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 .
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.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed 02 August 2024. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08 August 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98. Accordingly, the IDS was considered.
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.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 8 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 8 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 8 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 8 recites:
A method comprising:
receiving inputs from a plurality of navigational aids;
determining a trustworthiness value for each of the plurality of navigational aids;
determining a most trusted navigator based on the trustworthiness values; and
performing a position correction based on the most trusted navigator.
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, “determining a trustworthiness…”, “determining a most trusted navigator…” and “performing a position correction…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (e.g. a 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”):
A method comprising:
receiving inputs from a plurality of navigational aids;
determining a trustworthiness value for each of the plurality of navigational aids;
determining a most trusted navigator based on the trustworthiness values; and
performing a position correction based on the most trusted navigator.
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 “receiving inputs...” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. In particular, the receiving step from the sensors and/or from the external source are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the determining and performing steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form 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, 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 8 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) 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 limitations of “receiving...” 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 limitation of “receiving...” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors. 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. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
As per Claim 1.
Claim 1, an apparatus claim (a computer apparatus), includes limitations analogous to claim 8 a process claim (a method), but adds at least one processor, a memory and executable code. These generically recited computer elements do not add significantly more to the abstract idea because, they merely amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claim 14.
Claim 14, an apparatus claim (a navigation system), includes limitations analogous to claim 8 a process claim (a method), but adds at least one processor, a memory and executable code. These generically recited computer elements do not add significantly more to the abstract idea because, they merely amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-13 and 15-20 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. Therefore, dependent claims 2-7, 9-13 and 15-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1, 8 and 14.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 5, 8, 12, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(a) as being anticipated by Reeve (USRE47648).
As to Claims 1, 8 and 14, Reeve teaches a computer apparatus, a method and a navigation system, comprising:
at least one processor in data communication with a memory storing processor executable code for configuring the at least one processor to (Reeve, col 10, lines 38-67):
receive inputs from a plurality of navigational aids (Reeve, col 10, lines 38-67: a processor with multiple sensor inputs and actuator outputs; a suite of sensor units each connected to a respective sensor input…said sensor unit suite includes a GNSS unit…an inertial measurement unit…, also see claim 14, Fig. 10);
determine a trustworthiness value for each of the plurality of navigational aids (Reeve, col 10, lines 38-67: processor is programmed to determine variable confidence levels in real time for each said sensor unit based on its current relative performance…; col 12, lines 4-9, also see claim 14, Fig. 10);
determine a most trusted navigator based on the trustworthiness values (Reeve, col 10, lines 38-67: processor is programmed to determine variable confidence levels in real time for each said sensor unit based on its current relative performance; and said processor is programmed to utilize said sensor unit outputs proportionally based on their respective confidence levels in generating said control output signals; claim 14: use output signals from…with the highest one of the confidence levels…; also see col 7, lines 18-37: …highest confidence sensor…, Fig. 10); and
perform a position correction based on the most trusted navigator (Reeve, col 10, lines 38-67: and said processor is programmed to utilize said sensor unit outputs proportionally based on their respective confidence levels in generating said control output signals; claim 14: use output signals from a first one of the sensor units with a highest one of the confidence levels to provide output signals to determine movements of the vehicle relative to the guide path; col 7, lines 18-37: …this highest confidence sensor is used for initial position and heading information gathering and to instruct the guidance unit…; also see Fig. 10).
As to Claims 5, 12 and 18, Reeve teaches the computer apparatus of Claim 1, the method of claim 8 and the navigation system of claim 14, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to periodically determine trustworthiness values for each of the plurality of navigational aids (Reeve, col 10 lines 59-67: Said processor is programmed to determine variable confidence levels in real time for each said sensor unit based on its current relative performance).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-4, 9-11 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reeve.
As to Claims 2, 9 and 15, Reeve teaches the computer apparatus of Claim 1, the method of claim 8 and the navigation system of claim 14.
Yet, Reeve does not explicitly teach wherein performing the position correction comprises determining an inertial navigation unit offset based on the most trusted navigator.
However, Reeve teaches receiving signals from different sensor units including a global navigation satellite system (GNSS)-based sensor unit, a wheel angle sensor (WAS), and an inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensor providing positions for a vehicle… use output signals from the first one of the sensor units with the highest one of the confidence levels to calibrate a second one of the sensor units with a lower one of the confidence levels (Reeve, claim 14, also see col 7 lines 17-38). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the offset of the inertial navigation unit could be determined based on the most trusted navigator with the knowledge of the positions measured by the inertial navigation unit and the most trusted navigator for the benefit of quantifying the error/drift of the inertia navigation unit and further correcting and recalibrating the inertia unit to achieve more reliable navigation.
As to Claims 3, 10 and 16, Reeve teaches the computer apparatus of Claim 1, the method of claim 8 and the navigation system of claim 14.
Yet, Reeve does not explicitly teach wherein determining the trustworthiness value for each of the plurality of navigational aids comprises comparing each navigational aid to each other navigational aid to identify deviations.
However, Reeve teaches processor is programmed to determine variable confidence levels in real time for each said sensor unit based on its current relative performance (Reeve, col 10, lines 38-67 ), processor programmed to determine different variable confidence levels in real time for each of said GNSS unit, WAS, and IMU sensor based on its current relative performance, (Reeve, col 14, lines 15-18, Fig. 10) and receiving signals from different sensor units including a global navigation satellite system (GNSS)-based sensor unit, a wheel angle sensor (WAS), and an inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensor providing positions for a vehicle… use output signals from the first one of the sensor units with the highest one of the confidence levels to calibrate a second one of the sensor units with a lower one of the confidence levels (Reeve, claim 14, also see col 7 lines 17-38). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the deviation could be determined by comparing the different sensors for the benefit of quantifying the level of confidence and/or error of the sensors and further determine a more accurate and precise sensor to navigate the vehicle and further correct and recalibrate the other sensors.
As to Claims 4, 11 and 17, Reeve teaches the computer apparatus of Claim 3, the method of claim 10 and the navigation system of claim 16.
Reeve further teaches wherein determining the trustworthiness value for each of the plurality of navigational aids further comprises analyzing navigational aid specific accuracy metrics (Reeve, col 14, lines 15-18: processor programmed to determine different variable confidence levels in real time for each of said GNSS unit, WAS, and IMU sensor based on its current relative performance, also see col 7 line 38-50, Fig. 10).
Claims 6-7, 13 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reeve in view of Lee (US20230343228).
As to Claims 6 and 19, Reeve teaches the computer apparatus of Claim 1 and the navigation system of claim 14.
Reeve further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
determine that a trustworthiness value associated with a nonprimary navigator (Reeve, Claim 14, col 10, lines 38-67).
Reeve does not teach determine the trustworthiness value has fallen below a threshold; and issue an alert.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches …calculated reliability of the estimated self-position with a predefined threshold (see at least Lee, para 0262)…The estimated self-position reliability calculation unit 107 of the information processing apparatus 100 in the drone 10 compares a calculated reliability of an estimated self-position with a predefined threshold, for example, the “allowable reliability threshold” illustrated in FIG. 7, 9, 11 , or 13, and displays a warning on the information display unit 131 of the controller 130 held by the control center or the user (pilot) in a case where the calculated reliability of the estimated self-position is less than the “allowable reliability threshold” (see at least Lee, para 0336).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Reeve so as to include determining the trustworthiness value has fallen below a threshold; and issue an alert in view of Lee et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that issue a warning when the reliability of the sensor lower than a threshold of Lee can be used in Reeve, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Reeve and Lee because this would have achieved the desirable result of determining whether the data acquired by the sensor is of good quality and warning the user in a case when the data is compromised, so that the user/system will not be misled by the compromised sensor data.
As to Claims 7 and 20, Reeve teaches the computer apparatus of Claim 1 and the navigation system of claim 14.
Reeve further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
determine that a trustworthiness value associated with a primary navigator (Reeve, Claim 14, col 10, lines 38-67).
Reeve does not teach determine the trustworthiness value has fallen below a threshold; and issue an alert.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches …calculated reliability of the estimated self-position with a predefined threshold (see at least Lee, para 0262)…The estimated self-position reliability calculation unit 107 of the information processing apparatus 100 in the drone 10 compares a calculated reliability of an estimated self-position with a predefined threshold, for example, the “allowable reliability threshold” illustrated in FIG. 7, 9, 11 , or 13, and displays a warning on the information display unit 131 of the controller 130 held by the control center or the user (pilot) in a case where the calculated reliability of the estimated self-position is less than the “allowable reliability threshold” (see at least Lee, para 0336).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Reeve so as to include determining that a trustworthiness value associated with a primary navigator and issue an alert in view of Lee et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that issue a warning when the reliability of the sensor lower than a threshold of Lee can be used in Reeve, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Reeve and Lee because this would have achieved the desirable result of determining whether the data acquired by the sensor is of good quality and warning the user in a case when the data is compromised, so that the user/system will not be misled by the compromised sensor data.
As to Claim 13, Reeve teaches the method of Claim 8.
Reeve further teaches determining that a trustworthiness value associated with a nonprimary navigator determining that a trustworthiness value associated with a primary navigator (Reeve, Claim 14, col 10, lines 38-67).
Reeve does not teach determining the trustworthiness value has fallen below a threshold; and issuing one or more alerts.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches …calculated reliability of the estimated self-position with a predefined threshold (see at least Lee, para 0262)…The estimated self-position reliability calculation unit 107 of the information processing apparatus 100 in the drone 10 compares a calculated reliability of an estimated self-position with a predefined threshold, for example, the “allowable reliability threshold” illustrated in FIG. 7, 9, 11 , or 13, and displays a warning on the information display unit 131 of the controller 130 held by the control center or the user (pilot) in a case where the calculated reliability of the estimated self-position is less than the “allowable reliability threshold” (see at least Lee, para 0336).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Reeve so as to include determining the trustworthiness value has fallen below a threshold; and issuing one or more alerts in view of Lee et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that issue a warning when the reliability of the sensors being lower than a threshold of Lee can be used in Reeve, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Reeve and Lee because this would have achieved the desirable result of determining whether the data acquired by the sensors is of good quality and warning the user in a case when the data is compromised, so that the user/system will not be misled by the compromised sensor data.
Examiner’s Notes
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraph and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety 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.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as "Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced" may be deemed insufficient.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HONGYE LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5410. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/HONGYE LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights