The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending and examined. Claims 1-11, 13, and 15-20 are currently amended.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “global navigation satellite system (GNSS) system” has a redundant word system. Appropriate correction is required.
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 not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Analysis for Independent Claims 1 and 13:
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) (Step 2A Prong 1), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception (Step 2A Prong 2), and if so, re-evaluate whether the inventive concept is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (Step 2B).
Claims 1 and 13 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
Independent claims 1 and 13 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: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes). The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. The independent claims and the other claims recite a method and device for receiving vehicle navigation data, and determining the received navigation data as recited in independent claims 1 and 13. The limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “by the communication device”. That is, other than reciting “by the communication device” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by the communication device” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of by a communication device does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
The claim recites additional elements of receiving vehicle navigation data, and determining the received navigation data. The receiving vehicle navigation data is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle and navigation data for use in the determining step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The determining step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of outputting result from the feeding step), and amounts to mere post solution outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “hidden Markov model” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose traffic control environment. The traffic control environment is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automates the discretizing step.
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 (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 is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the generating and outputting steps were considered to be extra-solution activity 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 background recites that air traffic control is well known to monitor air traffic to avert collisions [0002-0003]. 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).
Analysis for Dependent Claims 2-12, and 14-20:
Step 1: Determining if the claim(s) are directed a statutory class of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Claims 2-12 are directed to “a method’. The claim is directed to a process, which is a statutory category. (Step 1: yes)
Claims 14-20 are directed to an apparatus. The claim is directed to a machine, which is a statutory category. (Step 1: yes)
Step 2A Prong One: Determining if the claim(s) recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity, fundamental economic practices, and “an idea ‘of itself’”.
Claims 2-12 recite additional limitations directed to a mental process. The same analysis of Step 2A Prong One for claim 1 applies. Claims 2-12 are directed to the judicial exception of a mental process.
Claims 14-20 recite additional limitations directed to a mental process. The same analysis of Step 2A Prong One for claim 13 applies. Claims 14-20 are directed to the judicial exception of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two: Determining if additional limitations within the claim(s) integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 2-12, and 14-20 recite additional limitations, which viewed both individually and in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 2-12, and 14-20 are not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Determining if the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The additional elements in claims 2-12, and 14-20 fail to recite any additional elements, viewed both individually and as a whole, that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The same analysis applies in this step 2B as discussed in Step 2A Prong Two (see independent and dependent claim analysis). Claims 2-12, and 14-20 fail to claim anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion:
Dependent claims 2-12, and 14-20 are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process. Accordingly, claims 2-12, and 14-20 are not patent eligible. Overall, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter and are not patent eligible.
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 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 13 and 19 are rejected because “determining, using the received vehicle navigational data, that a navigation assistance notification should be communicated”. It is ambiguous and unclear when the navigation assistance is communicated. Appropriate correction is required.
Dependent claims 2-12, and 14-20 are also rejected based on dependency.
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that §112(f) (pre-AIA §112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke §112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim features “each mobile communication device being functional to determine” as recited in claims 12 and 13; “surveillance unit being functional to determine” as recited in claims 13 and 19; and “surveillance unit is functional to communicate” as recited in claim 15, have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “device” coupled with functional language “determine”, and “unit” coupled with functional language “communicate” and “determine” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-9 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows “communication device” corresponds to a cellular device according to “[0056] The mobile communication device 102 is a cellular device, in this example comprising a subscriber identification module (SIM) 105 that may take the form of a universal integrated circuit card (SIM card) or an embedded universal integrated circuit card (eSIM).”. A review of the specification shows “surveillance unit” corresponds to a computer network or computing apparatus according to “[0081] The surveillance unit 113 may comprise any suitable computing apparatus, which may be part of any suitable computer network.”
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Notice re prior art available under both pre-AIA and AIA
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.
Claim Rejections
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. §102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9, 13-17, and 19-20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Priest, US 2018/0026708 (A1).
As to claim 1, Priest teaches a method comprising:
receiving, via cellular network communication, vehicle navigational data from a mobile communication device of a vehicle, the vehicle navigational data being derived from a navigation system with which the mobile communication device is associated (Fig. 3 and related text; “separation assurance between UAVs; navigation assistance; weather and obstacle reporting; monitoring of speed, altitude, location, direction, etc.; traffic management; landing services; and real-time control. The UAV is equipped with a mobile device, such as an embedded mobile device or physical hardware emulating a mobile device. In an exemplary embodiment, the UAV can be equipped with hardware to support plural cell networks, to allow for broad coverage support.”, ¶58-66), and
determining, using the received vehicle navigational data, that a navigation assistance notification should be communicated to the mobile communication device and, in response, communicating said navigation assistance notification to the mobile communication device (Figs. 18 and 19 and related text teaches transmitting obstruction instruction to UAVs in which mobile devices are embedded, ¶58).
As to claim 2, Priest teaches the method further comprising: receiving, via cellular network communication, further vehicle navigational data from a further mobile communication device of a further vehicle, the further vehicle navigational data being derived from a navigation system with which the further mobile communication device is associated (Fig. 3 and related text; “separation assurance between UAVs; navigation assistance; weather and obstacle reporting; monitoring of speed, altitude, location, direction, etc.; traffic management; landing services; and real-time control. The UAV is equipped with a mobile device, such as an embedded mobile device or physical hardware emulating a mobile device. In an exemplary embodiment, the UAV can be equipped with hardware to support plural cell networks, to allow for broad coverage support.”, ¶58-66), and
determining, using the received vehicle navigational data and the received further vehicle navigational data, that a navigation assistance notification should be communicated to at least one of the mobile communication devices and, in response, communicating said navigation assistance notification to said one or both mobile communication devices (Figs. 18 and 19 and related text teaches transmitting obstruction instruction to UAVs in which mobile devices are embedded, ¶58).
