DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Application Status
Claims 1-17 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on merits.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, with respect to the claim objection(s) as set forth in the Office Action have been fully considered and are persuasive. As such, the objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments, with respect to the claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) as set forth in the Office Action of 05 August 2022 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Initially, the Examiner notes that applicant did not present any arguments against the claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) and acknowledges the 112(f) interpretation. As such the claim interpretation under USC 112(f) is maintained.
Applicant’s amendments/arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the Office Action have been fully considered and are persuasive. As such, the rejection as previously presented has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference(s) applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s amendments/arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more have been carefully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant specifically argues the following:
Amended to clarify that the claimed subject matter is directed to interworking operations between physical hardware elements, such as "a UAM navigation device," "a UAM mounting device," "a UAM" and "an external device" (emphasis added). Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that the subject matter of amended independent claims 1 and 9 should not be considered as mere performance of the limitation in the mind. Accordingly, amended independent claims 1 and 9 are not directed to abstract idea.
Further, Applicant submits that amended independent claim 1 recites, among other things, "a UAM mounting device identifying an interaction point on an instrument panel, where a signal component of a left radio signal transmitted by the left UAM navigation device at a left side and a signal component of the right radio signal transmitted by the right UAM navigation device at the right side meet as a current location of the UAM, and transmitting the generated flight path to an external device to control the UAM" (emphasis added). Amended independent claim 9 also recites the similar features.
Applicant submits that the above features should be considered as additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the claimed subject matter, by providing improved UAM control, in a non-conventional way.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that amended independent claims 1 and 9 recite patent-eligible subject matter. The other claims are dependent from one of the independent claims discussed above, and are patent-eligible for at least the same reasons. Applicant, therefore, respectfully submits that the above rejection of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is overcome.
The examiner has considered the arguments and respectfully disagree. The independent claims recite identifying an intersection point on an instrument panel, where a signal component of a left radio signal and a signal component of the right radio signal meet as a current location of the UAM. These limitation(s), as drafted, is (are) a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “a UAM mounting device”. The claim limitations encompass a person looking at different types of data (i.e., location data) from different components could identify a intersection point on an instrument panel, where a signal component of a left radio signal and a signal component of the right radio signal meet as a current location of the UAM. The mere nominal recitation of “a UAM mounting device” does not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental process grouping and merely function to automate the generating steps.
The additional limitations/elements of generating a straight flight path including an altitude in the sky by using radio signals; where a signal component of a left radio signal transmitted by the left UAM navigation device at the left side and a signal component of the right radio signal transmitted by the right UAM navigation device at the right side; and transmitting the generated flight path to an external device to control the UAM; a UAM navigation device, and a UAM mounting device. The generating and transmitting steps/elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the generating step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitation(s) of a UAM navigation device, and a UAM mounting device is/are recited at a high level of generality and merely function to automate the generating steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As such, the claim rejection under 35 USC 101 is maintained.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are: “a UAM navigation device… for generating a straight flight path…” and “a UAM mounting device for identifying an interaction point…” 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 § 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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
101 Analysis
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1).
If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category
Th independent claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a process and machine respectively, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. The independent claims recite identifying an intersection point on an instrument panel, where a signal component of a left radio signal and a signal component of the right radio signal meet as a current location of the UAM. These limitation(s), as drafted, is (are) a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “a UAM mounting device”. The claim limitations encompass a person looking at different types of data (i.e., location data) from different components could identify a intersection point on an instrument panel, where a signal component of a left radio signal and a signal component of the right radio signal meet as a current location of the UAM. The mere nominal recitation of “a UAM mounting device” does not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental process grouping and merely function to automate the generating steps. Thus, the claims recite a mental process. (step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial exception recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
The independent claims recites the additional limitations/elements of generating a straight flight path including an altitude in the sky by using radio signals; where a signal component of a left radio signal transmitted by the left UAM navigation device at the left side and a signal component of the right radio signal transmitted by the right UAM navigation device at the right side; and transmitting the generated flight path to an external device to control the UAM; a UAM navigation device, and a UAM mounting device. The generating and transmitting steps/elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the generating step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitation(s) of a UAM navigation device, and a UAM mounting device is/are recited at a high level of generality and merely function to automate the generating steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No).
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element/limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the generating and transmitting steps/additional elements were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that these steps are performed by anything other than conventional components performing the conventional activity (steps) of the claim. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Dependent 1-8 and 10-17 do not include any other additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 7-12, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oberg (WO 20080297397 A1) in view of Nishimura Takashi (JPH10160812A).
NOTE: see NPL machine translation of WO2022019432 A1 and JPH10160812A for mapping of the claims.
With respect to claim 1, Oberg discloses a precision navigation device for a UAM route (see at least [abstract]), comprising: a UAM navigation device constituted by one set of left and right navigation devices based on a defined route of a UAM (see at least [0038-0040] and [0042-0049]), and generating a straight flight path including an altitude in the sky by using radio signals (see at least [0028-0032], [0038-0039], [0042-0050], and [0055]).
However, Oberg do not specifically disclose a UAM mounting device identifying an interaction point on an instrument panel, where a signal component of a left radio signal transmitted by the left UAM navigation device at the left side and a signal component of the right radio signal transmitted by the right UAM navigation device at the right side meet as a current location of the UAM.
Nishimura teaches a UAM mounting device identifying an interaction point on an instrument panel (see at least [0010-0013], where a signal component of a left radio signal transmitted by the left UAM navigation device at the left side and a signal component of the right radio signal transmitted by the right UAM navigation device at the right side meet as a current location of the UAM (see at least [0010-0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Oberg, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Nishimura of a UAM mounting device identifying an interaction point on an instrument panel, where a signal component of a left radio signal transmitted by the left UAM navigation device at the left side and a signal component of the right radio signal transmitted by the right UAM navigation device at the right side meet as a current location of the UAM. This would be done to increase safety of navigating flights to a desired position/spot in various conditions (i.e., fog or other poor visibility) (see Nishimura para 0003).
With respect to claim 2, Oberg do not specifically disclose wherein the UAM mounting device confirms a degree at which the UAM is separated from the route according to a state in which the intersection point is separated up, down, left, and right at the center of the instrument panel.
Nishimura teaches wherein the UAM mounting device confirms a degree at which the UAM is separated from the route according to a state in which the intersection point is separated up, down, left, and right at the center of the instrument panel (see at least [0010-0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Oberg, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Nishimura wherein the UAM mounting device confirms a degree at which the UAM is separated from the route according to a state in which the intersection point is separated up, down, left, and right at the center of the instrument panel. This would be done to increase safety of navigating flights to a desired position/spot in various conditions (i.e., fog or other poor visibility) (see Nishimura para 0003).
With respect to claim 3, Oberg discloses wherein the UAM navigation device calculates a difference in depth of modulation (DDM) between a first AM modulation signal and a second AM modulation signal of the radio signal to generate the flight path (see at least [0028-0032], [0038-0039], [0042-0050], and [0055]).
With respect to claim 4, Oberg discloses wherein the UAM navigation device determines an intersection point between a '0 DDM area' calculated by the left navigation device and a '0 DDM area' calculated by the right navigation device as a navigation signal center line, and generates the navigation signal center line as a single flight path as the flight path (see at least [0028-0032], [0038-0039], [0042-0050], and [0055]).
With respect to claim 7, Oberg discloses wherein the UAM navigation device adjusts transmitted electric power to vary a navigation device operation area and vary a frequency bandwidth (channel) in which the radio signal is transmitted, and as the number of sets increases, the frequency bandwidth (channel) increases proportionally (see at least [0028-0032], [0038-0039], [0042-0050], and [0055]).
With respect to claim 8, Oberg discloses wherein the UAM navigation device transmits a unique identification (ID) indicated in the order of route, navigation device sequence, and azimuth information, thereby enabling the UAM mounting device to receive route information on the route on which the UAM is currently flying (see at least [0028-0032], [0038-0039], [0042-0050], and [0055]).
With respect to claims 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, and 16 they are method claims that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective precision navigation device claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 8. As such, claims 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, and 16 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective precision navigation device claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 8 and are incorporated herein.
With respect to claim 17, Oberg discloses a computer-readable recording medium having a program for executing the method of claim 9, which is recorded therein (see at least [0028-0032], [0038-0039], [0042-0050], and [0055]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 and 13-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C 112(b) or 35 U.S.C 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and 35 USC 101, set forth in this office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLA A KHALED whose telephone number is (571)272-9174. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00 Am-5:00, every other Friday 8:00A-5:00AM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDALLA A KHALED/Examiner, Art Unit 3667