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 6-10 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 6, 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 distance is put to use or output a concrete result.
Regarding claim 8, 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 position 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 6-10 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 sensor device and sensor system 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. 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 6 ( and its dependent) recites a sensor device. Thus, the claim is a machine and/or manufacture, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 8 ( and its dependents) recites a sensor system. 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 6 recites the step of:
a distance determination unit which is configured to analyze a received radio signal and to determine, based on the received radio signal, an antenna distance to an antenna device from which the received radio signal was transmitted.
The “analyze” step may be performed by observing the received signal/data, generating/computing the data based on the received signal/data which may be practically performed in the human mind and/or mathematical calculations using observation and evaluation.
Claim 8 recites the step of:
to determine, based on the measurement data and the antenna distances provided, position data for the at least two of the plurality of the sensor device which indicate a spatial position of the at least two of the plurality of the sensor device relative to each other.
The “determine” step may be performed by observing the received signal, generating/computing the data based on the received signal which may be practically performed in the human mind and/or mathematical calculations using observation and evaluation.
Therefore, such steps of as claimed in claims 6 and 8 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 7 and 9-10 further claiming information gleaned from the mental processes and/or mathematical calculations.
Regarding claims 7 and 9-10, the further ‘steps’ of calibrating, determining, estimating, and performing as claimed may be practically performed in the human mind and/or mathematical calculations using observation, evaluation, and judgment.
Therefore, dependent claims 7 and 9-10 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 6 is “transmit data via a radio signal”; of claim 8 is “receive measurement data of the at least one of the gyroscope sensor unit and the acceleration sensor unit of at least two of the plurality of the sensor device, to receive the antenna distance of the at least two of the plurality of the sensor device”. 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 gyroscope sensor unit, the acceleration sensor unit, the radio interface, the sensor device(s) as claimed are operating in a known manner which simply provide what all the gyroscope sensor unit, the acceleration sensor unit, the radio interface, the sensor device(s) 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. 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 6-10 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.
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.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fänge et al (US 2020/0057134).
PNG
media_image1.png
686
242
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
462
410
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Fänge et al disclose in Fig 1 and 4 above a sensor device (i.e. sensor 12) comprising:
at least one of a gyroscope sensor unit and an acceleration sensor unit (i.e. “For example, the orientation sensor 12 may include one or more accelerometers and/or gyroscopic sensors.”) ([0055]; [0117]);
a radio interface which is configured to transmit data via a radio signal (i.e. “For example, the plurality of measurement points 11 may be configured to transmit and/or receive ultrasonic signals, radio signals, and/or radar signals.”) ([0055]; [0120]); and
a distance determination unit which is configured to analyze a received radio signal and to determine, based on the received radio signal, an antenna distance to an antenna device from which the received radio signal was transmitted ([0056]; [0058]-[0059]; [0072].
While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fänge et al.
Regarding claim 7, Fänge et al do not explicitly disclose the radio interface is a 5G mobile radio interface as claimed. However, such 5G communication is well known in the radio frequency communication/network (i.e. support for such well-known 5G communication is disclosed in Davydov (WO 2017/164925)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include 5G communication in Fänge et al for faster communication since such 5G communication is well-known in the art.
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 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 12,235,340 discloses a distance measurement device and a distance measurement method for accurately measuring a distance even when multipath occurs. The present technology provides a distance measurement device including a first transceiver, a second transceiver, a response information acquisition section, a filter, and a distance calculator. The first transceiver transmits a first pulse signal to the second transceiver while performing frequency sweeping. The second transceiver receives the first pulse signal transmitted from the first transceiver. The response information acquisition section acquires response information on a basis of a phase difference obtained by reception of the first pulse signal. The filter extracts initial response information from the response information, the initial response information being the response information related to the first pulse signal to be received at an initial stage. The distance calculator calculates group delay on a basis of the initial response information, and calculates a distance between the first transceiver and the second transceiver by multiplying the group delay by a light velocity.
US 11,774,547 discloses a self-positioning system, a tracking beacon and a self-positioning method for a vehicle. The self-positioning system is configured to estimate an direction of arrival of a radio wave tracking beacon signal arriving at an antenna array of the vehicle from a non-stationary tracking beacon unit, estimate Euclidian distance between the self-positioning system and the tracking beacon unit by using wireless radio-frequency communication between the self-positioning system and the tracking beacon unit, and determine position data identifying a three-dimensional position of the self-positioning system with respect to tracking beacon unit on the basis of the estimates of the direction of arrival and the Euclidian distance.
US 10,401,176 discloses a method of determining the real time state of a machine includes receiving acceleration and angular rate of motion measurements from IMU's mounted on components of a machine. Fusing signals received from the IMU's with separate Kalman filter modules by combining an acceleration measurement and an angular rate of motion measurement from each IMU to estimate an output joint angle for the component on which the IMU is mounted. Estimated and measured values of the output joint angle for each component are combined, a kinematic equation is solved to determine a real time value for at least one of position, velocity, and acceleration of the component at successive timesteps, and the determined real time values are applied to control movement of each component.
US 2016/0249171 discloses an object distance determination system for measuring the linear distance between two objects. The object distance determination system comprises a smartphone configured as a base station in the preferred embodiment and a reference device. Through a reference distance determination software application, the reference device transmits GPS positioning information, along with a unique identifier associated with it over a wireless networking interface to the base station. The base station includes an object distance determination software application that configures it to retrieve its positioning information and receive over a wireless networking interface identification and positioning information from the reference device. Using this information, the object distance determination software application calculates the linear distance from the reference device to the base station and causes the display of the reference device and the calculated linear distance on the display of the base station.
US 8,913,231 discloses determination of a sensor device location in a sensor network. A system can include rotating optical beams having a known location. Detectors can be located with each of the rotating optical beams. The system can include a sensor device placeable as part of the sensor network. A reflector can be near the sensor device and can reflect at least two optical beams back to the detectors associated with each of the respective optical beams. A triangulation module can triangulate a position of the reflector, and thus the sensor, based on the reflected optical beams.
US 7,948,431 discloses a method for increasing the accuracy of a measurement of a radio-based locating system comprising a mobile station and at least one fixed station, wherein the movement of a mobile station from an initial position is detected by way of measuring data of an absolute sensor system and a relative sensor system, a virtual antenna is embodied in the form of synthetic aperture by way of measuring data and the mobile station is focused on the fixed station and/or vice versa by using the synthetic aperture.
WO 2017/164925 discloses a method to obtain the position of an User Equipment (UE) with a high degree of accuracy in a cellular network. Operable within the UE, the positioning method performs Observed Time Difference of Arrival (OTDOA) or Enhanced Cellular Identification (E-CID) measurements using received beamformed Positioning Reference Signals (PRSs), using both the measurement information and novel beam information. The novel beam information includes an index of the beam(s), beam pointing angles (in both elevation and azimuth domains) relative to the bore-sight of the antenna of the transmitting device, and the relative orientation of the device antenna, whether of the UE or of an enhanced Node B base station (eNB), where the relative orientation is obtained using position sensors. The beam information, along with time of arrival measurements, is used to determine the position or improve the position accuracy of the UE.
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