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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-40 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on merits.
Information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed and reviewed by examiner.
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. 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. Such claim limitation(s) are: “a computing device”, “a compute platform configured to…” in claims 12-20, corresponding structure for the computing device and a compute platform is found on paragraph 0017 of the specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph
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 1-40 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.
In claim 1 line 6, the recited limitation “and data from directional sensor including the bearing data”. It is unclear to the examiner if the bearing data is received from the directional sensor or is this the bearing data received from an inertial measurement unit.
In claim 3 line 8, the recited limitation of “if the multi-source reckoning system determines that the GPS is unavailable or unreliable” is indefinite. The “if” statement does not necessitate the limitation in the claim. Examiner suggest amending the claim to recite “when” instead of “if”.
In claim 11 line 18, the recited limitation of “if the multi-source reckoning system determines that the GPS is unavailable or unreliable” is indefinite. The “if” statement does not necessitate the limitation in the claim. Examiner suggest amending the claim to recite “when” instead of “if”.
In claims 17 and 19, the recited limitation “the inertial measurement unit” is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 20 line 2, the recited limitation “the difference vector” is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 21 line 6, the recited limitation “the bearing data” is indefinite. It is unclear to the examiner if the bearing data is received from the directional sensor or is this the bearing data received from an inertial measurement unit.
In claim 23 line 6, the recited limitation of “if the multi-source reckoning system determines that the GPS is unavailable or unreliable” is indefinite. The “if” statement does not necessitate the limitation in the claim. Examiner suggest amending the claim to recite “when” instead of “if”.
In claim 30 line 2, the recited limitation “the difference vector” is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 31 line 9, the recited limitation “the bearing data” is indefinite. It is unclear to the examiner if the bearing data is received from the directional sensor or is this the bearing data received from an inertial measurement unit. Further in line 22, the recited limitation of “if the multi-source reckoning system determines that the GPS is unavailable or unreliable” is indefinite. The “if” statement does not necessitate the limitation in the claim. Examiner suggest amending the claim to recite “when” instead of “if”.
In claim 40 line 2, the recited limitation “the difference vector” is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2, 4-10, 12-16, 18-19, 22, 24-29, and 32-39 are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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 1-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
101 Analysis
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1).
If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception.
Claims 1-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category
The independent claims are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a process and machine respectively, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. The independent claims recite determining, whether the GPS location data is in consensus with a previous derived multi-source reckoning system location; and determining, a derived multi-source reckoning system location from a distance between the previous derived multi-source reckoning system location and a new location. These limitation(s), as drafted, is (are) a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “a computing device”. The claim limitations encompass a person looking at different types of data such as GPS data, distance data, and previous derived system locations data could determine whether GPS data is in consensus with previous derived system location, and determine, a derived multi-source reckoning system location from a distance between the previous derived multi-source reckoning system location and a new location. The mere nominal recitation of “a computing device” does not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental process grouping and merely function to automate the generating steps. Thus, the claims recite a mental process. (step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial exception recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
The independent claims recite the additional limitations/elements of receiving, by the computing device, data from an inertial measurement unit, including GPS data, velocity data, and bearing data; receiving, by the computing device, data from a speed sensor, including the velocity data and distance data, and data from a directional sensor including the bearing data, velocity, and distance data; correcting, by the computing device, the derived multi-source reckoning system location using a computed predicted error; displaying, on a user interface a GPS fix icon and a different multi-source reckoning system fix (MSRS fix) icon, the GPS fix icon indicating the GPS location and the MSRS fix icon indicating the new location, the GPS fix icon and the MSRS fix icon are spaced apart from each on the user interface to show a degree of certainty of positioning to a user, wherein, only the MSRS fix icon is displayed on the user interface and not the GPS fix icon if the multi-source reckoning system determines that the GPS is unavailable or unreliable; a computing device, inertial measurement unit, directional sensor; and a compute platform. The receiving steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. receiving/capturing various data (IMU data, GPS data, velocity data, bearing data, etc.) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The correcting and displaying steps/elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the generating step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The sensors and inertial measurement unit are recited at a high level of generality (claimed generically) and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim(s) is/are not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitation(s) a computing device, inertial measurement unit, directional sensor; and a compute platform are recited at a high level of generality and merely function to automate the generating steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No).
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element/limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving, correcting, and displaying steps were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that these steps are performed by anything other than conventional components performing the conventional activity (steps) of the claim. 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 (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-20, 22-30, and 32-40 do not include any other additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the Claims 1-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper time-wise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp
Claims 1-40 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of application No. 17579251 filed on 01/19/2022 now patent No.12078738 and claims 1-20 of application No. 17698938 filed on 03/18/2022, now U.S. patents No. 11506797). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. For example, the independent claim 1 of the instant application is seemingly the simple mapping to claim limitations of claim 1 of the related applications. Another example, dependent claim 2 or independent claim 11 is seemingly the simple mapping to claim limitations of claim 1 of the related application 17579251 and claim limitation of claim 12. The breadth of the instant application claims (e.g. claims 1, 11, 21, and 31) would read on the narrow claims as shown below. These changes, in view of the related application, would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over the related application and the corresponding claims they are contained within.
Furthermore, the same analysis applies to the dependent claims 2-10, 12-20, 22-30, and 32-40 of the instant application which are seemingly the simple mapping to claim limitations of related applications and are obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over the related applications.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 21-22, and 24-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moskowitz et al (US 20210063162 A1) in view of Jose et al (US 20180188382 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Moskowitz teaches a method for dynamically computing a derived multi-source reckoning system location (see at least [abstract]), the method comprising: receiving, by a computing device, data from an inertial measurement unit (see at least [0240] and [0262]), including GPS location data (see at least [0217] and [0268]), velocity data (see at least [0240] and [0262]), and bearing data (see at least [0369] and [0389]); receiving, by the computing device, data from a speed sensor (see at least [0071], [0083], [0142], and [0240]), including the velocity data and distance data (see at least [0071], [0083], [0142], [0240], and [0270-0272]), and data from a directional sensor including the bearing data (see at least [0369] and [0389]); and correcting, by the computing device, the derived multi-source reckoning system location using a computed predicted error (see at least [0007], [0333], [0349-0351], and [0359-0369]).
However, Moskowitz do not specifically disclose determining, by the computing device, whether the GPS location data is in consensus with a previous derived multi-source reckoning system location; determining, by the computing device, a derived multi-source reckoning system location from a distance between the previous derived multi-source reckoning system location and a new location.
Jose teaches determining, by the computing device, whether the GPS location data is in consensus with a previous derived multi-source reckoning system location (see at least [0077], [0100], and [0112]); determining, by the computing device, a derived multi-source reckoning system location from a distance between the previous derived multi-source reckoning system location and a new location (see at least [0077], [0100], and [0112]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Moskowitz, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Jose of determining, by the computing device, whether the GPS location data is in consensus with a previous derived multi-source reckoning system location; determining, by the computing device, a derived multi-source reckoning system location from a distance between the previous derived multi-source reckoning system location and a new location. This would be done to reduce errors that may persist in the combination (or “fusion) of VIO and GNSS data for position determination (see Jose para 0009).
With respect to claim 2, Moskowitz discloses wherein the predicted error is computed with a hybrid deep learning model (see at least [0081, [0141], and [0144]).
With respect to claim 4, Moskowitz discloses wherein the speed sensor is a Doppler sensor (see at least [0377]).
With respect to claim 5, Moskowitz discloses wherein the directional sensor is a digital magnetic compass (see at least [0389]).
With respect to claim 6, Moskowitz discloses wherein the new location is derived using an archaversine approach based on at least the previous derived multi-source reckoning system location (see at least [0270-0271]).
With respect to claim 7, Moskowitz discloses wherein the new location is derived using at least one of a consensus distance value and a consensus heading value, the consensus data value and the consensus heading value are both determined based on a weighted average of data from the inertial measurement unit (see at least [0167], [0370], and [0373]).
With respect to claim 8, Moskowitz discloses increasing reliance on non-GPS sensor data upon detection of sequential drops in GPS satellite data reaching a threshold (see at least [0310] and [0348-0361]).
With respect to claim 9, Moskowitz discloses storing the GPS location data in a database (see at least [0310] and [0348-0361]); and computing a difference vector by comparing GPS data received from the inertial measurement unit and GPS data stored in the database over a period of time (see at least [0310] and [0348-0361]).
With respect to claim 10, Moskowitz discloses prompting a user for manual input after determining that the difference vector surpasses a threshold value (see at least [0109], [0169], and [0233-0235]).
With respect to claims 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30 they are system claims that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective method claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. As such, claims 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective method claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 and are incorporated herein.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 11-20, 23, and 31-40 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C 112(b) or 35 U.S.C 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, 35 USC 101, and double patenting, set forth in this office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLA A KHALED whose telephone number is (571)272-9174. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00 Am-5:00, every other Friday 8:00A-5:00AM.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. 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 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.
/ABDALLA A KHALED/Examiner, Art Unit 3667