As to claim 3, Priest teaches the method wherein said navigation assistance notification is communicated via cellular network communication (“wireless interfaces 106 can be used to communicate with the UAV 50 for command and control as well as to relay data. Again, the wireless interfaces 106 can be configured to communicate on a specific cell network or on a plurality of cellular networks. The wireless interfaces 106 include hardware, wireless antennas, etc. enabling the UAV 50 to communicate concurrently with a plurality of wireless networks, such as cellular networks, GPS, GLONASS, WLAN, WiMAX, or the like”, ¶66).
As to claim 4, Priest teaches the method wherein the determination that a navigation assistance notification should be communicated is based on identifying a conflict with a traffic separation rule (“The separation assurance includes tracking all of the UAVs 50 in flight, based on the monitored data, to ensure adequate separation.”, ¶77).
As to claim 5, Priest teaches the method wherein the navigation assistance notification comprises a warning of a potential collision (Figs. 10-12 and related text shows navigation instruction to UAV to avoid collision during flight path).
As to claim 6, Priest teaches the method wherein the navigation assistance notification comprises an instruction to take preventive action to avoid a potential collision (Figs. 10-12 and related text shows navigation instruction to adjust flight path of UAV to avoid collision such as descent and ascend during flight path).
As to claim 7, Priest teaches the method wherein the said or each said vehicle is an aerial vehicle (Fig. 2 shows an aerial vehicle 50).
As to claim 8, Priest teaches the method wherein the navigation system is an inertial navigation system (INS) or is a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) system(“wireless interfaces 106 can be used to communicate with the UAV 50 for command and control as well as to relay data. Again, the wireless interfaces 106 can be configured to communicate on a specific cell network or on a plurality of cellular networks. The wireless interfaces 106 include hardware, wireless antennas, etc. enabling the UAV 50 to communicate concurrently with a plurality of wireless networks, such as cellular networks, GPS, GLONASS, WLAN, WiMAX, or the like”, ¶66).
As to claim 9, Priest teaches the method wherein the aerial vehicle is an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (Fig. 2 shows an unmanned aerial vehicle 50).
As to claim 13, it is an apparatus claim that recites substantially the same limitations as the respective method claim 1. Priest teaches that drone with surveillance camera to transmit navigation data (Priest: 169, ¶184). As such, apparatus claim 1 is rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the method claim 1 and are incorporated herein.
As to claims 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, and 20, they are apparatus claims that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective method claims 7, 3, 8, 16, 2, and 6. As such, system claims 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective method claims 7, 3, 8, 16, 2, and 6 and are incorporated herein.
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 of this title, 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 10-12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Priest, US 2018/0026708 (A1) in view of Jones, US 2017/0303082 (A1).
As to claims 10 and 11, Priest teaches the method wherein the cellular network has capabilities meeting a 2G, 3G, 4G or 5G standard (“cellular/wireless/cordless telecommunication protocols (e.g. 3G/4G, etc)”, ¶66); and each mobile communication device having has capabilities enabling vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication (“In another exemplary embodiment, another UAV 50 proximate to the UAV 50 can be configured to transmit the “kill code” point-to-point such as through a local wireless connection.”, ¶176).
Priest does not explicitly the standards as defined by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU).
However, Jones teaches that “methods and systems for enforcing at least one rule within a geofence. The rule is enforced by a fencing agent on a drone, unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)”, (Jones: ¶13) using transmission protocol “first generation standards based (IEEE, ITU or other recognized world communications standard), a "2G" standards based protocol such as "EDGE or CDMA 2000 also known as 1XRTT", a 3G based standard such as "High Speed Packet Access (HSPA) or Evolution for Data Only (EVDO), any accepted 4G standard such as "IEEE, ITU standards that include WiMax, Long Term Evolution "LTE" and its derivative standards”, (Jones: ¶222). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success for the drone network as taught by Priest to include the standards as defined by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) as taught by Jones to enforce flight rules or restriction (Priest: ¶47).
As to claim 12, Priest modified by Jones teaches the method each mobile communication device being functional to determine, using direct communication between the mobile communication devices, that preventive action should be taken by at least one of the vehicles to avoid a potential collision (Figs. 10-12 and related text shows navigation instruction to adjust flight path of UAV to avoid collision such as descent and ascend during flight path).
As to claim 18, it is an apparatus claim that recites substantially the same limitations as the respective method claim 10. As such, apparatus claim 1 is rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the method claim 1 and are incorporated herein (see claim 10 above for rationale of obviousness, motivation, and reason to combine).
Examiner’s Note
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Examiner’s Request
The examiner requests, in response to this office action, support must be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, the applicant is requested to indicate support for amended claim language and newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). (MPEP 2163 I. B. New or Amended Claims). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application. When responding to this office action, applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. In amending in reply to a rejection of claims in an application or patent under reexamination, the applicant or patent owner must clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. The applicant or patent owner must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUEN WONG whose telephone number is (313)446-4851. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi, can be reached on (313)446-4851. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/Yuen Wong/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667