DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a mental process without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a method for verifying a location by using simulated location data. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons.
The revised patent eligibility guidelines requires a two-prong analysis under step 2A. In prong one, it is determined that the claimed limitations are directed to a mental process. For example:
generating a sequence of simulated location data for a plurality of simulated sources for a simulated actual location (conceiving data to represent a location);
modifying the sequence of simulated location data based on an error probability for each of the plurality of simulated sources (nullifying the data; see specification paragraph 28);
setting an expected source selection from the plurality of simulated sources (choosing a data from the set);
in response to the actual source selection matching the expected source selection, labelling the sequence of simulated location data as a verified selection by the source selection mechanism (labeling the data based on a logical comparison); and
in response to the actual source selection failing to match the expected source selection, labelling the sequence of simulated location data as an anomalous selection by the source selection mechanism (labeling the data based on a logical comparison)
are all steps of a mental process that can be practiced by a person using pen and paper. In prong two, it is determined whether any additional elements rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The additional elements to the abstract method are as follows: employing a source selection mechanism on the sequence of simulated location data to determine an actual source selection that represents the simulated actual location. The source selection mechanism serves to select a data from the set and label it an actual source selection. Selecting a particular data source to be manipulated is considered insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05g). Therefore, these additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application.
The dependent claims do not remedy the rejection for the following reasons. The dependent claims are directed to updating the source selection (making additional decisions based on a label); selecting particular data according to a criterion; and nullifying data; all of which may be evaluated using a mental process.
In step 2B, an evaluation is made as to whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the exception itself. The analysis is the same as laid out in step 2A above, and therefore the conclusion is the same: claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran et al (US Pat. Pub. 2023/0189024; hereinafter referred to as Tran) in view of Huang et al (US Pat. Pub. 2011/0077862; hereinafter referred to as Huang).
As per claim 1: Tran teaches a method, comprising:
generating a sequence of simulated location data for a plurality of simulated sources for a simulated actual location (Fig. 4, 402; paragraph 64);
setting an expected source selection from the plurality of simulated sources (Fig. 4, 404);
employing a source selection mechanism on the sequence of simulated location data to determine an actual source selection that represents the simulated actual location (Fig. 4, 406);
in response to the actual source selection matching the expected source selection, labelling the sequence of simulated location data as a verified selection by the source selection mechanism (Fig. 4, 408; paragraph 60, location within predetermined threshold); and
in response to the actual source selection failing to match the expected source selection, labelling the sequence of simulated location data as an anomalous selection by the source selection mechanism (Fig. 4, 408; paragraph 60, location not within predetermined threshold).
Not explicitly disclosed is modifying the sequence of simulated location data based on an error probability for each of the plurality of simulated sources. However, Huang in an analogous art teaches modifying candidate map location data based on an error probability of the location being the actual location (paragraph 44; Equation 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to calculate probabilities of locations and assign weights as done by Huang. This modification would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because it would have highlighted the most likely correct location, as explained in Huang.
As per claim 4:
Tran further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein setting the expected source selection from the plurality of simulated sources comprises: selecting a first source from the plurality of simulated sources as having an optimal simulated horizontal location uncertainty for the sequence of simulated location data (paragraph 34; first accuracy in horizontal direction); and selecting a second source from the plurality of simulated sources as having an optimal simulated vertical location uncertainty for the sequence of simulated location data, wherein the second source is different from the first source (paragraph 34; first accuracy in vertical direction).
As per claim 5: Tran further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein setting the expected source selection from the plurality of simulated sources comprises: selecting, from the plurality of simulated sources, a simulated source associated with the simulated location data that meets one or more location-accuracy compliance requirements (paragraph 34; meets predefined threshold).
Claim(s) 2-3, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran in view of Huang in view of Messer et al (US Pat. Pub. 2008/0256097; hereinafter referred to as Messer).
As per claim 2: Tran et al teach the method of claim 1. Not explicitly disclosed is further comprising: updating the source selection mechanism based on the sequence being labeled anomalous. However, Messer in an analogous art teaches a source selection method that is updated (Fig. 4, 50-54) based on a location data being labeled anomalous (Fig. 4, 48 No).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement the alternative source selection of Messer in the system of Tran et al. This modification would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because it would have provided further means for determining a location without requiring the use of physical sensors, and at various levels of granularity to further enhance location-aware applications (paragraph 17).
As per claim 3:
Tran et al teach the method of claim 1. Not explicitly disclosed is further comprising: updating the source selection mechanism based on the labelling of the sequence of simulated location data. However, Messer in an analogous art teaches a source selection method that is updated (Fig. 4, 50-54) based on a location data being labeled anomalous (Fig. 4, 48 No).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement the alternative source selection of Messer in the system of Tran et al. This modification would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because it would have provided further means for determining a location, as shown by Messer.
