DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office action drafted on the merits of the subject application. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 are rejected as cited below.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they are directed to a signal per se.
Claims 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20 recite “a computer-readable storage medium” that is not limited to tangible embodiments. Particularly, page 13 of the specification recites “…the technical solution of the present disclosure in essence, that is, the part that contributes to the prior art, can be embodied in the form of a software product, which is stored in a storage medium (such as ROM/RAM, disk, CD)…”. This statement does not explicitly limit the medium to tangible embodiments. Therefore, the computer-readable storage medium may consist of both transitory (e.g. carrier wave signal) and non-transitory medium. Applicant is advised to amend the claims to read --non-transitory computer-readable storage medium--.
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 method performed by an aircraft for detecting a ground slope (i.e. a process). Therefore, claim 1 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 following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized in bold below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A ground slope detection method, comprising:
during landing of an aircraft, calculating a unique plane of at least three downward-looking distance detection points in a body coordinate system of the aircraft according to three- dimensional attitude data of the aircraft and distance data of at least three downward-looking rangefinders provided on the aircraft;
calculating a rotation matrix of the body coordinate system to a geodetic coordinate system by the three-dimensional attitude data, and calculating a first unit normal vector of the unique plane in the geodetic coordinate system according to the rotation matrix; and
calculating an included angle between a second unit normal vector of a geodetic horizontal plane in the geodetic coordinate system and the first unit normal vector, and generating a warning signal of excessive ground slope when the included angle is greater than or equal to a preset threshold.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind.
“calculating a unique plane of at least three downward-looking distance detection points in a body coordinate system of the aircraft according to three- dimensional attitude data of the aircraft and distance data of at least three downward-looking rangefinders provided on the aircraft” in the context of the claim may encompass a human viewing sensor data and performing a simple mathematical calculation.
“calculating a rotation matrix of the body coordinate system to a geodetic coordinate system by the three-dimensional attitude data, and calculating a first unit normal vector of the unique plane in the geodetic coordinate system according to the rotation matrix” in the context of the claim may encompass a human viewing sensor data and performing a simple mathematical calculation.
“calculating an included angle between a second unit normal vector of a geodetic horizontal plane in the geodetic coordinate system and the first unit normal vector” in the context of the claim may encompass a human performing a simple mathematical calculation based on the previous calculations.
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 ground slope detection method, comprising:
during landing of an aircraft, calculating a unique plane of at least three downward-looking distance detection points in a body coordinate system of the aircraft according to three- dimensional attitude data of the aircraft and distance data of at least three downward-looking rangefinders provided on the aircraft;
calculating a rotation matrix of the body coordinate system to a geodetic coordinate system by the three-dimensional attitude data, and calculating a first unit normal vector of the unique plane in the geodetic coordinate system according to the rotation matrix; and
calculating an included angle between a second unit normal vector of a geodetic horizontal plane in the geodetic coordinate system and the first unit normal vector, and generating a warning signal of excessive ground slope when the included angle is greater than or equal to a preset threshold.
For the following reason, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of “generating a warning signal of excessive ground slope when the included angle is greater than or equal to a preset threshold” the examiner submits that this limitation is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere post-solution data output, which is a form of insignificant post-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).
101 Analysis – Step 2B
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 limitation of “generating a warning signal of excessive ground slope when the included angle is greater than or equal to a preset threshold” amounts to mere insignificant post-solution activity.
Dependent claims 2-8 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim 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. These claims merely provide additional data gathering means (claims 2, 5, 8), post solution activity of outputting data (claims 4, 6, 7, 8), or further narrow down the mental process (claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 7), none of which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-8 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 2-8 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claims 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19 recite an apparatus (ground slope detection device) used to perform the method detailed in claims 1-6, respectively, therefore they are rejected for the same reason. Additionally, claims 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19 further recite generic computer hardware components (e.g. memory, processor) yet do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20 recite a computer-readable storage medium used to perform the method detailed in claims 1-6, respectively, therefore they are rejected for the same reason. Additionally, claims 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20 further recite generic computer hardware components (e.g. processor) yet do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Shibata (US Pub. 2022/0198947 A1)
Lepron et al. (US Pub. 2020/0193850 A1)
Bobye (US Pub. 2019/0368881 A1)
Enns et al. (US Pub. 2015/0235560 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan E Reinert whose telephone number is (571)272-1260. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 7AM - 5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James J Lee can be reached at (571) 270-5965. 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.
/J.E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/BRIAN P SWEENEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights