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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
This office acknowledges receipt of the following item(s) from the applicant:
Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 19 July 2024. The references have been considered.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory 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 timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims 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 USPQ 645 (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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 13-19, 23-26, 29-33 and 35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7, 11-14 and 16-21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,604,287. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the only differences are slight modifications in the limitations.
Claim 13 of the current application claims: A device, comprising: at least one processor; and a memory including instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: receive an estimated position based on a positioning system comprising a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) satellite; receive a set of parameters associated with the estimated position; apply the set of parameters and the estimated position to a machine learning model; and provide an estimated device location based at least in part on the estimated position and an output of the machine learning model.
Claim 1 of ‘287 claims: A device, comprising: at least one processor; and a memory including instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: receive an estimated position based on a positioning system comprising a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) satellite; receive a set of parameters associated with the estimated position; apply the set of parameters and the estimated position to a machine learning model, the machine learning model having been trained based at least on a position of a receiving device relative to the GNSS satellite; provide the estimated position and an output of the machine learning model to a Kalman filter; and provide an estimated device location based on an output of the Kalman filter.
While the Claim limitations are not identical, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the two claim are directed to the same invention and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that in provide the estimated position and an output of the machine learning model in ‘287 this would be the same as providing an estimated device location based at least in part on the estimated position and an output of the machine learning model as claimed in the current application.
Dependent Claims 14-19 of the current application are essentially the same if not identical to Claims 2-7 of ‘287.
Claim 23 of the current application claims: A computer program product comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: receiving an estimated position based on a positioning system comprising a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) satellite; receiving a set of parameters associated with the estimated position; applying the set of parameters and the estimated position to a machine learning model; and providing an estimated device location based at least in part on the estimated position and an output of the machine learning model.
Claim 17 of ‘287 claims: A non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: receiving an estimated position of a device based on a positioning system comprising a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) satellite; receiving a set of parameters associated with the estimated position; applying the set of parameters and the estimated position to a machine learning model, the machine learning model having been trained based at least on a position of a receiving device relative to the GNSS satellite; providing the estimated position and an output of the machine learning model to a Kalman filter; and providing an estimated device location based on an output of the Kalman filter.
While the Claim limitations are not identical, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the two claim are directed to the same invention and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that in provide the estimated position and an output of the machine learning model in ‘287 this would be the same as providing an estimated device location based at least in part on the estimated position and an output of the machine learning model as claimed in the current application. Further, there is little difference between a computer program product and a non-transitory machine-readable medium so the preamble does not aid in overcoming the double patenting rejection.
Claims 24-26 and 29 of the current application are essentially the same if not identical to Claims 18-21 of ‘287.
Claim 30 of the current application claims: A method comprising: receiving an estimated position based on a positioning system comprising a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) satellite; receiving a set of parameters associated with the estimated position; applying the set of parameters and the estimated position to a machine learning model; and providing an estimated device location based at least in part on the estimated position and an output of the machine learning model.
Claim 11 of ‘287 claims: A method, comprising: receiving an estimated position of a device based on a positioning system comprising a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) satellite; receiving a set of parameters associated with the estimated position; applying the set of parameters and the estimated position to a machine learning model, the machine learning model having been trained based at least on a position of a receiving device relative to the GNSS satellite; providing the estimated position and an output of the machine learning model to a Kalman filter; and providing an estimated device location based on an output of the Kalman filter.
While the Claim limitations are not identical, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the two claim are directed to the same invention and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that in provide the estimated position and an output of the machine learning model in ‘287 this would be the same as providing an estimated device location based at least in part on the estimated position and an output of the machine learning model as claimed in the current application.
Claims 31-33 and 35 of the current application are essentially the same if not identical to Claims 12-14 and 16 of ‘287.
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 23-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the is directed to a computer readable storage medium that has not limited to not include non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se. As the claim could be directed to a carrier wave, which does not fall with one of the four categories of invention, it is suggested that an amendment made to limit the claim to non-transitory forms of storage medium.
Claims 13-19 and 23-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) recite(s) limitations that are considered to be data processing. 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)). The 101 guidance instructs us to 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. As best understood, the claims contain limitations are directed to data processing, as is similar to Electric Power Group, Benson and Flook.
Specifically, the claims obtain data and process the data using various algorithms and mathematical concepts to make a determination based on the processed data; mathematical formulas, equations or calculations to provide the output, these will all fall under the category of Mathematical Concepts and along with mental processes they are considered to be abstract. See the updated 101 guidance issued in October 2019, sections A and C.
Analysis of the claims
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claim 30 which is being used for analysis recites: receiving an estimated position based on a positioning system comprising a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) satellite; receiving a set of parameters associated with the estimated position; applying the set of parameters and the estimated position to a machine learning model; and providing an estimated device location based at least in part on the estimated position and an output of the machine learning model.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite any limitation that links the process to anything other than the processing of data and making a determination based on the result of the data processing which encompass the use of mathematical operations or can be performed as a mental process which are recognized abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim recites a first additional element of “receiving an estimated position”. This step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data processing. It is necessary to acquire the data and process it to use the recited judicial exception to perform the calculations. The step amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity and does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
The claim recites a second additional element of “receiving a set of parameters”. This step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data processing. It is necessary to acquire the data and process it to use the recited judicial exception to perform the calculations. The step amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity and does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
The claim recites a third additional element of “providing an estimated device location”. This step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data processing. It is necessary to acquire the data and process it to use the recited judicial exception to perform the calculations and provide an output of the result. The step amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity and does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
When determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Here, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite any limitation that links the process to anything other than the processing of data and output of a result.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no elements in Claim 30 that appear to clearly have any actionable steps other than making a determination or outputting a result which would be mere extra-solution activity.