As per claim 10: Tran et al teach the system of claim 9. Not explicitly disclosed is wherein the location source selection testing system is further configured to: modify the sequence of simulated location data based on an error probability for each of the plurality of simulated sources. However, Huang in an analogous art teaches modifying candidate map location data based on an error probability of the location being the actual location (paragraph 44; Equation 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to calculate probabilities of locations and assign weights as done by Huang. This modification would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because it would have highlighted the most likely correct location, as explained in Huang.
Claim(s) 9, 13, 14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran in view of Messer.
As per claim 9:
Tran teaches a system, comprising:
a sequence of simulated location data for a plurality of simulated sources for a simulated actual location (Fig. 4, 402; paragraph 64);
a location source selection testing system configured to:
generate the sequence of simulated location data for the plurality of simulated sources for the simulated actual location (Fig. 4, 402; paragraph 64);
assign an expected source selection from the plurality of simulated sources for the sequence of simulated location data (Fig. 4, 404);
provide the sequence of simulated location data to the location source selection system (paragraph 64);
receive the actual source selection from the location source selection system in response to the location source selection system employing the source selection mechanism on the sequence of simulated location data (paragraph 60, estimated location which is compared to the simulated location);
in response to the actual source selection matching the expected source selection, label the sequence of simulated location data as a verified selection by the source selection mechanism (Fig. 4, 408; paragraph 60, location within predetermined threshold); and
in response to the actual source selection failing to match the expected source selection, label the sequence of simulated location data as an anomalous selection by the source selection mechanism (Fig. 4, 408; paragraph 60, location not within predetermined threshold).
Not explicitly disclosed is a location source selection system configured to: employ a source selection mechanism on the sequence of simulated location data for a plurality of simulated sources to determine an actual source selection that represents a simulated actual location. However, Messer in an analogous art teaches using a source selection mechanism (paragraph 26; Fig. 4) on a sequence of location data (Fig. 2, 26) to determine an actual source selection that represents an actual location (Fig. 4, 48-49).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the source selection mechanism of Messer with the system of Tran. This modification would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because it would have provided further means for determining a location without requiring the use of physical sensors, and at various levels of granularity to further enhance location-aware applications (paragraph 17).
As per claim 13:
Tran further teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the location source selection testing system assigns the expected source selection for the sequence of simulated location data by being further configured to: select a first source from the plurality of simulated sources as having an optimal simulated horizontal location uncertainty for the sequence of simulated location data (paragraph 34; first accuracy in horizontal direction); and select a second source from the plurality of simulated sources as having an optimal simulated vertical location uncertainty for the sequence of simulated location data, wherein the second source is different from the first source (paragraph 34; first accuracy in vertical direction).
As per claim 14:
Tran further teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the location source selection testing system assigns the expected source selection for the sequence of simulated location data by being further configured to: select, from the plurality of simulated sources, a simulated source associated with the simulated location data that meets one or more location-accuracy compliance requirements (paragraph 34; meets predefined threshold).
As per claim 16:
Messer further teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the location source selection system is further configured to: update the source selection mechanism (Fig. 4, 50-54) based on the sequence being labeled anomalous (Fig. 4, 48 No).
As per claim 17: Messer further teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the location source selection system is further configured to: update the source selection mechanism (Fig. 4, 50-54) based on a location data being labeled anomalous (Fig. 4, 48 No).
As per claim 18:
Tran teaches a computing device, comprising:
a memory configured to store computer instructions (Fig. 6, 604); and
a processor system configured to execute the computer instructions (Fig. 6, 602) to:
generate a plurality of sequences of simulated location data for a plurality of simulated sources, wherein each corresponding sequence of the plurality of sequences includes a plurality of simulated location data for a corresponding simulated actual location (Fig. 4, 402; paragraph 64);
for each corresponding sequence of the plurality of sequences:
set an expected source selection from the plurality of simulated sources for the corresponding sequence (Fig. 4, 404);
obtain an actual source selection that represents the corresponding simulated actual location for the corresponding sequence (paragraph 60, estimated location which is compared to the simulated location); and
in response to the actual source selection for the corresponding sequence failing to match the expected source selection for the corresponding sequence, label the corresponding sequence of simulated location data as an anomalous selection by the source selection mechanism (Fig. 4, 408; paragraph 60, location not within predetermined threshold).
Not explicitly disclosed is obtaining an actual source selection in response to employment of a source selection mechanism on the corresponding sequence of simulated location data. However, Messer in an analogous art teaches using a source selection mechanism (paragraph 26; Fig. 4) on a sequence of location data (Fig. 2, 26) to determine an actual source selection that represents an actual location (Fig. 4, 48-49).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the source selection mechanism of Messer with the system of Tran. This modification would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because it would have provided further means for determining a location without requiring the use of physical sensors, and at various levels of granularity to further enhance location-aware applications (paragraph 17).
As per claim 19: Messer further teaches the computing device of claim 18, wherein the processor system is configured to further execute the computer instructions to: update the source selection mechanism (Fig. 4, 50-54) based on at least one sequence being labeled anomalous (Fig. 4, 48 No).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is directed to location determination and simulation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7214. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Mark Featherstone can be reached at 571-270-3750. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVE N NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2111