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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application CN202210069955.7, filed on January 21, 2022. Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to the declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR.154(b) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application. No action by the applicant is required at this time.
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim for priority to the PCT filing of Application No. PCT/CN2022/105069, filed on July 12, 2022. No action by the applicant is required at this time.
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the amendments filed on July 19, 2024. Claims 11-19 are currently pending, with Claims 1-10 being cancelled, and Claims 11-19 being newly added.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 19, 2024, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
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 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 limitations use 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 limitations are:
“a loopback detection module …” in Claim 1.
“a data obtaining module …”, “a data calculating module …”, “a fusing and optimal module …”, “an optimal position and attitude module …”, and “a navigation and positioning module …” in Claim 18.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof:
Regarding the limitation of “a loopback detection module …”, the specification at Page 13, Paragraph beginning with “Specifically, the loopback …”, only states that “the loopback detection module performs loop detection …” and Page 16, Paragraph beginning with “Further, as shown in FIG. 8 …” states that “the UAV includes a processor 10, a memory, and a display …”. The structure for the loopback detection module is a processor or computer equivalent for performing loopback calculations.
Regarding the limitations of “a data obtaining module …”, “a data calculating module …”, “a fusing and optimal module …”, and “an optimal position and attitude module …”, the specification at Page 16, Paragraphs beginning with “data obtaining module 51 …” to “navigation and positioning module 55 …”, states the following:
the data obtaining module 51 is used for obtaining the measurements of the inertial sensor and an image of the binocular camera, extracting and tracking the point features of the image, and obtaining the altitude values measured by the ranging radar;
the data calculating module 52 is used for initializing the binocular camera and calculating the position and attitude of camera and the depth of the landmark point;
the fusing and optimal module 53 is used for fusing the measurement data of the inertial sensor and the binocular camera;
the optimal position and attitude module 54 is used for obtaining the altitude value of the ranging radar and perform four-degree-of-freedom position and attitude graph optimization after adding the detected keyframes.
The specification at Page 18, Paragraph beginning with “Of course, those skilled …”, states that “all or part of the process … may be accomplished by a computer program to instruct the relevant hardware (e.g., a processor, a controller, etc.) …”. The Examiner is interpreting the structure for the remaining elements to be computers or processing units associated with the UAV for performing calculations and navigation functions.
Regarding the limitation of “a navigation and positioning module …”, the specification at Page 16, Paragraphs beginning with “data obtaining module 51 …” to “navigation and positioning module 55 …”, states the navigation and positioning module 55 is used for encapsulating the optimized position and attitude data to form a pseudo-GPS signal, inputting the pseudo- GPS signal to the UAV for positioning, and performing route planning and setting landmark point tasks based on the current positioning; and the specification at Page 16, Paragraph beginning with “The memory 20 …”, states that the memory stores application software, including a navigation and positioning program 40 which can be executed by the processor. The structure for the navigation and positioning module is software capable of executing functions for navigating the UAV.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea, involving optimizing position and attitude for navigating a UAV, which constitutes a mathematical concept. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims only recite steps of performing mechanical calculations and fusing data to determine position information of the UAV.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 11 and 18 are directed to a method/ system for performing navigating and positioning of a UAV in GPS-denied environments (i.e., a process). Therefore, Claims 11 and 18 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of a) an abstract idea, b) a law of nature, or c) a natural phenomenon.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the noted abstract ideas are as follows (where the bolded portions represent an “abstract idea”; and where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations”):
Claim 11 recites the following:
A navigation and positioning method for an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) under GPS-DENIED conditions, wherein the UAV comprises: an inertial sensor, a binocular camera, a ranging radar and a loopback detection module; the method comprising:
obtaining measurements of the inertial sensor and an image of the binocular camera, extracting and tracking point features of the image, and
obtaining an altitude value measured by the ranging radar;
initializing the binocular camera, and
calculating a position and attitude of camera and a depth of landmark point based on a parallax and a baseline of the binocular camera;
fusing measurement data of the inertial sensor and the binocular camera, using sliding- window based nonlinear graph optimization to obtain high-precision position and attitude data;
obtaining the altitude value of the ranging radar and
performing four-degree-of-freedom position and attitude graph optimization after adding detected keyframes when the loopback detection module detects a repeated occurrence of the UAV at a same location;
encapsulating optimized position and attitude data to form a pseudo-GPS signal, inputting the pseudo-GPS signal to the UAV for positioning, and
performing route planning and setting landmark point tasks based on the current positioning.
Regarding the limitations of “calculating …”, “fusing …”, “performing four degree of freedom…”, and “encapsulating …”, the Examiner submits that these limitations consist of an abstract idea, involving performing fusion and optimization calculations to determine the UAV’s location and commence route planning, which comprises mathematical concepts. These limitations can also be performed using a pencil and paper to determine each of these values, which comprises a mental concept.
Regarding the limitations of “obtaining …”, the Examiner submits that these limitations consist of a mental concept, as human can reasonably evaluate or make judgments mentally or by using pencil and paper to determine the desired the inertial and altitude measurements of the UAV.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The limitation of “A navigation and positioning method for an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) under GPS-DENIED conditions …”, amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding the limitation of “initializing …”, the Examiner submits that the this limitation does not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application, as initializing a camera is used only for data gathering purposes, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
For the following reason(s), the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitation of “performing …”, the Examiner submits that this limitation comprises outputting the operating data related to the UAV, which consists of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, implement/ use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitations does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Analysis of Step 2B is performed to determine if the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, and further analysis is required for all functions that are identified as well-understood, routine, and conventional.
The Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that merely inputting data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function of data gathering and performing calculations on the data acquired to input into the UAV system, when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). The specification also demonstrates the well-understood, routine, and conventional nature of additional elements as it describes these elements as well-understood, routine, or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available produce, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Dependent Claims 12-17 and 19 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Dependent Claims 12-14 and 17 recite features of using matrices and mathematical operations to distinguish how the variables are calculated. Dependent Claims 15-16 indicate a field of use for the camera. Dependent Claim 19 recites operations on generic computer components. Therefore, dependent Claims 12-17 and 19 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Claims 11 and 18.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-19 would appear to be allowable, pending correction of outstanding rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the combination of the following claim limitations in independent Claim 11 (and similarly for Claim 18), when considered as a whole, would render the independent claims, as well as their dependents, as non-obvious over the prior art of record:
obtaining the altitude value of the ranging radar and performing four-degree-of-freedom position and attitude graph optimization after adding detected keyframes when the loopback detection module detects a repeated occurrence of the UAV at a same location;
encapsulating optimized position and attitude data to form a pseudo-GPS signal, inputting the pseudo-GPS signal to the UAV for positioning, and performing route planning and setting landmark point tasks based on the current positioning.
While it is known to determine operating parameters for a UAV in GPS-denied or restricted environments, and it is further known to fuse the sensor data using a sliding-window optimization process, it is less known to restrict the determination to four degrees of freedom based on the altitude and attitude, and output a pseudo-GPS signal to conduct route planning for the UAV.
The closest prior art teaches the following:
Kumar, et al (U.S. 2017/0212529 A1), which teaches a method for fusing sensor data to determine the pose of a UAV when GPS is unreliable, but does not teach four DOF optimization for attitude of the UAV.
Roumeliotis, et al (U.S. 2017/0343356 A1), which teaches a method for navigating a UAV in a GPS-denied environment using sliding window estimates of poses and positions of features, but does not teach the use of four DOF optimization, nor the determination of altitude.
Qin, et al “Relocalization, Global Optimization and Map Merging for Monocular Visual-Inertial SLAM”, which teaches a method for performing 4DOF optimization for a UAV using visual SLAM, but does not teach the altitude aspect, nor that the environment is GPS-denied.
Zhou, et al (CN 107478220 A), which teaches a method for performing indoor navigation for a UAV, fusing the sensor data, and performing closed loop detection and attitude graph optimization, but does not teach four DOF optimization.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MERRITT LEVY whose telephone number is (571)270-5595. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0630-1600.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at (571) 272-9855. 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.
/MERRITT LEVY/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/KYLE J KINGSLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights