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
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 of U.S. Application No. 18/732197 filed on 06/03/2024 have been examined.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
101 Analysis- Step 1
The claims are directed to a method for identify potential path around plurality of obstructions (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1-20 is 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 follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
1. A system comprising: a spatial obstruction database for a geographic region, where the spatial obstruction database represents physical features in the geographic region as abstracted spatial obstructions within the spatial obstruction database; at least one processor configured to: identify a potential path in the geographic region, where the potential path is defined between plurality of positions within the geographic region, and for the potential path: query the spatial obstructions database for a volume that contains the potential path and return abstracted spatial obstructions from the spatial obstruction database that correspond to the volume; determine if any of the returned abstracted spatial obstructions for the volume intersect with the potential path to determine if the potential path is unobstructed.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “Identify…”, “query…”, “determine…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (driver) looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
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.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
1. A system comprising: a spatial obstruction database for a geographic region, where the spatial obstruction database represents physical features in the geographic region as abstracted spatial obstructions within the spatial obstruction database; at least one processor configured to: identify a potential path in the geographic region, where the potential path is defined between plurality of positions within the geographic region, and for the potential path: query the spatial obstructions database for a volume that contains the potential path and return abstracted spatial obstructions from the spatial obstruction database that correspond to the volume; determine if any of the returned abstracted spatial obstructions for the volume intersect with the potential path to determine if the potential path is unobstructed.
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 limitations of “represents physical features in the geographic region as abstracted spatial obstructions within the spatial obstruction database” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving steps from the sensors and from the external source are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of identify and gathering data and determining steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The communicating results step on the machine interference is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of representing the environment), and amounts to mere post solution display a path around obstructions (0035), which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the data processing steps merely describes how to generally “Identify…”, “query…”, “determine…” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. The vehicle control system is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the evaluating step.
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, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, 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 limitation(s) do/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
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the “Identify…”, “query…”, “determine…” amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “represents physical features in the geographic region as abstracted spatial obstructions within the spatial obstruction database” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “represents physical features in the geographic region as abstracted spatial obstructions within the spatial obstruction database” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle controller is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLCv. 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. The additional limitation of “representing…,” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because 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. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-10, 12-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) 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 [provide concise explanation]. Therefore, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, applicant recites a method performing functionalities identical to those of the system of claim 1. The integration of a method in claim 11 does not integrate the judicial exception of claim 1 into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claim 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ivanov et al. [US 2020/0233439 A1], hereinafter referred to as Ivanov.
As to Claim 1 and 11, Ivanov discloses a system comprising: a spatial obstruction database for a geographic region, where the spatial obstruction database represents physical features in the geographic region as abstracted spatial obstructions within the spatial obstruction database; at least one processor configured to: identify a potential path in the geographic region, where the potential path is defined between plurality of positions within the geographic region, and for the potential path ([see at least 0031, 0055, 0059, 0060, 0061, 0081 and 0085], “The building model 143 may be a three-dimensional building model or a two-dimensional building model. The two-dimensional building model may include building footprints defined by three or more geographic coordinates. The three-dimensional building model may include three-dimensional geometric shapes or geometries defined by three or more three-dimensional coordinates in space. The building model 143 may be measured using a range finding device (e.g., a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor) mounted on a stationary tripod, a ground vehicle or an aerial vehicle. As the vehicle travels along pathways corresponding to path segments in the map data, the range finding device collects distance data, which may be spatially arranged as a point cloud”, “may also identify and take into consideration existing routes, or flight paths, of other drones that are also associated with the location 140. Taking other drone flight paths into consideration may avoid potential collisions of the drone 124 with other drones while enroute. The server 125 may access a database that contains drone data, including drone location, drone altitude, and drone flight paths for other drones. The database may include a lookup table that associates drone locations with drone altitudes and computed flight paths”): query the spatial obstructions database for a volume that contains the potential path and return abstracted spatial obstructions from the spatial obstruction database that correspond to the volume ([see at least 0080, 0081, 0085 and 0086]); determine if any of the returned abstracted spatial obstructions for the volume intersect with the potential path to determine if the potential path is unobstructed ([see at least 0080, 0081, 0085 and 0086]).
As to Claim 2 and 12, Ivanov discloses a system, wherein the spatial obstruction database is optimized for three-dimensional queries ([see at least 0080, 0081, 0085and 0086]).
As to Claim 3 and 13, Ivanov discloses a system, wherein the spatial obstruction database represents the abstracted spatial obstructions as subregions having a defined footprint and defined
Height ([see at least 0059, 0063, 0085 and 0086]).
As to Claim 4 and 14, Ivanov discloses a system, wherein the spatial obstruction database represents the abstracted spatial obstructions as subregions having a parallelepiped shape ([see at least 0066 and 0128]).
As to Claim 5 and 15, Ivanov discloses a system, wherein the spatial obstruction database represents the physical features in the geographic region as the abstracted spatial obstructions within
the spatial obstruction database by being configured to: represent the geographic region as a plurality of subregions; and for each of the plurality of subregions that includes an obstruction, identify at least an obstructed high point and identifying the subregion as fully obstructed to the obstructed high point ([see at least 0080, 0081, 0085and 0086]).
As to Claim 6 and 16, Ivanov discloses a system, wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine if any of the returned spatial obstructions for the volume intersect with the potential path by being configured to: determine which of the returned abstracted spatial obstructions overlap the
potential path in two dimensions; and determine if any of the returned abstracted spatial obstructions that overlap the potential path in two dimensions overlap with the potential path in a third dimension ([see at least 0080, 0081, 0085and 0086]).
As to Claim 7 and 17, Ivanov discloses a system, wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine which of the returned abstracted spatial obstructions overlap the potential path in the two dimensions by being configured to line clip the potential path relative to each of the returned abstracted spatial obstructions ([see at least 0066, 0110 and 0128]).
As to Claim 8 and 18, Ivanov discloses a system, wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine if any of the returned abstracted spatial obstructions that overlap the potential path in the two dimensions overlap with the potential path in the third dimension by being configured to compare altitudes of each of the returned abstracted spatial obstructions that overlap the potential path in the two dimensions with attitudes of overlapping portions of the potential path ([see at least 0066, 0110 and 0128]).
As to Claim 9 and 19, Ivanov discloses a system, wherein the potential path is a potential navigation path for a drone in a fleet of drones ([see at least 0116 and 0126]).
As to Claim 10 and 20, Ivanov discloses a system, wherein the potential path is a candidate
communication link between drones in a plurality of drones ([see at least Fig.1, 0028, 0085, 0116 and 0126]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAZAN A SOOFI whose telephone number is (469)295-9189. The examiner can normally be reached on Flex schedule.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached on 572-272-1516. 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.
/YAZAN A SOOFI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668