DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 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.
Regarding claim 1, and similarly claims 12 and 19, the claim is rejected as being incomplete for omitting essential step(s) or an end result. The omitted step(s) is the step(s) wherein the claimed limitation is actually doing something tangible with the end result, i.e. the determined user’s absolute acceleration/deceleration is put to use or output a concrete result.
Other claims are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim(s).
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the system, method, and product for determining a user’s absolute acceleration/deceleration that is accomplished through a series of mental processes and/or mathematical operations. The claims also require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities (i.e. generic computer/processor is disclosed throughout Applicant’s specification. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all claims elements, both individually and in combination, are directed to the manipulation of data by a general purpose computer and/or performing by a person utilizing mathematical calculations. Thus, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217—18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75—77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices {Alice, 573 U.S. at 219—20, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas {Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594—95 (1978)); and mental processes {Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” {Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” {id. at 184 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267—68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour {Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Supreme Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 192 (“We view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract...is not accorded the protection of our patent laws,…and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent- eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].”” Id. ((alteration in the original) quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requiring] generic computer implementation fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of § 101. USPTO’s January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“Memorandum”). Under Step 2A of that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Analysis
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim 1 ( and its dependents) recites a method. Thus, the claim is a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 12 ( and its dependents) recites a system. Thus, the claim is a machine and/or manufacture, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 19 recites a product. Thus, the claim is a machine and/or manufacture, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One – Recitation of Judicial Exception
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, we evaluate whether the claims recites a judicial exception. For abstract ideas, Prong One represents a change as compared to prior guidance because we here determine whether the claim recites mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes.
Claim 1, and similarly claims 12 and 19, recites the steps of:
extracting Doppler rate measurements for each of said plurality of satellites by baseband signal processing from said received signals;
determining position coordinates of each of said plurality of satellites;
determining an acceleration/deceleration of each of said plurality of satellites;
determining said user's absolute position;
determining direction cosine vector projections for each of said plurality of satellites based on said position coordinates of said plurality of satellites, said acceleration/deceleration of said plurality of satellites, and said user's absolute position; and
determining said user's absolute acceleration/deceleration based on said direction cosine vector projections for each of said plurality of satellites and said Doppler rate measurements for each of said plurality of satellites.
The “extracting” steps may be performed by observing the received signal/data, generating the data based on the received signal which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation and evaluation.
The “determining” steps may be performed by evaluating the data based on the received signal which may be practically performed in the human mind and/or mathematical calculations using observation, evaluation, and judgment.
Therefore, such steps of as claimed in claims 1, 12, and 19 encompass processes that can be performed mentally and/or by mathematical operations; thus, fall within “mental processes” and/or “mathematical concepts” groupings of abstract ideas.
In addition, dependent claims 2-11 and 13-18 further claiming information gleaned from the mental processes and/or mathematical calculations.
Regarding claims 2-11 and 13-18, the further ‘steps’ as claimed may be practically performed in the human mind and/or mathematical calculations using observation, evaluation, and judgment.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-11 and 13-18 also falls within the “mental processes” and/or “mathematical concepts” groupings of abstract ideas.
Since the claims recite an abstract idea, the analysis proceeds to Prong Two to determine whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two – Practical Application
If a claim recites a judicial exception, in Prong Two we next determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not directed to the judicial exception. This evaluation requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The only additional elements of claim 1, and similarly claims 12 and 19 is “receiving received signals from a plurality of satellites”. These limitations, at a high-level of generality, merely recites data gathering steps for further analyzing/determining steps. As such, it amounts to no more than insignificant extra--solution activity to the judicial exception. In addition, the GNSS receiver, the inertial navigation sensor, and/or an integrated GNSS/inertial sensor navigation system as claimed in claim 5 and 18 are operating in a known manner which simply provide what all the GNSS receiver, the inertial navigation sensor, and/or an integrated GNSS/inertial sensor navigation system provide. They also act only for data communicating, gathering, and do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are no more than insignificant extra--solution activity to the judicial exception. Further, claims 1-19 require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all claims elements, both individually and in combination, are directed to the manipulation of data by a general purpose computer and/or performing by a person. Accordingly, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Step 2B – Inventive Concept
For Step 2B of the analysis, it is determined whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, convention” in the field.
As stated above, claims 1-19 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Since this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements amount to no more than data gathering steps and mental processes. Merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide an inventive concept.
The courts have considered the following examples to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 are allowed over prior art. However, 35 USC 112(b) and 35 USC 101 rejections must be overcome.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2023/0228850 discloses radio frequency signal processing and more particularly to a signal processing technique for extracting Doppler shift information from cyclostationary features of radio frequency signals propagating from moving sources, such as orbiting satellites. The receiver captures an electromagnetic transmission carrying a bauded signal, such as a transmission from an orbiting satellite, and processes it for Doppler shift analysis. The electromagnetic transmission is captured and a non-linear operation is performed to expose a cyclostationary feature of the captured transmission that will define a rate-line. This rate-line will exist at a frequency that is related to the bauded signal and Doppler shift relative to the motion of the transmitter to the receiver. The rate-line frequency is tracked in time to generate data indicative of a Doppler shift associated with the satellite and processed by an estimator fed by satellite propagator to supply positioning, navigation and timing services at the receiver output.
US 9,019,155 discloses a global positioning system (GPS) and Doppler augmentation (GDAUG) end receiver (GDER) can include a GDAUG module. The GDAUG module can generate a GDER position using a time of flight (TOF) of a transponded GPS signal and a Doppler shift in a GDAUG satellite (GSAT) signal. The transponded GPS signal sent from a GSAT to the GDER can include a frequency shifted copy of a GPS signal from a GPS satellite to the GSAT. The GSAT signal can include a signal generated by the GSAT to the GDER.
US 8,125,378 discloses systems and methods for providing GPS positioning determinations from a single set of Doppler measurements from a plurality of satellites in conjunction with satellite ephemeris data and a rough GPS time estimate. Measured Doppler velocities are compared with Doppler velocities calculated from ephemeris data and used to estimate the receiver position.
US 9,075,139 discloses a satellite signal tracking method performed by a receiver that receives a satellite signal from a positioning satellite, the satellite signal tracking method including: computing a first Doppler frequency using a received signal obtained by receiving the satellite signal, computing a second Doppler frequency using the first Doppler frequency and a signal from the sensor unit including at least an acceleration sensor, and acquiring the satellite signal using the second Doppler frequency.
US 7,133,772 discloses a method and apparatus for locating position of a satellite signal receiver. In one example, a Doppler offset for each of a plurality of satellite signals relative to the satellite signal receiver is determined at a first time. A position of the satellite signal receiver is then computed using the Doppler offset for each of the plurality of satellite signals. In another example, at least one pseudorange between the satellite signal receiver and a respective at least one satellite is determined. At least one Doppler offset for a respective at least one satellite signal relative to the satellite signal receiver is also determined. A position of the satellite signal receiver is computed using the at least one pseudorange and the at least one Doppler offset.
US 6,424,915 discloses a system for determining the heading and/or attitude of a body receives radio waves from a plurality of position-fixing satellites using at least three antennas fixedly mounted at different positions of the body. To reliably obtain integer ambiguity solutions of carrier phases of the radio waves in a shorter time, the system directly determines integer ambiguities from attitude angle data obtained by an IMU attitude processing section when the integer ambiguities are to be redetermined in the event of an interruption of the received radio waves or a change in the combination of satellites to be used. This system provides a user with highly accurate uninterrupted heading and/or attitude angle information.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUONG P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 10:00-10:00 EST.
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, JACK KEITH can be reached at (571) 272-6878. 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.
/CHUONG P NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights