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 .
This Office Action is responsive to application 18/716,192 that the entered the national stage pursuant to § 371 and presented 58 claims. Through the preliminary amendment of June 4, 2024, claims 1, 15, 29, 32, 34, 36, and 38-46 were amended, and claims 2-14, 16-28, and 47-58 were cancelled. Claims 1, 15, and 29-46 remain pending in the application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
218 in Fig. 2; and
1018 in Fig. 10.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “716” in Fig. 7 has been used to designate both “communication interface” (should be “706”) and “port/terminal.” Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Independent Claim 1
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites both a mathematical formula and mental process. See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B) (stating “A claim may recite multiple judicial exceptions.”). Claim 1 broadly recites a “localization algorithm,” and the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation is a “disembodied mathematical algorithm” that lacks any substance. See MPEP § 2106.04(I) (stating “judicially recognized exceptions have been described using various other terms, including … ‘disembodied concepts,’ ‘mental processes,’ and ‘disembodied mathematical algorithms and formulas.’”) Claim 1 also recites “privacy preserving techniques” and “identifying at least one break condition.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1, a “privacy preserving technique” can include a human being who reviews the data of the “localization algorithm” and removes personally identifiable information after mentally identifying (or observing) and judging such information to be private. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III) (stating “Accordingly, the ‘mental processes’ abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.”) The limitation for “identifying at least one break condition” similarly employees an observation and judgment, and thus is a mental process as well. See id.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A Prong II because the claim recites “transmitting a localization result to the device” is a broad limitation whereby the “localization result” is not used or “practical[ly] appli[ed]” by the device. The broadly claimed subject matter of claim 1 that fails to implement the “localization result” is a “drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception” (i.e., the abstract ideas within the claim). See MPEP § 2106.04(d). A practical application is frequently found when the claimed subject matter results in “improvements in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field.” MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1). The limitation for “transmitting a localization result to the device” merely “link[s] the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment,” which in claim 1 is a computer network comprising a server and device. See id. The transmission of data to a device with no claim limitations involving the application of the “localization result” is merely “post-solution activity [that is not] meaningful enough to render the claim eligible,” see MPEP § 2106.04(d)(I), where the problem-solution aspect of the claim involves efficiently preserving privacy and the post-solution activity comprises the transmission of data within a computer network.
The claim under Step 2B does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05. Claim 1 recites a server and a device, but these additional elements fail to yield an “inventive concept” when the additional elements are “consider[ed] both individually and in combination.” See MPEP § 2106.05(I). Within claim 1, the use of a server and device amounts to “appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception….” See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A). Additionally, claim 1 recites “receiving, from a device, information…” and “transmitting a localization result to a device,” each of which amounts to “[a]dding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process,….” See id. Finally, claim 1 merely “link[s] the use of the judicial exception[s] to a particular technological environment” comprising a computer network, and this claim drafting effort fails to yield an inventive concept. See id.
For the above reasons, the broadly claimed subject matter of claim 1 that is directed to the abstract ideas of a “disembodied mathematical algorithm” and a “mental process” fails to comprise eligible subject matter under § 101.
Independent Claims 15, 29, and 43
Independent claims 15, 29, and 43 include the identical abstract ideas and the identical additional limitations recited in claim 1, and thus these claims are substantially identical to claim 1 with respect to subject matter eligibility. Accordingly, independent claims 15, 29, and 43 are rejected under § 101 for substantially the same reasons as provided above for claim 1.
Dependent Claim 30
Claim 30 additionally recites “identifying a flag in the localization algorithm.” For substantially the same reasons as provided above for claim 1, this mental process fails to yield a practical application under Step 2A Prong II or an inventive concept under Step 2B.
Dependent Claim 31
Claim 31 additionally recites “the flag comprises plain text,” which is well-known in the computer field. For substantially the same reasons as provided above for claim 1, this additional limitation fails to yield a practical application under Step 2A Prong II or an inventive concept under Step 2B.
Dependent Claim 32
Claim 32 additionally recites “the server is adapted to determine … a characteristic comprising…” For substantially the same reasons as provided above for claim 1, this additional mental process of “determining” fails to yield a practical application under Step 2A Prong II or an inventive concept under Step 2B.
Dependent Claim 33
Claim 33 additionally recites “the characteristic is revealed when the localization algorithm is run multiple times on a same input.” For substantially the same reasons as provided above for claim 1, this additional limitation involving a “same input” fails to yield a practical application under Step 2A Prong II or an inventive concept under Step 2B.
Dependent Claim 34
Claim 34 additionally recites an “indication” and “set value.” For substantially the same reasons as provided above for claim 1, these additional limitations involving an “indication” and “set value” fail to yield a practical application under Step 2A Prong II or an inventive concept under Step 2B.
Dependent Claim 35
Claim 35 only limits previously recited limitations and provides no additional that could yield a practical application or inventive concept. Thus, claim 35 is rejected under § 101 for substantially the same reasons as provided above for claim 1.
Dependent Claim 36
Claim 36 additionally recites “confidential information.” For substantially the same reasons as provided above for claim 1, this additional limitation involving a “confidential information” fails to yield a practical application under Step 2A Prong II or an inventive concept under Step 2B.
Dependent Claim 37
Claim 37 additionally recites a “first secret share of a plurality of secret shares.” For substantially the same reasons as provided above for claim 1, this additional limitation involving a “first secret share” fails to yield a practical application under Step 2A Prong II or an inventive concept under Step 2B. The Examiner notes this limitation begins to hint at a practical application or inventive concept, but the limitation fails to satisfy either Step 2A Prong II or Step 2B because the relevant claims are recited at a high level of generality.
Dependent Claim 38,
Claim 38 additionally recites a “secure multi-party computation” (MPC). For substantially the same reasons as provided above for claim 1, this additional limitation involving a “MPC” fails to yield a practical application under Step 2A Prong II or an inventive concept under Step 2B. The Examiner notes this limitation begins to hint at a practical application or inventive concept, but the limitation fails to satisfy either Step 2A Prong II or Step 2B because the relevant claims are recited at a high level of generality.
Dependent Claim 39
Claim 39 additionally recites “3D-space” and an “element” within the 3D space, which are well-known in localization algorithms of the computer field. For substantially the same reasons as provided above for claim 1, these additional limitations fail to yield a practical application under Step 2A Prong II or an inventive concept under Step 2B.
Dependent Claim 40
Claim 39 additionally recites “3D points,” which is well-known in localization algorithms of the computer field. For substantially the same reasons as provided above for claim 1, this additional limitation fails to yield a practical application under Step 2A Prong II or an inventive concept under Step 2B.
Dependent Claim 41
Claim 41 additionally recites a “gradient descent,” which is well-known in the computer field. For substantially the same reasons as provided above for claim 1, this additional limitation fails to yield a practical application under Step 2A Prong II or an inventive concept under Step 2B.
Dependent Claim 42
Claim 42 additionally recites an “autonomous robot device,” which is well-known in the computer field. For substantially the same reasons as provided above for claim 1, this additional limitation fails to yield a practical application under Step 2A Prong II or an inventive concept under Step 2B. The Examiner notes this limitation begins to hint at a practical application or inventive concept—it begins to provide context for where the claimed subject matter is applied—but the limitation without more fails to satisfy either Step 2A Prong II or Step 2B because the relevant claims are recited at a high level of generality.
Dependent Claim 44
Claim 44 additionally recites “the indication is transmitted with the information,” which only further limits the previously claimed limitations. For substantially the same reasons as provided above for claim 1, this additional limitation fails to yield a practical application under Step 2A Prong II or an inventive concept under Step 2B.
Dependent Claim 45
Claim 45 additionally recites “receive a localization output,” which is merely a data gathering activity, and an “estimated pose of the device in the environment,” which are well-known in localization algorithms of the computer field. For substantially the same reasons as provided above for claim 1, this additional limitation fails to yield a practical application under Step 2A Prong II or an inventive concept under Step 2B.
Dependent Claim 46
Claim 46 additionally recites “identifying a flag in the localization algorithm.” For substantially the same reasons as provided above for claim 1, this mental process fails to yield a practical application under Step 2A Prong II or an inventive concept under Step 2B.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yan, J., Privacy-Preserving Localization for Underwater Sensor Networks via Deep Reinforcement Learning;
Ebrahimi, A., US 2022/187841;
Hehn, M., US 2016/0259032; and
Zakrzewski, T., US 2020/0252457.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to D'ARCY WINSTON STRAUB whose telephone number is (303)297-4405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00 Mountain Time.
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, AMIR MEHRMANESH can be reached at (571)270-3351. 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.
/D'Arcy Winston Straub/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491