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 .
Application Status
This Final action is in response to applicant’s amendment of 03/19/2026. Claims 1-20 are examined and pending. Claims 1-7, 10-12 14-16, and 20 are currently amended.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, with respect to the specification objection have been considered and are persuasive. As such, the objection has ben withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference(s) applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s amendments/arguments with respect to the claims dejection under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more have been carefully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant specifically argues the following:
Step 2A: The claims are not directed to an abstract idea
Applicant respectfully submits that independent claims 1, 11 and 20 (and claims which depend therefrom) are not directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea as alleged by the Examiner), and even assuming arguendo that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
In this regard, independent claim 1 recites, inter alia:
receiving, via a wireless communication channel between a vehicle and
a control station (CS) system, a vehicle communication transmission that comprises (i) a manifest data structure and (ii) a three-dimensional (3D) model for the vehicle, wherein the manifest data structure comprises a parameterized format for respective sub-components of the vehicle that links telemetry parameters
to respective portions of the 3D model for the vehicle; correlating real-time telemetry data with the respective portions of the 3D
model based on the manifest data structure for the vehicle;
generating a visually augmented version of the 3D model for the vehicle
based on the real-time telemetry data correlated with the respective portions of the 3D model, wherein the visually augmented version of the 3D model emphasizes at least one particular respective portion of the 3D model based on the real-time telemetry data, and wherein the visually augmented version of the 3D model provides dynamic visual indicators that alter depiction of the respective sub- components of the vehicle based on the real-time telemetry data; and
causing a rendering of the visually augmented version of the 3D model
via a display of the CS system.
See Claim 1 (emphasis added).
The Pending Claims Are Not "Directed To" Any Abstract Idea
Applicant respectfully submits that pending claims are not directed to any abstract idea under MPEP § 2106.
STEP 2A (Alice/Mayo Test)
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. MPEP § 2106.04.II.A. Under Prong One, the Examiner is to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception noted in the subject matter groupings listed in Section I of the Revised Subject Matter Guidance. Id. These groupings include: (1) certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices; (2) mathematical formulas; and (3) mental processes. Id. § 2106(a); see also Ex Parte Hannun, No. 2018-003323, p. 4 (Apr. 1, 2019). Under Prong Two, the Examiner is to determine "whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception." Id. "A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception." Id.
Step 2A - Prong One
Regarding Prong One, the Office Action states that "[t]he claimed invention ... falls under the "Mental Processes" Grouping." See Office Action, page 4. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
The MPEP defines the mental processes grouping as "concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)." MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II). It further notes that "[c]laims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitation." Id.
In this regard, the MPEP states that "[c]laims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations. See SRI Intl, Inc, v. Cisco Systems, Inc,, 930 F,3d 1295, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (declining to identify the claimed collection and analysis of network data as abstract because 'the human mind is not equipped to detect suspicious activity by using network monitors and analyzing network packets as recited by the claims); CyberSource, 654 p.3 at 1376, 99 USPO2d at 1699 (distinguishing Research Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp. 627 F.3d 859, 97 USPQ2d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2010), and SiRF Tech., Inc. V. Intl 'Trade Comm n, 601 F. 1319, 94 USPQ2d 1607 (Fed. Cir, .2010), as directed to inventions that could not, as a practical matter, be performed entirely in a human's mind')." See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A).
Applicant respectfully submits that the human mind is not equipped at least, for example, to perform the features of "receiving, via a wireless communication channel between a vehicle and a control station (CS) system, a vehicle communication transmission that comprises (i) a manifest data structure and (ii) a three-dimensional (3D) model for the vehicle," "correlating real-time telemetry data with the respective portions of the 3D model based on the manifest data structure for the vehicle," "generating a visually augmented version of the 3D model for the vehicle based on the real-time telemetry data correlated with the respective portions of the 3D model," and "causing a rendering of the visually augmented version of the 3D model via a display of the CS system," as recited in amended independent claim 1.
In this regard, claim 1 utilizes a wireless communication channel between a vehicle and a control station (CS) system to receive "a vehicle communication transmission that comprises (i) a manifest data structure and (ii) a three-dimensional (3D) model for the vehicle," which clearly is not a mental process performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. Additionally, "a visually augmented version of the 3D model for the vehicle" is generated and rendered "via a display of the CS system," which clearly is not a mental process performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Indeed, the MPEP states that "it is critical that examiners look at the claim "as a whole," in other words, the claim should be evaluated "as an ordered combination, without ignoring the requirements of the individual steps." When performing this evaluation, examiners should be "careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims" by looking at them generally and failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1100." MPEP § 2106.05(c)
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 at least because the claimed invention is not directed to a judicial exception under prong one
of Step 2A.
The examiner has considered the arguments for step 2A prong 1 and respectfully disagree. The independent claims recite correlating real-time telemetry data with the respective portions of the 3D model based on the manifest data structure for the vehicle. These limitation(s), as drafted, is (are) a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “at least one processor”. The claim limitations encompass a person looking at different types of data such as manifest data and three-dimensional model for a vehicle data could correlating real-time telemetry data with the respective portions of the 3D model based on the manifest data structure for the vehicle. The mere nominal recitation of “at least one processor” does not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental process grouping and merely function to automate the generating steps. Thus, the claims recite a mental process. (step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial exception recited: Yes).
Secondly, applicant argues Step 2A, Prong 2 as follows:
Step 2A - Prong Two
Regarding Prong Two, the Office Action alleges that claim is not integrated into a practical application. See Office Action, page 5. Even if claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea-which, Applicant submits, it is not Applicant asserts that the claim recites a combination of additional elements that improves a technical field such that the claim as a whole integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Specifically, Applicant asserts that claim 1 integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application at least because the claim provides improvements to "efficiency of aerial vehicles and/or related systems ... while also mitigating damage to the aerial vehicles." See Specification, paragraph [0032]. Additionally, "by utilizing a visually augmented version of a 3D model for an aerial vehicle autonomous as disclosed herein, a number of computational resources needed by an aerial vehicle may be advantageously reduced. Power consumption by an aerial vehicle can therefore also be reduced." Id.
The MPEP states that "[l]imitations that the courts have found to qualify as 'significantly more' when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include . . . improvements to the functioning of a computer [or] improvements to any other technology or technical field." MPEP § 2106.05(c). Claim 1 includes a number of features that provide improvements to a technology and, specifically, to an electronic device.
For example, claim 1 recites, inter alia:
receiving, via a wireless communication channel between a vehicle and
a control station (CS) system, a vehicle communication transmission that comprises (i) a manifest data structure and (ii) a three-dimensional (3D) model for the vehicle, wherein the manifest data structure comprises a parameterized format for respective sub-components of the vehicle that links telemetry parameters
to respective portions of the 3D model for the vehicle;
correlating real-time telemetry data with the respective portions of the 3D
model based on the manifest data structure for the vehicle;
generating a visually augmented version of the 3D model for the vehicle
based on the real-time telemetry data correlated with the respective portions of the 3D model, wherein the visually augmented version of the 3D model emphasizes at least one particular respective portion of the 3D model based on the real-time telemetry data, and wherein the visually augmented version of the 3D model provides dynamic visual indicators that alter depiction of the respective sub- components of the vehicle based on the real-time telemetry data; and
causing a rendering of the visually augmented version of the 3D model
via a display of the CS system.
Claim 1 (emphasis added).
As stated in paragraph [0029] of the Specification as filed, "it is desirable for the aerial vehicles are able to increasingly operate in an autonomous flight mode. However, there are multiple factors that can impact the efficiency, safety, and/or operation of an aerial vehicle during an autonomous flight mode. In general, various sensors, monitors, and systems associated with the electric aerial vehicle may provide raw data related to particular operational components of the aerial vehicle to provide situational awareness, contextual information, and/or other useful data for the aerial vehicle. However, the inventors have discovered various problems with current autonomous flight techniques related to aerial vehicles."
Thus, by "receiving, via a wireless communication channel between a vehicle and a control station (CS) system, a vehicle communication transmission that comprises (i) a manifest data structure and (ii) a three-dimensional (3D) model for the vehicle," "generating a visually augmented version of the 3D model for the vehicle based on the real-time telemetry data correlated with the respective portions of the 3D model," and "causing a rendering of the visually augmented version of the 3D model via a display of the CS system," as recited by claim 1, a technical improvement over traditional aerial vehicles is provided to "address the limitations of traditional vehicle management systems by providing three-dimensional (3D) model augmentation for an aerial vehicle based on real-time telemetry data and/or manifest data for the aerial vehicle." See Specification, paragraph [0030].
As explained by the Federal Circuit, some improvements to technology or to computer functionality are not abstract when appropriately claimed, and thus claims to such improvements do not always need to undergo the full eligibility analysis. As per MPEP 2106.06(b), if the claims are a "close call" such that it is unclear whether the claims improve technology or computer functionality, a full eligibility analysis should be performed to determine eligibility. See BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1241 (Fed Cir. 2016). Only when the claims clearly improve technology or computer functionality, or otherwise have self-evident eligibility, should the streamlined analysis be used. For example, because the claims in BASCOM described the concept of filtering content, which is a method of organizing human behavior previously found to be abstract, the Federal Circuit considered them to present a "close call" in the first step of the Alice/Mayo test (Step 2A), and thus proceeded to the second step of the Alice/Mayo test (Step 2B) to determine their eligibility. Id. Although the Federal Circuit held these claims eligible at Step 2B (Pathway C) because they presented a "technology- based solution" of filtering content on the Internet that overcame the disadvantages of prior art filtering systems and that amounted to significantly more than the recited abstract idea, it also would be reasonable for an examiner to have found these claims eligible at Pathway A or B if the examiner had considered the technology-based solution to be an improvement to computer functionality. Id.
As such, when "the limitations containing the [purported] judicial exception as well as the additional elements in the claim" are evaluated together, amended claim 1 integrates any purported abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, Applicant submits that additional claim elements of the claim 1 improve computers or technology such as the claimed "vehicle." In this regard, "receiving, via a wireless communication channel between a vehicle and a control station (CS) system, a vehicle communication transmission that comprises (i) a manifest data structure and (ii) a three-dimensional (3D) model for the vehicle," "generating a visually augmented version of the 3D model for the vehicle based on the real-time telemetry data correlated with the respective portions of the 3D model," and "causing a rendering of the visually augmented version of the 3D model via a display of the CS system," as recited in amended independent claim 1 present a "technology-based solution" for addressing the limitations of traditional vehicles. Hence, Applicant respectfully submits that the technology-based solution provided by amended claim 1 is an improvement to computer functionality.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention integrates an alleged abstract idea into a practical application under prong two of step 2A.
The examiner has considered the arguments for step 2A prong 2 and respectfully disagree. The independent claims recite the additional limitations/elements of receiving, via a wireless communication channel between a vehicle and a control system, a vehicle communication transmission that comprises (i) a manifest data structure and (ii) a three-dimensional (3D) model for the vehicle, wherein the manifest data structure comprises a parameterized format for respective sub-components of the vehicle that links telemetry parameters to respective portions of the 3D model for the vehicle; generating a visually augmented version of the 3D model for the vehicle based on the real-time telemetry data correlated with the respective portions of the 3D model, wherein the visually augmented version of the 3D model emphasizes at least one particular respective portion of the 3D model based on the real-time telemetry data, and wherein the visually augmented version of the 3D model provides dynamic visual indicators that alter depiction of the respective sub-components of the vehicle based on the real-time telemetry data; and causing a rendering of the visually augmented version of the 3D model via a display of the CS system; a wireless communication channel between a vehicle and a control system (CS), a vehicle communication transmission, a computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-computer readable storage medium, and at least one processor. The receiving step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. receiving/collecting various data (manifest and 3D model data, etc.) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The generating and causing rendering steps/elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the generating step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitation(s) of a computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-computer readable storage medium, and at least one processor is/are recited at a high level of generality and merely function to automate the generating steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No).
Thirdly, applicant argues Step 2B:
The Pending Claims Recite Significantly More Than Any Alleged Abstract Idea
STEP 2B (Alice/Mayo Test)
Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test focuses on whether the additional limitations present in the claim and their combination is unconventional and provides an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05.II. Assuming, arguendo, that pending claims are analyzed under Step 2B, Applicant respectfully submits that claims recite inventive concept. The MPEP provides relevant considerations for evaluating whether additional elements amount to an inventive concept and states that "[l]imitations that the courts have found to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
i. Improvements to the functioning of a computer, e.g., a modification of conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage, as discussed in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258-59, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106-07 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (see MPEP §
2106.05(a));
ii. Improvements to any other technology or technical field, e.g., a modification of conventional rubber-molding processes to utilize a thermocouple inside the mold to constantly monitor the temperature and thus reduce under- and over-curing problems common in the art, as discussed in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191- 92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981) (see MPEP Q 2106.05(a));
iii. Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, e.g., a Fourdrinier machine (which is understood in the art to have a specific structure comprising a headbox, a paper-making wire, and a series of rolls) that is arranged in a particular way to optimize the speed of the machine while maintaining quality of the formed paper web, as discussed in Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ont. Paper
Co., 261 U.S. 45, 64-65 (1923) (see MPEP 2106.05(b));
iv. Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, e.g., a process that transforms raw, uncured synthetic rubber into precision-molded synthetic rubber products, as discussed in Diehr, 450 U.S. at 184,
209 USPQ at 21 (see MPEP § 2106.05(c));
v. Adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, e.g., a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components for filtering Internet content, as discussed inBASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341,
1350-51, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (see MPEP Q 2106.05(d)); or
vi. Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, e.g., an immunization step that integrates an abstract idea of data comparison into a specific process of immunizing that lowers the risk that immunized patients will later develop chronic immune- mediated diseases, as discussed in Classen Immunotherapies Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1066-68, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1499-1502 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(see MPEP Q 2106.05(e)). MPEP § 2106.05.I.A
The Office Action states that "the receiving, generating, and rendering steps/additional elements were considered to be extra-solution activities" and "[t]he specification does not provide any indication that these steps are performed by anything other than convention components performing the conventional activity (steps) of the claim." See Office Action, page 6. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
As stated in paragraph [0032] of the Specification as filed, "efficiency of aerial vehicles and/or related systems can be improved while also mitigating damage to the aerial vehicles." See Specification, paragraph [0032]. Additionally, "by utilizing a visually augmented version of a 3D model for an aerial vehicle autonomous as disclosed herein, a number of computational resources needed by an aerial vehicle may be advantageously reduced. Power consumption by an aerial vehicle can therefore also be reduced." Id. As such, "receiving, via a wireless communication channel between a vehicle and a control station (CS) system, a vehicle communication transmission that comprises (i) a manifest data structure and (ii) a three-dimensional (3D) model for the vehicle" and "causing a rendering of the visually augmented version of the 3D model via a display of the CS system," as recited in amended independent claim 1, are clearly not insignificant extra-solution activities or conventional "generating" or "rendering" of data.
Moreover, Applicant also respectfully submits, as further discussed below, that the prior art of record does not disclose, teach or suggest each and every element of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 1 also recites specific features that cannot be considered to be well-understood, routine, or known within the industry.
The examiner has considered the arguments for step 2B and respectfully disagree. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element/limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving, generating, and rendering steps/additional elements were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that these steps are performed by anything other than conventional components performing the conventional activity (steps) of the claim. 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 (as it is here). Further, 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. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Thus, the claims as presented are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. As such, the rejection of claims 1-20 under USC 101 is maintained herein.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recited limitation(s) “receiving the the vehicle communication transmission” appears to be a typo graphical error and should be “receiving the vehicle communication transmission”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recited limitation(s) “receiving the the vehicle communication transmission” appears to be a typo graphical error and should be “receiving the vehicle communication transmission”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
101 Analysis
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1).
If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category
The independent claims are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a process and machine respectively, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. The independent claims recite correlating real-time telemetry data with the respective portions of the 3D model based on the manifest data structure for the vehicle. These limitation(s), as drafted, is (are) a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “at least one processor”. The claim limitations encompass a person looking at different types of data such as manifest data and three-dimensional model for a vehicle data could correlating real-time telemetry data with the respective portions of the 3D model based on the manifest data structure for the vehicle. The mere nominal recitation of “at least one processor” does not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental process grouping and merely function to automate the generating steps. Thus, the claims recite a mental process. (step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial exception recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
The independent claims recite the additional limitations/elements of receiving, via a wireless communication channel between a vehicle and a control system, a vehicle communication transmission that comprises (i) a manifest data structure and (ii) a three-dimensional (3D) model for the vehicle, wherein the manifest data structure comprises a parameterized format for respective sub-components of the vehicle that links telemetry parameters to respective portions of the 3D model for the vehicle; generating a visually augmented version of the 3D model for the vehicle based on the real-time telemetry data correlated with the respective portions of the 3D model, wherein the visually augmented version of the 3D model emphasizes at least one particular respective portion of the 3D model based on the real-time telemetry data, and wherein the visually augmented version of the 3D model provides dynamic visual indicators that alter depiction of the respective sub-components of the vehicle based on the real-time telemetry data; and causing a rendering of the visually augmented version of the 3D model via a display of the CS system; a wireless communication channel between a vehicle and a control system (CS), a vehicle communication transmission, a computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-computer readable storage medium, and at least one processor. The receiving step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. receiving/collecting various data (manifest and 3D model data, etc.) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The generating and causing rendering steps/elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the generating step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitation(s) of a computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-computer readable storage medium, and at least one processor is/are recited at a high level of generality and merely function to automate the generating steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No).
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element/limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving, generating, and rendering steps/additional elements were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that these steps are performed by anything other than conventional components performing the conventional activity (steps) of the claim. 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 (as it is here). Further, 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. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 do not include any other additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 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.
Claims 1-7, 9-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cella et al (US 20230058169 A1) in view of Takekawa et al (US 20230048435 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Cella discloses a computer-implemented method comprising: receiving a vehicle communication transmission that comprises (i) a manifest data structure and (ii) a three-dimensional (3D) model for the vehicle, wherein the manifest data structure comprises a parameterized format for respective sub-components of the vehicle that links telemetry parameters to respective portions of the 3D model for the vehicle (see at least [0485], [0488], and [0490], “…3D view 60516 presents the manufacturer 60240 with a three-dimensional rendering of the model of the vehicle 60104 as well as various components and related data. The design view 60520 includes digital data describing design information for the vehicle 60104 and its individual vehicle components. For example, the design information includes Computer-Aided Design (CAD) data of the vehicle 60104 or its individual vehicle components, par. [0488]; Real-time Analytics view 60532 may allow the manufacturer 60240 to run data analytics to build a wide range of charts, graphs and models to help the manufacturer 60240 calculate a wide range of metrics and visualize the effect of change of vehicle and component parameters on the operational performance. The Service & Maintenance view 60536 may present information related to wear and failure of components of the vehicle 60104 and predicts the need for service, repairs or replacement based on the current and historic operational state data. The view may also help the manufacturer 60240 run data analytics and formulate predictions on the remaining useful life of one or more components of the vehicle 60104, ibid.”); correlating real-time telemetry data with the respective portions of the 3D model based on the manifest data structure for the vehicle (see at least [0348], [0488], [0498], [0535], and [0616], “…digital twin 60136 may present the dealer 60702 with analytics related to parameters like vibration 60936 and temperature 60940 as well as historical vehicle data 60944 and real-time series sensor data 948. The digital twin 60136 may also conduct a health scan to discover no issues with engine health and present a "0 issues detected" message to the dealer 60702. The digital twin 60136 may also allow the dealer 60702 to conduct a full health scan on the complete vehicle (instead of component-wise scanning).”); generating a visually augmented version of the 3D model for the vehicle based on the real-time telemetry data correlated with the respective portions of the 3D model (see at least [0485], [0488], [0490], [0498], and [Figs. 66-67], “The Service & Maintenance view 60736 may present information related to wear and failure of components of the vehicle 60104 and predicts the need for service, repairs or replacement based on the current and historic operational state data.”), wherein the visually augmented version of the 3D model emphasizes at least one particular respective portion of the 3D model based on the real-time telemetry data (see at least [0485], [0488], [0490], [0498], and [Figs. 66-67], “The Service & Maintenance view 60736 may present information related to wear and failure of components of the vehicle 60104 and predicts the need for service, repairs or replacement based on the current and historic operational state data.”), and wherein the visually augmented version of the 3D model provides dynamic visual indicators that alter depiction of the respective sub-components of the vehicle based on the real-time telemetry data (see at least [0485], [0488], [0490], [0498], and [Figs. 66-67], “The Service & Maintenance view 60736 may present information related to wear and failure of components of the vehicle 60104 and predicts the need for service, repairs or replacement based on the current and historic operational state data.”); and causing a rendering of the visually augmented version of the 3D model via a display of the CS system (see at least [0485], [0488], [0490], [0498], [0590], [0616], [0702-0707], and [Figs. 66-67], “The Service & Maintenance view 60736 may present information related to wear and failure of components of the vehicle 60104 and predicts the need for service, repairs or replacement based on the current and historic operational state data.”).
However, Cella do not specifically disclose wherein the receiving step is via a wireless communication channel between a vehicle and a control station (CS) system.
Takekawa teaches wherein the receiving step is via a wireless communication channel between a vehicle and a control station (CS) system (see at least [0028-0031], and [fig. 1]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Cella, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Takekawa wherein the receiving step is via a wireless communication channel between a vehicle and a control station (CS) system. This would be done to improve data reachability by taking advantage of variations in the line quality of communication systems constituting the communication routes
With respect to claim 2, Cella discloses wherein receiving the vehicle communication transmission comprises: receiving the vehicle communication transmission in response to establishment of a communication connection between the vehicle and the CS system (see at least [0473], [0477], and [Fig.59]).
With respect to claim 3, Cella discloses wherein receiving the vehicle communication transmission comprises: receiving an encoded version of the 3D model from the vehicle in response to establishment of a communication connection between the vehicle and the CS system (see at least [0473], [0477], and [Fig.59]).
With respect to claim 4, Cella discloses herein the vehicle communication transmission comprises an encoded version of the 3D model (see at least [0473], [0477], and [Fig.59]).
With respect to claim 5, Cella discloses wherein receiving the vehicle communication transmission comprises receiving the the vehicle communication transmission from the vehicle (see at least [0473], [0477], and [Fig.59]).
With respect to claim 6, Cella discloses wherein receiving the vehicle communication transmission comprises receiving the the vehicle communication transmission based on conditions for the wireless communication channel between the vehicle and the CS system (see at least [0473], [0477], and [Fig.59]).
With respect to claim 7, Cella discloses extracting at least a portion of the 3D model from a datastore communicatively coupled to the CS system based on a vehicle identifier associated with the vehicle (see at least [0473], [0477], and [Fig.59]).
With respect to claim 9, Cella discloses wherein the visually augmented version of the 3D model provides the dynamic visual indicators as a particular color change, a highlight, a glow, or an icon that alters depiction of the respective sub-components of the vehicle based on the real-time telemetry data (see at least [0589], [0616], and [0676-0677], “…the digital twin visualization module 268 may determine colors corresponding to each machine component in a transportation system that represent a vibration fault level state (e.g., red for alarm, orange for critical, yellow for suboptimal, and green for normal operation). The digital twin visualization module 268 may then render the digital twins of the machine components within the transportation system based on the determined colors. Additionally or alternatively, the digital twin visualization module 268 may render the digital twins of the machine components within the transportation system with indicators having the determined colors. For instance, if the vibration fault level state of an inbound bearing of a motor is suboptimal and the outbound bearing of the motor is critical, the digital twin visualization module 268 may render the digital twin of the inbound bearing having an indicator in a shade of yellow (e.g., suboptimal) and the outbound bearing having an indicator in a shade of orange (e.g., critical).”).
With respect to claim 10, Cella discloses wherein the vehicle is an aerial vehicle communicatively coupled to the CS system via the wireless communication channel (see at least [0484] and [0567-0569]).
With respect to claims 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 19, they are computer program product claims that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective method claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9. As such, claims 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective method claims 1, 2, 3, 4,5, 6, 7, and 9 and are incorporated herein.
With respect to claim 20, it is an apparatus claim that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective method claim 1. As such, claim 20 is rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective method claim 1 and is incorporated herein.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cella et al (US 20230058169 A1) in view of Takekawa et al (US 20230048435 A1) in view of Glunz (US 20170132567 A1).
With respect to claim 8, Cella as modified by Takekawa do not specifically disclose initially receiving a first version of the 3D model associated with a particular degree of fidelity based on datalink bandwidth conditions between the CS system and the vehicle; and subsequently receiving a second version of the 3D model with a higher degree of fidelity in response to a certain degree of increase for the datalink bandwidth availability between the CS system and the vehicle.
Glunz teaches receiving a first version of the 3D model associated with a particular degree of fidelity based on datalink bandwidth conditions between the CS system and the vehicle (see at least [0029], [0087-0088], [0337-0343], and [0408]); and subsequently receiving a second version of the 3D model with a higher degree of fidelity in response to a certain degree of increase for the datalink bandwidth availability between the CS system and the vehicle (see at least [0029], [0087-0088], [0337-0343], and [0408]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Cella as modified by Takekawa, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Glunz of initially receiving a first version of the 3D model associated with a particular degree of fidelity based on datalink bandwidth conditions between the CS system and the vehicle; and subsequently receiving a second version of the 3D model with a higher degree of fidelity in response to a certain degree of increase for the datalink bandwidth availability between the CS system and the vehicle. This would be done to improve building information models and other design platforms (see Glunz para 0001).
With respect to claim 18, it is a computer program product claim that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective method claim 8. As such, claim 18 is rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective method claim 8 and is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground of rejection presented in the office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLA A KHALED whose telephone number is (571)272-9174. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00 Am-5:00, every other Friday 8:00A-5:00AM.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/ABDALLA A KHALED/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights