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 .
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
Throughout the claims, the term “valid satellites” is understood in view of para. [0023] of the specification to comprise satellites whose signals meet desired criteria.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim 1 recites an electronic device and is therefore an apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong One – Recitation of a Judicial Exception
Claim 1 recites:
filtering received global navigational satellite system (GNSS) signals to identify valid satellites, based on receiving the GNSS signals from a plurality of satellites;
identifying candidate satellites from the valid satellites, based on coordinates obtained by projecting positions of the valid satellites and the reference position in a first direction and the digital map, in a three-dimensional (3D) space including the positions of the valid satellites and the reference position;
identifying at least one target satellite meeting a line of sight (LOS) at the reference position, based on coordinates obtained by projecting positions of the candidate satellites and the reference position in a second direction different from the first direction and the digital map, in the 3D space.
These steps fall within the mental processes groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG as they can be performed mentally or with paper and pencil. The filtering step can be performed by observing and evaluating a list of received GNSS signals and corresponding characteristics. For example specification para. [0057] describes filtering based on determining if signal intensity is greater than a threshold, and such determining can be performed mentally or with paper and pencil. Similarly, the identifying steps can be performed by observing and evaluating the obtained coordinates. The filtering and identifying steps can also be considered to fall within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
Examiner notes that claim 1 does not explicitly recite steps for obtaining the coordinates by projecting positions of the satellites and the reference position in first and second directions, but only identifying candidate satellites based on such coordinates. Further, claim 1 does not explicitly recite a step for receiving GNSS signals from a plurality of satellites, but only filtering signals that have been so received, nor does the recited structure of a memory and at least one processor have the ability to receive GNSS signals from satellites.
Claim 1 therefore recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two – Practical Application
Claim 1 further recites:
a memory storing computer-executable instructions and at least one processor configured to access the memory and execute the instructions
obtaining a digital map of a predetermined target area around a reference position at which the GNSS signals are received.
However, the memory and at least one processor comprise generic computer equipment that is merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. In performing the abstract idea the memory and at least one processor merely performs the generic computer functions of receiving and processing data. The obtaining of a digital map is merely insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e. data gathering.
The courts have found that generic computer equipment and insignificant extra-solution activity do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d) I). These elements therefore do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Step 2B – Inventive Concept
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the additional elements recited in the claim include generic computer equipment and insignificant extra-solution activity.
The courts have found that insignificant extra-solution activity and generic computer equipment do not amount to significantly more, i.e. they do not amount to an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.5 A).
Claim 1 is therefore not patent eligible.
Claim 11 recites a corresponding method and is therefore not patent eligible for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 2 and 12 recite further details of the filtering step for identifying valid satellites recited in claim 1 lines 5-6 and claim 12 lines 2-3 – compare with Applicant’s PGPub para. [0023] “the identifying of the valid satellites may include obtaining fault signals based on at least one of a clock delay of each of the GNSS signals, an orbit error, or noise, or any combination thereof and obtaining signals greater than predetermined signal intensity among signals except for the fault signals among the GNSS signals to identify the valid satellites” - and therefore recite further details of the abstract idea without integrating it into a practical application or adding significantly more.
Claims 3 and 13 recite the identifying of valid satellites comprising repeatedly identifying the valid satellites based on a predetermined number for trilateration and therefore merely recite further details of the abstract idea without integrating it into a practical application or adding significantly more.
Claims 4, 5, 14, and 15 recite further data gathering based on the digital map, i.e. further insignificant extra-solution activity, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more.
Claims 6-10 and 16-20 recite further instructions for projecting the satellite positions to identify candidate and target satellites, the instructions comprising mental processes or mathematical relationships that further describe the abstract idea without integrating it into a practical application or adding significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, the closest prior art (Montheard US 20060119506 A1) teaches identifying candidate satellites by projecting a plurality of GNSS satellites onto a map and selecting at least one satellite in each of N defined map regions (abstract, Fig. 1).
Thomson US 20220357751 A1 teaches obtaining a digital map of a predetermined target area around a reference position at which GNSS signals are received (152, Fig. 1); and
identifying candidate satellites based on coordinates obtained by projecting positions of satellites and a reference position in a first direction and an upward facing image (213, Fig. 2C), in a three-dimensional (3D) space including the satellite positions and the reference position (Fig. 2C and paras. [0059]-[0060], where the satellites determined as line of sight LOS meet the claimed candidate satellites).
Bade (US 20240393477 A1) teaches identifying candidate satellites by projecting a plurality of GNSS satellites onto an image and assigning to each of the projected GNSS satellites a potential GNSS signal quality value (paras. [0028]-[0031]).
Xu (US 20170033903 A1) teaches filtering received GNSS signals to identify valid satellites, based on receiving the GNSS signals from a plurality of satellites (para. [0023] “the user terminal 105 may be programmed to monitor the BCCH for signals transmitted by the satellites 110 and only select among those with a signal strength above a strength threshold”).
However the prior art does not teach or make obvious the combination:
filtering received global navigational satellite system (GNSS) signals to identify valid satellites, based on receiving the GNSS signals from a plurality of satellites;
obtaining a digital map of a predetermined target area around a reference position at which the GNSS signals are received;
identifying candidate satellites from the valid satellites, based on coordinates obtained by projecting positions of the valid satellites and the reference position in a first direction and the digital map, in a three-dimensional (3D) space including the positions of the valid satellites and the reference position; and
identifying at least one target satellite meeting a line of sight (LOS) at the reference position, based on coordinates obtained by projecting positions of the candidate satellites and the reference position in a second direction different from the first direction and the digital map, in the 3D space.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSI J GALT whose telephone number is (571)270-1469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM - 5PM EST.
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, WILLIAM KELLEHER can be reached at (571)272-7753. 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.
/CASSI J GALT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights