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
This office action is in response to the patent application filed on August 5, 2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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 Application No. CN202211677820.5, filed on December 26, 2022.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(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 the part of the applicant is required at this time.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on August 5, 2024 & December 8, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1 is directed to a data processing method. Claim 11 is directed to a data processing apparatus. Claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium with instructions (i.e. apparatus) Therefore, claims 1-20 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step2A, 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.
In this case independent claims 1 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, the claims under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover certain 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:
A data processing method, applied to an electronic device, comprising:
obtaining satellite positioning information;
obtaining a sensor data set captured by a target sensor in a terminal, the sensor data set comprising at least an acceleration sensor data set and a gyroscope data set;
determining, based on the acceleration sensor data set and the gyroscope data set, yaw angle variation information of a carrier in which the terminal is located during movement;
fusing the satellite positioning information and the yaw angle variation information to obtain moving trajectory information of the carrier; and
displaying a moving trajectory of the carrier based on the moving trajectory information.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bold 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, “obtaining satellite positioning information” and “obtaining a sensor data set captured by a target sensor in a terminal, the sensor data set comprising at least an acceleration sensor data set and a gyroscope data set” in the context of this claim encompasses collecting information. “determining, based on the acceleration sensor data set and the gyroscope data set, yaw angle variation information of a carrier in which the terminal is located during movement” and “fusing the satellite positioning information and the yaw angle variation information to obtain moving trajectory information of the carrier” in the context of this claim encompasses calculating information based on collected information.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. As explained above, independent claim 1 recites at least one abstract idea. The other independent claim 11 & 20, which is of similar scope to claim 1, likewise recites at least one abstract idea under Step 2A, prong I.
101 Analysis – Step2A, 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 idea 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 data processing method, applied to an electronic device, comprising:
obtaining satellite positioning information;
obtaining a sensor data set captured by a target sensor in a terminal, the sensor data set comprising at least an acceleration sensor data set and a gyroscope data set;
determining, based on the acceleration sensor data set and the gyroscope data set, yaw angle variation information of a carrier in which the terminal is located during movement;
fusing the satellite positioning information and the yaw angle variation information to obtain moving trajectory information of the carrier; and
displaying a moving trajectory of the carrier based on the moving trajectory information.
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 displaying a moving trajectory of the carrier based on the moving trajectory information the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use generic processors to perform the processes. In particular the “displaying” step amount to displaying a result, 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 – Step2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 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 element of “displaying a moving trajectory of the carrier based on the moving trajectory information” 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 “displaying” 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 “displaying” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016); indicate that displaying certain results of the collection and analysis is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence claim 1 is not patent eligible. Claims 11 & 20 are also not patent eligible for the same reasons as stated in the above claim 1 rejection.
Dependent claims 2-10 & 12-19 have been given the full two-part analysis, including analyzing the additional limitations, both individually and in combination. Dependent claims 2-10 & 12-19, when analyzed both individually and in combination, are also patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 based on the same analysis as above. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims fail to establish that the dependent claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly claims 1-20 are patent ineligible.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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.
Claims 1, 15, & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2014077769 A to Sachiko et al., (hereafter Sachiko) in view of US 2018/0059667 A1, to Kuroda.
Regarding Claim 1, Sachiko discloses A data processing method, applied to an electronic device, comprising: obtaining a sensor data set captured by a target sensor in a terminal, the sensor data set comprising at least an acceleration sensor data set and a gyroscope data set (Sachiko [0028]-[0030] & Figs. 1 and 2, Examiner Note: Sachiko discloses a GPS information acquisition unit 20 which determines the position of the satellite which is then used to determine the position of the host vehicle. [0105], Examiner Note: Sachiko discloses INS (Inertial Navigation System) which includes accelerometers and gyroscopes and the corresponding data);
determining, based on the acceleration sensor data set and the gyroscope data set, yaw angle variation information of a carrier in which the terminal is located during movement (Sachiko [0105], Examiner Note: Sachiko calculating actual yaw rate based on existing GPS and INS data (e.g. acceleration and gyroscopic data). [0024] these associated sensors are mounted on the vehicle (i.e. carrier));
fusing the satellite positioning information and the yaw angle variation information to obtain moving trajectory information of the carrier (Sachiko [0105], Examiner Note: Sachiko calculating actual yaw rate based on existing GPS and INS data (i.e. fusion). [0024] these associated sensors are mounted on the vehicle (i.e. carrier));…
However, Sachiko does not specifically disclose and displaying a moving trajectory of the carrier based on the moving trajectory information.
Kuroda, directed to the same problem, teaches and displaying a moving trajectory of the carrier based on the moving trajectory information (Kuroda [0042] & Fig. 4, Examiner: Kuroda teaches displaying a predicted trajectory on a display).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the trajectory prediction of Sachiko with the trajectory display of Kuroda in order to detect an obstacle before a vehicle arrives at the obstacle (Kuroda [0004]).
With respect to Claim 11, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claim 11 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
With respect to Claim 20, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claim 20 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 1. Therefore, claim 20 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 & 12-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter for claims 2 & 12: …determining a conversion matrix between a carrier coordinate system and a terminal coordinate system based on the initial attitude information; obtaining a first plurality of pieces of first gyroscope data in the gyroscope data set; and determining the yaw angle variation information of the carrier based on the conversion matrix and the first plurality of pieces of first gyroscope data. When considered in combination with the other claim limitations render the claims novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record. Specifically, the prior art of record does not disclose nor teach determining yaw angle variation based on the attitude transformation from a sensor to a vehicle and then using parts of the gyroscope data to determine the yaw angle variation which is then used to determine vehicle trajectory.
The closest prior art is CN 112859139 A, to Yan et al., hereafter Yan, which teaches determining heading (i.e. yaw) angle by determining accelerometer value (i.e. initial acceleration data), determining pitch and roll angles of the vehicle coordinate system relative to the geodetic (i.e. yaw) coordinate system and then including data from the gyroscope to reach the heading angle (Yan [0070]). However, Yan does not specifically teach using a conversion matrix between the vehicle and the sensor specifically. While Yan is similar to the limitations of the instant application requires a critical nexus between the sensor and the vehicle, including the acquisition of attitude information of the sensor (i.e. terminal).
Another close prior art is US 2015/0369614 A1, to Watanabe et al., hereafter Watanabe which teaches detecting vehicle orientation based on acceleration, position, and yaw rate. However, Watanabe makes no effort to transform the attitude or orientation of the sensor to the vehicle as is required in the instant application.
The combination of Sachiko in view of Karoda and further in view of Yan and Watanabe fails to disclose or teach determining yaw angle variation based on the attitude transformation from a sensor to a vehicle and then using parts of the gyroscope data to determine the yaw angle variation which is then used to determine vehicle trajectory. Therefore Claims 2-5 & 12-15 are allowable over prior art.
Claims 6-10 & 16-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter for claims 6 & 16: …determining jth target satellite positioning data and (j+1)th target satellite positioning data that correspond to ith target yaw angle variation data in the target yaw angle variation sequence, an ith carrier timestamp corresponding to the ith target yaw angle variation data being between a jth satellite timestamp corresponding to the jth target satellite positioning data and a (j+1)th satellite timestamp corresponding to the (j+1)th target satellite positioning data, wherein i=2, 3, ..., N, N being a total quantity of yaw angle variations in the target yaw angle variation sequence, and wherein j is an integer less than or equal to i; determining offset information between an ith target trajectory point and an (i–1)th target trajectory point based on the jth target satellite positioning data and the (j+1)th target satellite positioning data in the target satellite positioning sequence and the ith target yaw angle variation data in the target yaw angle variation sequence; and determining ith target trajectory point data based on (i–1)th target trajectory point data and the offset information. When considered in combination with the other claim limitations render the claims novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record. Specifically, the prior art of record does not disclose determining specific (i.e. i) trajectory points based on other specific target trajectory point data (i.e. i-1) and offset information between the two points.
The closest prior art is JP 2014077769 A, to Sachiko et al., hereafter Sachiko which discloses using position offset and information from the gyro sensor and satellite position to determine the yaw rate of the vehicle. However, Sachiko does not go into the detail required by the instant application mathematically when determining the trajectory points based on position and offset information.
Another close prior art is US 2019/0206073 A1, to Huang et al., hereafter Huang which discloses determining positioning information of a drone using (N+1)th moments of position, then using an optimal solution of flight based on the (N+2)th moment (Huang [0224]-[0225]). Further Huang teaches using an offset matrix using pixels on a camera to determine the position of the drone. However, Huang fails to teach anything regarding using yaw or rotation to determine the trajectory in the manner as required by the independent claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tanaka Kazushi (US 2020/0072617 A1) discloses a vehicle position estimation device which calculates the position of the vehicle based on the result of a measurement from an internal sensor where the measurements include acceleration and yaw rate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T DOWLING whose telephone number is (703)756-1459. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30, First F: Off, Second F: 8-4:30.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
/MICHAEL T DOWLING/ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/ SPE , Art Unit 3666