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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Documents A3 and A7 are lined through on the IDS. Document A3 could not be found in the application file, and only an illegible copy of the abstract of document A7 appears to have been provided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 lines 10-12 and corresponding portions of claims 9 and 15 recite “selecting... one of the first correction source and the second correction source for navigational correction based, in part, on at least one of the first accuracy value and the second accuracy value” (emphasis added). As the selection is based only “in part” on at least one of the first and second accuracy values, other elements appear to be required to perform the selection. However it is unclear what these elements comprise. The scope of the claim therefore cannot be clearly determined.
The remaining claims are dependent.
Claim Interpretation
The broadest reasonable interpretation of method claim 7 requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.
The step recited in claim 7 lines 5-7 is only performed if the first attribute of the first correction source does not satisfy the first attribute threshold. The step recited in claim 7 lines 8-10 is only performed if the first attribute of the first correction source does not satisfy the second attribute threshold. The step recited in claim 7 lines 11-13 is only performed if is determined that the first navigation system is not the default correction source. The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 7 therefore does not require these steps. See MPEP 2111.04 II and Ex parte Schulhauser.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim 1 recites a computer-implemented method and is therefore a process.
Step 2A, Prong One – Recitation of a Judicial Exception
Claim 1 recites:
determining, by the one or more processors, first positional data based on the navigation data and the first correction data and second positional data based on the navigation data and the second correction data;
determining, by the one or more processors, a first accuracy value associated with the first positional data and a second accuracy value associated with the second positional data; and
selecting, by the one or more processors, one of the first correction source and the second correction source for navigational correction based, in part, on at least one of the first accuracy value and the second accuracy value.
These steps fall within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), as they comprise mathematical relationships and calculations. They can also be considered to fall within the mental processes grouping, as they include within their scope observations and evaluations that can be performed in the human mind. Claim 1 therefore recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two – Practical Application
Claim 1 further recites:
the method being computer-implemented by one or more processors;
receiving navigation data from a navigation system; and
receiving first correction data from a first correction source and second correction data from a second correction source.
Regarding (1), computer-implementation by one or more processors amounts to generic computer equipment that is merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. In performing the abstract idea the one or more processors merely perform the generic computer functions of receiving and manipulating data. Regarding (2) and (3), receiving navigation data and first and second correction data is merely insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e. data gathering. The courts have found that generic computer equipment and insignificant extra-solution activity do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d) I). These elements therefore do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Step 2B – Inventive Concept
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the additional elements recited in the claim include generic computer equipment and insignificant extra-solution activity. The courts have found that insignificant extra-solution activity and generic computer equipment do not amount to significantly more, i.e. they do not amount to an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.5 A). These elements therefore do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, i.e. they do not amount to an inventive concept. Claim 1 is therefore not patent eligible.
Independent claims 9 and 15 differ from claim 1 in reciting a vehicle comprising one or more processors (claim 9) and a system comprising a receiver and one or more processors (claim 15). However one or more processors comprise generic computer equipment, as does the broadly recited “receiver”. The “vehicle”, which is recited in the preamble of claim 9, merely generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These elements therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more.
Claims 2-4, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, and 16-18 further describe the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea without integrating it into a practical application or adding significantly more.
Claims 5, 11, and 19 recite receiving first and second attributes of the first and second correction sources. This is merely further data gathering that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more.
Claims 8, 14, and 20 recite executing first and second navigation algorithms using the navigation data and the first and second correction data. The “navigation algorithms” include within their scope further mathematical relationships and mental concepts, and therefore further describe the abstract idea without integrating it into a practical application or adding significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 15, the closest prior art (Gentry US 11209549 B2) teaches a computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors, navigation data from a navigation system (402, Fig. 4 “receive... satellite broadcast messages from a plurality of location system satellites, wherein individual satellite broadcast messages include satellite parameter information that indicates a location and identify of one of the location system satellites”);
receiving, by the one or more processors, first correction data from a first correction source and second correction data from a second correction source (404, Fig. 4 “receive... first compensation values from a first ground station and second compensation values from a second ground station”);
determining, by the one or more processors, first positional data based on the navigation data and the first correction data (406, Fig. 4 “determine location coordinates... based at least in part on the satellite broadcast messages, and at least one of the first compensation values and the second compensation values” in view of 17:22-29 “determine first location coordinates based at least in part on the first satellite broadcast message, the second satellite broadcast message, and the first compensation value”) and second positional data based on the navigation data and the second correction data (406, Fig. 4 “determine location coordinates... based at least in part on the satellite broadcast messages, and at least one of the first compensation values and the second compensation values” in view of 17:22-29 “determine second location coordinates based at least in part on the first satellite broadcast message, the second satellite broadcast message, and the second compensation value”).
However, the prior art does not teach or make obvious, in combination:
determining, by the one or more processors, a first accuracy value associated with the first positional data and a second accuracy value associated with the second positional data; and
selecting, by the one or more processors, one of the first correction source and the second correction source for navigational correction based, in part, on at least one of the first accuracy value and the second accuracy value.
The remaining claims are dependent.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Appleford (US 9405010 B2) teaches receiving corrections from two base stations, where corrections from the closer base station are preferred (claims 1 and 4).
Farmer (US 5884220 A) teaches receiving corrections from two reference stations, detecting error in the corrections, and combining the corrections by replacing erroneous data of one of the corrections with replacement data from another (claim 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSI J GALT whose telephone number is (571)270-1469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM - 5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, RESHA DESAI can be reached at (571)270-7792. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CASSI J GALT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights