272 - 6952. The Examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Thursday, between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, Peter Nolan can be reached Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at (571) 270 – 7016. 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.
/ASHLEY L REDHEAD JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661