DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
CLAIM 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) is/are, in claims 11, 18, and 19:
a first data update unit configured to compare the current position data with the GPS position data newly acquired, to determine whether there is a change between the current position data and the GPS position data beyond a variation range of the GPS position data, and to update the current position data with that GPS position data upon determining that there is a change beyond a fixed range predetermined as the variation range (corresponding structure comprises a CPU as per para. [0034] of specification);
a second data update unit configured to acquire a detection result from a movement detection sensor configured to detect presence or absence of a movement including vibration of the position estimation device, to determine whether a movement of the position estimation device has been detected, and to update the current position data with the GPS position data newly acquired upon determining that the movement has been detected (corresponding structure comprises a CPU as per para. [0035]);
a cargo monitoring device configured to wirelessly receive and store the current position data and the measurement value related to the transport status from the cargo management device (corresponding structure comprises a cloud server as per para. [0025]); and
a data transmission unit configured to transmit transmission data based on the current position data and the measurement value related to the transport status to an external terminal via a communication network (corresponding structure comprises a cloud server as per para. [0042]).
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 § 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 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim 11 recites a position estimation device and is therefore an apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong One – Recitation of a Judicial Exception
Claim 11 recites:
- compare the current position data with the GPS position data newly acquired, to determine whether there is a change between the current position data and the GPS position data beyond a variation range of the GPS position data, and update the current position data with that GPS position data upon determining that there is a change beyond a fixed range predetermined as the variation range; and
- determine whether a movement of the position estimation device has been detected, and update the current position data with the GPS position data newly acquired upon determining that the movement has been detected.
These steps fall within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG, as they comprise observations and evaluations that can be performed in the human mind or with paper and pencil.
.
Claim 11 therefore recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two – Practical Application
Claim 11 further recites:
the position estimation device comprising first and second data update units
a plurality of GPS position data sequentially input from a GPS module
acquiring a detection result from a movement direction sensor configured to detect presence or absence of a movement including vibration of the position estimation device
However the first and second update units comprise generic computer equipment (CPU, specification paras. [0034]-[0035]) that is merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. In performing the abstract idea the first and second update units merely perform generic computer functions of receiving, manipulating, and outputting data
The GPS position data and the acquired detection result are merely data that has been gathered and upon which the abstract idea is performed.
The courts have found that generic computer equipment and insignificant extra solution activity such as data gathering do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d) I). These elements therefore do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Step 2B – Inventive Concept
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the additional elements recited in the claim include generic computer equipment and insignificant extra solution activity.
The courts have found that generic computer equipment and insignificant extra-solution activity do not amount to significantly more, i.e. they do not amount to an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.5 A). These elements therefore do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, i.e. they do not amount to an inventive concept. Claim 11 is therefore not patent eligible.
Claims 12 and 13 merely further describe the abstract idea without integrating it into a practical application or adding significantly more.
Claim 14 merely describes the source of the acquired detection result as an acceleration sensor and therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more.
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 11-19 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 11 lines 4-5, “the GPS position data newly acquired” lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
The remaining claims are dependent.
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.
Claims 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia (CN 102346040 A, cited on IDS) in view of Welles (US 5491486 A).
Regarding claim 11, Xia (CN 102346040 A, cited on IDS) teaches [NOTE: limitations not taught by Xia are lined through] a position estimation device (processing module 13, Fig. 1 and para. [0016]) configured to update and output current position data by using part of a plurality of pieces of GPS position data sequentially input from a GPS module (GPS module 12, Fig. 1 and para. [0016]), the position estimation device comprising:
a first data update unit configured to compare the current position data with the GPS position data newly acquired, to determine whether there is a change between the current position data and the GPS position data beyond a variation range of the GPS position data, and to update the current position data with that GPS position data upon determining that there is a change beyond a fixed range predetermined as the variation range (paras. [0007]-[0009], esp. para. [0008] “detecting the displacement change of the driving position and judging whether the displacement change exceeds the preset range; when it is judged that the displacement change of the driving position exceeds the preset range, transmitting an update notification; Update the driving location information of the navigation device”)
Xia further teaches updating the current position when a movement speed change is beyond a preset range, where the movement speed change is determined by the GPS module (para. [0009], claim 2), and that the purpose of the invention is to reduce power consumption (para. [0006] “extend the battery life”). However Xia does not teach updating the current position with newly acquired GPS position data upon detection of movement with a movement detection sensor configured to detect presence or absence of a movement including vibration of the position estimation device.
Welles (US 5491486 A), in analogous art, teaches acquiring a detection result from a movement detection sensor (motion sensor 56, Fig. 2; 4:43-50 “vibration sensor”) configured to detect presence or absence of a movement including vibration of a position estimation device (position estimation device 10, Fig. 2; 3:45-51 “GPS”), to determine whether a movement of a position estimation device has been detected (4:43-50 “motion sensor 56... is coupled... so as to supply... data indicative of vehicle motion”), and to update current position data with GPS position data (from navigation set 50, Fig. 2 in view of 3:45-51 “GPS”) newly acquired upon determining that the movement has been detected (7:24-28 “revert to activation rate FG when said motion sensor indicates renewed vehicle motion”). Welles teaches that power consumption is thereby reduced (1:7-10).
It would have been obvious to modify Xia by implementing a movement detection sensor configured to detect presence or absence of a movement including vibration of a position estimation device as taught by Welles in order to provide an additional indication for updating the current position data, thereby increasing confidence in the position update determination and further reducing power consumption. This is a matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, an exemplary rationale that supports a conclusion of obviousness, see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
Claims 12 and 13 recite either the first or second data update unit performing their respective determination before the other, and the other data update unit performing its respective determination on condition that the first data unit determines the change is not present.
As to the order in which the first and second update units perform their respective determinations, either the first update unit goes first, or the second update unit goes first, or the determinations are performed simultaneously, any of which would have reasonable expectation of success and therefore would have been at least obvious to try. It would have been obvious to further modify Xia as claimed because it is a matter of choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, an exemplary rationale that supports a conclusion of obviousness, see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
As to the other data update unit performing its respective determination on condition that the first data update unit determines the change is not present or that the movement has not been detected, it would have been obvious to further modify Xia in this way in order to avoid operating both update units when possible, thereby further reducing power consumption. That is, if the data update unit that makes its determination first determines that the change is present or that the movement has been detected, and updates the current position data accordingly, it would be obvious not to operate the other data update unit in order to reduce power consumption.
Regarding claim 14, Welles teaches an accelerometer (4:43-46). It would have been obvious to further modify Xia in view of Welles because an accelerometer is a well-known type of movement detection sensor that could be used with predictable results. Examiner notes that an accelerometer is capable of detecting vibration.
Regarding claims 15-18, Xia modified by Welles as discussed above teaches a cargo management device comprising: the position estimation device according to claim 11 (see above); a GPS module (Xia 12, Fig. 1); and a movement detection sensor configured to detect presence or absence of movement including vibration (Welles motion sensor 56, Fig. 2 and 4:43-50 “vibration sensor”).
Welles further teaches:
(claim 15) a cargo management sensor configured to measure a measurement value related to a transport status of a cargo, wherein the cargo management device is configured to move together with the cargo (68A, Fig. 2, including temperature, pressure, and strain sensors);
(claim 16) a data logger configured to store the current position data and the measurement value related to the transport status (58, Fig. 2; 5:54-58 “the data acquired with such sensing elements (collectively designated as suite of sensing elements 68 in FIG. 2) can be stored in tracking unit controller 58”); and
(claim 17) a wireless circuit configured to wirelessly transmit the current position data and the measurement value related to the transport status (52, Fig. 2; 14, Fig. 1; 5:65-67 “emitter 52 (FIG. 2) is energized to transmit vehicle position data and other data associated with the vehicle”; 5:54-58 “the data acquired with such sensing elements (collectively designated as suite of sensing elements 68 in FIG. 2) can be stored in tracking unit controller 58 and transmitted via communication link 14 together with the vehicle location data”).
(claim 18) a cargo monitoring device configured to wirelessly receive and store the current position data and the measurement value related to the transport status from the cargo management device (18, Fig. 1; 3:20-24 “a remote control station 18 manned by one or more operators and having suitable display devices and the like for displaying location and status information for each vehicle equipped with a respective mobile tracking unit”, where wireless receipt is shown in Fig. 1 and data storage is considered inherent).
It would have been obvious to further modify Xia in view of Welles in order to provide for cargo management in a manner that is well-known in the art. This is a matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is an exemplary rationale that supports a conclusion of obviousness, see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
Regarding claim 19, Welles does not teach wherein the cargo monitoring device (18, Fig. 1) includes a data transmission unit configured to transmit transmission data based on the current position data and the measurement value related to the transport status to an external terminal via a communication network. Welles teaches only that the cargo monitoring device receives current position data and measurement values related to the transport status (18, Fig. 1; 3:20-24 as discussed above with respect to claim 18). However, such transmission would comprise a mere duplication of the transmission between 12A-C and 18 via communication satellite 16 as shown in Welles Fig. 1, with the predictable result of communicating the current position data and measurement value to an external terminal. It would have been obvious to further modify Xia in this way because it is merely a duplication of parts with predictable results and the advantage of communicating the current position data and measurement value to other interested parties. See MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lau (US 6975941 B1) teaches acquiring a detection result from a movement detection sensor configured to detect presence or absence of a movement including vibration of a position estimation device, to determine whether a movement of the position estimation device has been detected, and to update current position data with GPS position data newly acquired upon determining that the movement has been detected (Fig. 3 and 6:8-17 “vibration”).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSI J GALT whose telephone number is (571)270-1469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM - 5PM 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, WILLIAM KELLEHER can be reached at (571)272-7753. 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.
/CASSI J GALT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648