Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA 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 .
2. This Office Action is an answer to a communication on 3/27/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
3. Applicant filed an IDS on 3/27/2024; it is considered.
Claimed Interpretations
4. Examiner notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
5. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) 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 (e.g., for BRI, “a strapdown navigation processor” (e.g., in claims 1, 11, and 20) is interpreted as a general circuit/unit/processor to perform a claimed function/feature of “method” claim 11; a “platform” is merely an object. 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.
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.
6. Claims 1, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more
A. 101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1, 11 and 20 are directed to a system (i.e., a structure), a method (a process), and a medium. Therefore, the claims are 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 claims 1, 11, and 20 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized with bold-face terms) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A system comprising:
a vehicle platform/ship of an underwater vehicle;
a model based navigation system for vehicle dynamics modeling navigation of the underwater vehicle, the model based navigation system comprising:
a set of inertial sensors coupled to the vehicle platform, the inertial sensors configured to generate inertial sensor data for the vehicle platform;
at least one processor/co-processor including a strapdown navigation processor that is operative to receive the inertial sensor data from the inertial sensors, the strapdown navigation processor hosting a navigation and sea state model, wherein a navigation solution is computed by the strapdown navigation processor;
a set of platform input sensors that are configured to receive platform input data for the vehicle platform, the platform input to sensors configured generate platform input measurements that are indicative of forces acting on the vehicle platform (e.g., a weight of tether and sonar arrays);
a vehicle physics model configured to receive the platform input measurements from the platform input sensors, the vehicle physics model operative to perform calculations utilizing dynamics equations for a rigid body corresponding to the vehicle platform (this limitation relates to a mathematical relationship; a judicial exception);
a propagator-estimator filter configured to receive vehicle data output from the vehicle physics model, the propagator-estimator filter operative to compute navigation corrections that are sent the strapdown navigation processor in a feedback arrangement; and
at least one depth sensor configured to determine depth measurements for the vehicle platform, wherein the propagator-estimator filter is configured to receive the depth measurements from the at least one depth sensor; and
a tethered platform releasably coupled to the vehicle platform and in operative communication with the model based navigation system, the tethered platform comprising:
at least one aiding source configured to determine position and velocity
measurements that are transmitted to the model based navigation system for
processing in the propagator-estimator filter;
wherein the navigation solution computed by the strapdown navigation processor is sent to a vehicle control system for use in navigating the vehicle platform.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mathematical concept” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation with a calculation. Specifically, the “solution” step encompasses a generic calculation/computation of related values. Finally, the determining depth step encompasses an estimating step was performed. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
B. 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 strapdown navigation processor 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 “determining”/judgement (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”); the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
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.
C. 101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 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: “the navigation solution computed by the strapdown navigation processor is sent to a vehicle control system for use in navigating the vehicle platform.”
This limitation amounts to nothing more than mere steps/instructions to apply the exception using a generic processor for an output. Mere steps/instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer/component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim 1 is not patent eligible.
D. Method, and product claims 11, and 20 comprise similar limitations as in claim 1; therefore, similar rationales are also applied for 35 USC §101 rejections.
E. Dependent claims 2-10, and 12-19 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 . Therefore, dependent claims 2-10, and 12-19 are not patent eligible under the same rationales as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1, and 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC§ 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
7. Claims 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. These below claims’ limitations comprise unclear structure and step.
A. Per dependent claim 10: The system of claim 1, wherein the navigation solution computed by the strapdown navigation processor is a machine learning enhanced, vehicle dynamics modeling navigation solution.
B. Per dependent claim 19: The method of claim 11, wherein the updated navigation solution computed by the strapdown navigation processor is a machine learning enhanced, vehicle dynamics modeling navigation solution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-6, 8-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pastor (US Pub. 20240210171 A1), in view of Banbrook et al (US Pat. 5640325 A), and in view of Rider et al (US Pub. 20240069058 A1).
A, Per independent claims 1, 11, and 20: Pastor suggests a system, an associated method, and an implemented program product; comprising:
a vehicle platform/ship of an underwater vehicle (see Pastor, FIG. 1);
a model based navigation system for vehicle dynamics modeling navigation of the underwater vehicle (see Pator, FIG.3), the model based navigation system comprising:
a set of inertial sensors coupled to the vehicle platform, the inertial sensors generate inertial sensor data for the vehicle platform (see Pator, para. [0058], claim 11).
Pastor does not disclose a strapdown navigation processor; however, Banbrook suggests a strapdown gyro and accelerometer to perform a function of a navigation processor: a processor/co-processor including a strapdown navigation processor to receive the inertial sensor data, the strapdown navigation processor hosting a navigation and sea state model, wherein a navigation solution is computed by the strapdown navigation processor (see Banbrook, col. 5 lines 27-65); and a set of platform input sensors that receive platform input data for the vehicle platform, the platform input sensors configured to generate platform input measurements that are indicative of forces acting on the vehicle platform (e.g., from a weight of tether and from sonar arrays);
Pastor, and Banbrook do not disclose different models of a vehicle for simulations; however, Rider suggests a vehicle physics model to receive the platform input measurements from the platform input sensors, the vehicle physics model operative to perform calculations utilizing dynamics equations for a rigid body corresponding to the vehicle platform (see Rider et al. para. [0012], [0032]);
It has been understood to have a filter in a circuit to receive data output from the vehicle physics model, those data are sent the strapdown navigation processor in a feedback arrangement (see Banbrook, col. 5 lines 457-65); and
Banbrook also suggests that a depth measurement for the vehicle platform, wherein a generic filter used (see Banbrook col. 2 line 61 to col. 3 line 16).
Pastor also discloses a tethered platform releasably coupled to the vehicle platform and in operative communication with the model based navigation system (see Pastor, FIG. 1), the tethered platform comprising position and velocity measurements are transmitted to the model for processing using a filter (e.g., various data are fed via a tether, see Pastor, FIG. 1, and para. [0098]);
the navigation solution computed by the strapdown navigation processor is sent to a vehicle control system for use in navigating the vehicle platform (see Rider, para. [0178]).
It 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 to combine disclosures of Pastor, Banbrook, and Rider because they are in the same field of endeavor: navigating a towing vessel efficiently from different simulated models via sensing underwater data.
B. Per dependent claims 2, and 12: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Pastor suggests a top surface floating apparatus that is attached by a tether to the vehicle platform (see Pastor, FIG. 1, para. [0034]) (see an extra example of WO2011012877A2: e.g., using a tether for a ship with a tow-fish).
PNG
media_image1.png
564
765
media_image1.png
Greyscale
C. Per dependent claims 3, and 13: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 2 are incorporated.
Pastor suggests a top surface floating apparatus track and follow the vehicle platform to minimize drag on the tether to reduce any resistance that may costing a vessel’s extra energy during navigation (see Pastor, para. [0034], see also another example in CN 110208812A, the abstract, and FIG. 1).
D. Per dependent claims 4, and 14: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Pastor suggests a tethered platform includes a top surface floating apparatus that is coupled by a first tether to a lower underwater motorized apparatus (see above “a tow-fish”) to track and to follow the vehicle platform (e.g., a ship drags a tow-fish, see Pastor, para. [0015], [0034]).
E. Per dependent claims 5, and 15: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 4 are incorporated.
Pastor suggests a lower underwater motorized apparatus is releasably coupled to the vehicle platform by a “second” tether (e.g., “ one or more acoustic side-scan sonars can be provided on a platform, housing, etc., that is connected to a vessel via one or more cables or tethers.” see Pastor, para. [0003]).
F. Per dependent claim 6: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Pastor suggests at least one aiding source comprises a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver (see Pastor, para. [0090]).
G. Per dependent claim 8: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Banbrook also suggests using a Kalman filter (see Banbrook, col. 4 lines 36-54).
H. Per dependent claims 9, and 17: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Rider suggests about updating navigation data including filtered state estimates (see Rider et al para. [0149]).
I. Per dependent claims 10, and 19: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Pastor also suggests the coprocessor/strapdown navigation processor using a machine learning model (see Pastor, para. [0029], see also Rider para. [0032]).
J. Per method claim 11: Applicant claims “a step” that a vehicle platform is released from the tethered platform to conduct underwater operations when training of the model based navigation system meets a certain condition or a specific intention) a threshold level of accuracy.
This claimed step of “when training of the model based navigation system meets a certain condition or a specific intention) a threshold level of accuracy” is merely a step of applying a download of related data models; Rider FIG. 1 applying different DYNAMIC MODEL 105 for further application after fully downloading those models..
10. Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pastor, in view of Banbrook, in view of Rider, further in view of Rooney III (US 20110282536 A1).
The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Rider also suggests the vehicle physics model is operative to receive vehicle state estimates from a processor (see Rider, para. [0142]); and
Banbrook teaches that the vehicle data output from the vehicle physics model (see Banbrook, col. 4 lines 37-54, and col. 5 lines 54-59) comprises variable data but not disclosing those data are acceleration and angular rate measurements; however, Rooney discloses these data (see Rooney III, Fig.9 para. [0084], [0085]).
It 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 to combine disclosures of Pastor, Banbrook, and Rider with Rooney III because these data reflect real acceleration and angular rate measurements during navigation.
Conclusion
12. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cuong H Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-6759 (email address is cuong.nguyen@uspto.gov). The examiner can normally be reached on M - F: 9:30AM- 5:30PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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, Bendidi Rachid can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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 PATER. 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 S71-272- 1000.
/CUONG H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664