As is best understood Claim 30 is directed to gathering data for processing by a processor or processor based elements (although not claimed in the current claim) and there are no explicit structural elements claimed in these claims that would be considered enough to make the claims non-abstract as the heart of the claim is directed to abstract processing steps. The use of generic/well known elements and general processors/computers for the mere implementation of an abstract idea on a computer does not qualify as significantly more. It is not claimed what happens after the final selection/determination step. How is the is the data used, is it transmitted or output in some manner for use, does the system perform another task based on the determination or is the operation merely used for determining most likely position. As currently claimed the limitations are just an operation of determining position without anything that would be considered significantly more, the operation of processing data to determine a position has been found to be an abstract idea.
Therefore, the limitation represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer and does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Step 2B:
A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the re-evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Here, the assumed processor is equal to a machine being merely an object on which the method operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Receiving data is basic data gathering and would not provide significantly more and is insignificant extra-solution activity as the use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more (MPEP 2106.05 (b), III). The processor also does` not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a “computer system.” See MPEP § 2106.05(a). There is no indication that the assumed CPU being used needs to be more than a generic device.
Therefore, these limitation remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration and does not amount to significantly more.
The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, and therefore the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
There are no limitations in the independent or the dependent claims that would make the processor/computer change in operation in a manner that would make it work in a way that is new and not capable of being done on a generic processor/computer. The processor in these claims performs merely as a tool and does not appear to provide an improvement to the functionality of a computer. Absent evidence to the contrary, claim 30 merely relies on the processing of data. Making a determination as a result of processed data is well known and conventional.
Claims 31-35 expand on the processing/mathematical concepts limitations by claim limitations directed to defining steps of the processing, setting values and use of the processed data and do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 13, while a device claim, only claims a processor that applies the same method steps of Claim 30, as the use of a processor for performing steps is well known and convention and commonly required for data gathering and as such does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea or significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The MPEP is clear that an abstract idea performed by a processor is still an abstract idea.
Claims 14-19 expand on the processing/mathematical concepts limitations by claim limitations directed to defining steps of the processing, setting values and use of the processed data and do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 23 is a computer product that stores the instruction for performing the abstract idea. Using a computer program product is well known and convention and commonly used in the field for data gathering applications and as such does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 24-29 expand on the processing/mathematical concepts limitations by claim limitations directed to defining steps of the processing, setting values and use of the processed data and do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 13-19 and 23-35 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, and thus, the additional elements do not transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and as an ordered combination, do not transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application. Taken alone or as an ordered combination, the limitations of claims do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the judicial exception. Using obtained values from the computational operations is not a meaningful limitation that alone can amount to significantly more than the exception.
Claims 13-19 and 23-35 merely rely on generic components as a tool to apply the abstract idea. The application of the abstract idea to generic components does not transform the claim into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea. While the newly provided guidance of December 2025 states that “When evaluating a claim as a whole, examiners should not dismiss additional elements as mere “generic computer components” without considering whether such elements confer a technological improvement to a technical problem, especially as to improvements to computer components or the computer system.” There are no limitations stating that the any assumed structural elements behave in a non-conventional manner or that the assumed processor is using collected and stored data for anything more than evaluation. All other dependent claims build upon the abstract idea and do not result in significantly more or a practical application and merely just expand on how the software and algorithms operate to process the data. There is no claim to how the processed data is used besides simply making a determination or what tangible step is taken once the processing is done that would link the processing of data to practical application or an actual actionable step. While the algorithms and calculation processing may be novel, novelty does not change the claim from being an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 13, 15-17, 23, 25-27, 30 and 32-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carter (US PGPub 2016/0259061).
Referring to Claim 13, Carter teaches at least one processor (Fig. 2A #232/272; [0057-0058]); and a memory (Fig. 2A #232/272; [0057-0058]) including instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: receive an estimated position based on a positioning system comprising a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) satellite; receive a set of parameters associated with the estimated position; apply the set of parameters and the estimated position to a machine learning model; and provide an estimated device location based at least in part on the estimated position and an output of the machine learning model; See Fig. 2A and 3 and associated text of those figures as well as [0216-0223].
Referring to Claims 15, 25 and 32, Carter teaches wherein the machine learning model is stored in the memory of the device; [0223].
Referring to Claims 16, 26 and 33, Carter teaches wherein the output from the machine learning model indicates an amount of uncertainty for the estimated position; [0069] and [0102].
Referring to Claims 17, 27 and 34, Carter teaches wherein the output from the machine learning model indicates a revised measurement for the estimated position; [0223].
Referring to Claims 23 and 30, Carter teaches receiving an estimated position based on a positioning system comprising a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) satellite; receiving a set of parameters associated with the estimated position; applying the set of parameters and the estimated position to a machine learning model; and providing an estimated device location based at least in part on the estimated position and an output of the machine learning model; see citations of Claim 13 above as this claim is just the method associated with the device.
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.
Claim(s) 14, 24 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carter in view of Bachrach et al. (Bachrach, US PGPub 2019/0378423).
Referring to Claims 14, 24 and 31, Carter teaches the machine learning model and a reference position of the receiving device provided by a reference positioning system ([0216-0223]), but does not explicitly disclose nor limit the machine learning model further having been trained based on an estimated position of a receiving device provided by the positioning system, and based on a reference position of the receiving device provided by a reference positioning system.
However, Bachrach teaches the action of training machine learning models; [0087].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Carter with the training as taught by Bachrach so as to predictably improve the models ability to detect and track objects.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18, 19, 28, 29 and 35 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WHITNEY T MOORE whose telephone number is (571)270-3338. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 7am-4pm.
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.
/WHITNEY MOORE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights