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
The information disclosure statements filed March 8, 2024, and August 15, 2025, fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3), which requires a copy of the translation of a filed non-English-language document if a written English-language translation of a non-English-language document, or portion thereof, is within the possession, custody, or control of, or is readily available to any individual designated in §1.56(c). It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Specifically, JP 2006-300700 A, JP 2019-191888 A, JP 2017-188066 A, JP 2001-309418 A, JP 2014-002103 A, and the International Search Report and Written Opinion issued on December 20, 2022 have been filed with only the abstracts translated into English (for the patent documents) which, given the size and nature of the instant application and the above listed references, is insufficient.
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: “position measurement apparatus” in claim 1.
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.
Claims 3-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites “the position measurement apparatus calculates the global positional coordinates of the position measurement apparatus on the basis of the GPS signal and on a basis of a relative change in a position of the position measurement apparatus” which is indefinite, because it is unclear what the change in position of the position measurement apparatus is being measured relative to, e.g., another object or an initial position of the position measurement apparatus. Claim 11 is likewise rejected, and dependent claims 4-10 and 12-15 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 4 recites “when the GPS signal fails to be acquired after the GPS signal is once acquired, the position measurement apparatus calculates the global positional coordinates of the position measurement apparatus on the basis of the relative change in the position” which is indefinite for two reasons. First, because it is unclear if the limitation is a structural limitation regarding a capability of the position measurement apparatus, or whether the limitation is a method step of actually calculating the global positional coordinates of the position measurement apparatus after a change of position of the apparatus following a failure to acquire the GPS signal. Second, because it is unclear if the relative change in position is required, i.e., exactly when during the process did/does the position measurement apparatus move? Claim 11 is likewise rejected.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the position measurement apparatus transmits the first global positional coordinates of the target to the target” which is indefinite for two reasons.
First, it is unclear if the recitation is a structural limitation about a capability of the position measurement apparatus, or whether the recitation is intended to be a method step of actually transmitting the first global positional coordinates of the target to the target following their calculation. Claims 6-9, 11-14, and 16-17 are likewise rejected regarding structural limitations and/or method steps of the target and/or the position measurement apparatus, i.e., the lack of gerund-type verbs in what appears to be method steps. Claims 19-20 are similarly rejected for appearing to contain method step elements/limitations in an apparatus claim. Dependent claims 10 and 15 fail to cure the deficiency.
Second, the target is not claimed to have any real means of receiving the transmission. For example, claim 3, from which claim 5 depends, encompasses embodiments of the invention where the target is, e.g., a football. Therefore claim 5 cannot suddenly transmit data to the target unless the target has been so limited by the claims such that it can necessarily receive such a transmission. Claims 13-14 are likewise rejected, and dependent claims 6-11 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the target calculates second global positional coordinates of the target on a basis of a GPS signal received by the target” which is indefinite, because it is unclear if: a) the target must have necessarily moved at some point in the process of executing the method, and b) if the “GPS signal” correlates to the previously recited global position coordinates in claim 6, from which claim 7 depends.
Claim 8 recites “the target calculates the global positional coordinates of the target on the basis of the first global positional coordinates and on a basis of the second global positional coordinates” which is indefinite, because it creates ambiguity over whether the “global positional coordinates” are related to the first or second global positional coordinates, or whether the “global positional coordinates” are independent of and distinct from the first or second global positional coordinates. Generally speaking, care should be taken in developing new claim terms by dropping adjectives from old claim terms due to the likelihood of confusion. Dependent claims 9-11 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 9 recites “the specified degrees of reliability” which is indefinite for lack of proper antecedent basis.
Claim 10 recites “a GPS performance of each of the position measurement apparatus and the target…or a performance of the position measurement apparatus to measure the relative position” because the metes and bounds of “performance” is unclear. Claim 15 is likewise rejected.
Claim 12 recites “wherein a plurality of the position measurement apparatuses is included” which is indefinite, because it is unclear what exactly the apparatuses the apparatuses are being “included” in. Claim 16 is likewise rejected.
Claim 12 recites “each of the plurality of the position measurement apparatuses calculates global positional coordinates of the position measurement apparatus” which is indefinite, because it is unclear which position measurement apparatus is being calculated, i.e., are they all calculating the position of the original apparatus in claim 1, or are they all only calculating their own position? Subsequent similar recitations are likewise rejected.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the target or the position measurement apparatus calculates global positional coordinates of the target” which is indefinite because it is unclear which position measurement apparatus of the plurality of position measurement apparatuses is actually being referred to.
Claim 14 recites “wherein the target or the position measurement apparatus calculates the global positional coordinates of the target” which is indefinite, because it potentially contradicts claim 13, from which claim 14 depends. Claim 14 encompasses embodiments of the invention where the “target” does the calculation in the claim 13 but the position measurement apparatus does the calculation in claim 14, which is improper and not taught by Applicant.
Claim 14 recites “calculated by each of the plurality of position measurement apparatuses on a basis of a corresponding one of specified degrees of reliability” which is indefinite because the meaning is unclear. Dependent claim 15 fails to cure the deficiency.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 includes the limitations of, “calculating, by a position measurement apparatus, global positional coordinates of the position measurement apparatus”, “observing, by the position measurement apparatus, a target to calculate a relative position of the position measurement apparatus relative to the target”, and “calculating, by the position measurement apparatus, first global positional coordinates of the target on a basis of the global positional coordinates of the position measurement apparatus and the relative position”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, includes limitations of observing and evaluating data as well as identifying problems/solutions based on the observations which all can reasonably be performed using the human mind/with pen and paper and thus fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 includes the limitation of, “calculating/observing by a position measurement apparatus” which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two and in light of Applicant’s disclosure, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea which just generally applies the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering telemetry data and sending the calculated data over a network. Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”).
Independent claims 18-20 are substantially similar to claim 1 and are thus rejected using the same rationale as presented above. Claims 18 and 19 do include the additional limitations of “a program” and “a controller”, respectively, however as generally recited are interpreted as generic computer components for implementing the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. For example, claims 2-4 each include additional limitations of the calculations performed by the position measurement apparatus which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, adds more limitations which can readily performed using the human mind and thus fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Similarly, claims 6-9, 11, and 13-14 each include additional limitations of the calculations performed by the target which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, adds more limitations which can readily performed using the human mind and thus fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Finaly, claims 16-17 are similar to claim 1 in form and therefore are rejected similarly to claim 1, as detailed hereinabove.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 5 recites a limitation of receiving data, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, adds insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Claims 10 and 15 relate to the reliability of the various elements of the invention, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, generally links the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment or field of use of location monitoring systems (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering telemetry data and sending the calculated data over a network. Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 19 does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed towards a computer program product which can be reasonably interpreted as being representative of software per se which is not one of the statutory categories.
***Examiner note: In order to overcome the present rejection, the office recommends amending the claims to recite: “A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising a computer program, which when run on a processor:…”. This clearly links sufficient structure for storing/implementing the computer program and would overcome the current rejection.***
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakada et al. (JP 2018040785 A), hereinafter Nakada.
Regarding claim 1, Nakada discloses an information processing method (para. [0001] of translation (henceforth), regarding a position measurement system for measuring a position of a target), comprising:
calculating, by a position measurement apparatus (GPS signal receiving robot 100; fig. 1), global positional coordinates of the position measurement apparatus (para. [0039], regarding the GPS signal receiving unit 106 of the GPS signal receiving robot 100 is a GPS signal receiver for receiving the GPS signals S1 to S4 from the GPS satellites GS1 to GS4 for determining the position of the position of the robot 100 in the GPS coordinate system; figs. 1-2);
observing, by the position measurement apparatus, a target to calculate a relative position of the position measurement apparatus relative to the target (para. [0139], regarding it is also possible to detect the relative position of the inspection robot with respect to the GPS signal receiving robot 100 by using a stereo camera device mounted on the GPS signal receiving robot 100 as the relative position detecting portion); and
calculating, by the position measurement apparatus, first global positional coordinates of the target on a basis of the global positional coordinates of the position measurement apparatus and the relative position (para. [0141], regarding when the stereo camera device 206 and the position calculating unit 208 are provided in the GPS signal receiving robot 100, it is possible to execute all the arithmetic processes necessary for calculating the position of the inspection robot 200 on the GPS signal receiving robot 100 side).
Regarding claim 2, Nakada discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the position measurement apparatus calculates the global coordinates of the position measurement apparatus on a basis of a GPS signal received by the position measurement apparatus (see again para. [0039]).
Regarding claim 3, Nakada discloses the invention in claim 2, and further discloses wherein the position measurement apparatus calculates the global positional coordinates of the position measurement apparatus on the basis of the GPS signal (see again para. [0039]) and on a basis of a relative change in a position of the position measurement apparatus (para. [0072], regarding if the calculation of the suitability evaluation value FV for all the positions has not been completed, the process proceeds to step S26, and the position control unit 104 changes the position of the GPS signal receiving robot 100; then, the process returns to step S10, and the suitability evaluation value FV for the changed position is calculated; see also para. [0091]).
Regarding claim 5, Nakada discloses the invention in claim 3, and further discloses wherein the position measurement apparatus (100) transmits the first global positional coordinates of the target to the target (para. [0141], regarding the position (data) of the inspection robot 200 calculated by the GPS signal receiving robot 100 is transmitted to the inspection robot 200 via the communication unit).
Regarding claim 6, Nakada discloses the invention in claim 5, and further discloses wherein the target sets global positional coordinates of the target on a basis of the first global positional coordinates of the target that are transmitted by the position measurement apparatus (see paras. [0141-0142]).
Regarding claim 18, Nakada discloses a program that causes a position measurement apparatus to perform a process (abstract) comprising:
calculating global positional coordinates of the position measurement apparatus (see again para. [0039]);
observing a target to calculate a relative position of the position measurement apparatus relative to the target (see again para. [0139]); and
calculating first global positional coordinates of the target on a basis of the global positional coordinates of the position measurement apparatus and the relative position (see again para. [0141]).
Regarding claim 19, Nakada discloses a position measurement apparatus (abstract), comprising
a controller that calculates global positional coordinates of the position measurement apparatus (see again para. [0039]),
observes a target to calculate a relative position of the position measurement apparatus relative to the target (see again para. [0139]), and
calculates first global positional coordinates of the target on a basis of the global positional coordinates of the position measurement apparatus and the relative position (see again para. [0141]).
Regarding claim 20, Nakada discloses a position measurement system (abstract), comprising:
a position measurement apparatus (100); and
a target (200),
the position measurement apparatus including a controller that calculates global positional coordinates of the position measurement apparatus (see again para. [0039]), observes the target to calculate a relative position of the position measurement apparatus relative to the target (see again para. [0139]), and calculates first global positional coordinates of the target on a basis of the global positional coordinates of the position measurement apparatus and the relative position (see again para. [0141]).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
a) Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b) Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c) Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d) Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 12-13 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakada et al. (JP 2018040785 A), hereinafter Nakada.
Regarding claim 12, Nakada discloses the invention in claim 3, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein a plurality of the position measurement apparatuses is included, and each of the plurality of the position measurement apparatuses calculates global positional coordinates of the position measurement apparatus, observes the target to calculate a relative position of the position measurement apparatus relative to the target, and calculates the first global positional coordinates of the target on a basis of the global positional coordinates of the position measurement apparatus and on a basis of the relative position.
However, Nakada teaches using a plurality of relay robots (300) that can be arranged between the position measurement apparatus (100) and the target (200).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Nakada to have a plurality of position measurement apparatuses as claimed in claim 1 in order to ensure sufficient coverage of the target (see Nakada, para. [0103]).
Regarding claim 13, Nakada as modified discloses the invention in claim 12, and further discloses wherein the target or the position measurement apparatus calculates global positional coordinates of the target on a basis of the first global positional coordinates calculated by each of the plurality of position measurement apparatuses (see again para. [0039]).
Regarding claim 16, Nakada discloses the invention in claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein a plurality of the position measurement apparatuses is included, and a certain position measurement apparatus of the plurality of the position measurement apparatuses performs measurement on another position measurement apparatus of the plurality of position measurement apparatuses, calculates a relative position of the certain position measurement apparatus relative to the other position measurement apparatus, and calculates global positional coordinates of the other position measurement apparatus on a basis of global positional coordinates of the certain position measurement apparatus and the relative position.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Nakada to have position measurement apparatus measure another position measurement apparatus instead of a target, since the equivalence of different apparatuses with transceivers for their use in the telemetry and tracking art and the selection of any known equivalents to transceiving apparatuses would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Additionally, Nakada already teaches using relay robot (300, see paras. [0103-0104]) which are substantially identical to the position measurement devices (100) for the purposes calculating relative positions.
Regarding claim 17, Nakada as modified discloses the invention in claim 16, and further discloses wherein the other position measurement apparatus, which is an observation target and by which the target is observable, observes the target to calculate a relative position of the other position measurement apparatus relative to the target, and calculates the first global positional coordinates of the target on a basis of the global positional coordinates of the other position measurement apparatus and the relative position (see again related rejections of claims 1 and 16 detailed above, explaining why it would be obvious for any of the disclosed position measurement devices of Nakada to observe and calculate the position of the target).
Conclusion
The cited references made of record in the contemporaneously filed PTO-892 form and not relied upon in the instant office action are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and may have one or more of the elements in Applicant’s disclosure and at least claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADY W FRAZIER whose telephone number is (469)295-9263. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm CT.
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.
/BRADY W FRAZIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648