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 .
The current application filed on Dec. 17, 2024 relates to a foreign application priority data IT102023000027717 filed on Dec. 21, 2023.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims:
Claim 1. Kit for determining the geographical position of an individual on the sea surface, the kit comprising: an alignment apparatus capable of being rigidly connected to a magnetic compass to align a lubber line of the magnetic compass in the direction of the Sun, wherein, when the lubber line of the magnetic compass is aligned in the direction of the Sun, an angle between the lubber line and the direction of the Magnetic North on a horizontal plane indicated by the magnetic indicator of the magnetic compass, represents a detection angle of the Sun;
a software application executable by a processing device, the software application being configured to, when executed by the processing device, cause the processing device to determine said geographical position as a function of: said detection angle of the Sun; and a date and time measurement of said detection angle of the Sun and of said angle of elevation of the Sun.
Claim 10. Method comprising:
measuring the angle of elevation of the Sun;
rigidly connecting the alignment apparatus of the kit according to any of the previous claims to a magnetic compass;
aligning the magnetic compass in the direction of the Sun by means of the alignment apparatus;
measuring a detection angle of the Sun as the angle between the lubber line of the magnetic compass and the direction of the Magnetic North on a horizontal plane;
providing the measurement of the angle of elevation of the Sun, the measurement of said detection angle of the Sun, and a date and a time of measurement of said detection angle of the Sun and of said angle of elevation of the Sun, to the software application of said kit; and
determining said geographical position as a function of said detection angle of the Sun, said angle of elevation of the Sun; and said date and time of measurement.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claims (1 & 10) recite a Kit including at least one element and a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes, and mathematical concepts.
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” and “mathematical concepts” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claims recite the limitation of claims 1 “a software application executable by a processing device, the software application being configured to, … determine said geographical position as a function of: said detection angle of the Sun; and a date and time measurement of said detection angle of the Sun and of said angle of elevation of the Sun” and a method of claims 10 “measuring the angle of elevation of the Sun; rigidly connecting the alignment apparatus of the kit …; aligning the magnetic compass in the direction of the Sun …; Measuring a detection angle of the Sun …; providing the measurement of the angle of elevation of the Sun, …; and determining said geographical position as a function of said detection angle of the Sun, angle of elevation of the Sun, and said date and time measurements …” which, as drafted, are mental processes and simple mathematical concept but the recitation of “a software application executable by a processing device”. The mere nominal recitation of by the processing device does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Thus, the claims recite a mental processes and mathematical concept.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application – No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), 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, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: 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.”
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements of “the kit comprising: an alignment apparatus capable of being rigidly connected to a magnetic compass …” which is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of “activities organized by a person” or “performed in the human mind such as imagination of “an alignment” between the magnetic compass (lubber line) aligned in the direction of the Sun), which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Also, the claim recites of “a software application executable by a processing device” which is generality of generic computer.
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.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept – No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the determining said geographical position as a function of said detection angle, an angle of elevation of the Sun and the date and time measurement which were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B.
The claims recite of “the kit comprises an alignment apparatus capable of being rigidly connected to a magnetic compass …” and “a software application executable by a processing device” are a well-understood, routing and conventional activities.
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),
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims(s) 2-9 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-9 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of a
Therefore, claim(s) 1-10 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, recites of:
“the kit comprising: an alignment apparatus capable of being rigidly connected to a magnetic compass to align a lubber line of the magnetic compass in the direction of the Sun, wherein, when the lubber line of the magnetic compass is aligned in the direction of the Sun, an angle between the lubber line and the direction of the Magnetic North on a horizontal plane indicated by the magnetic indicator of the magnetic compass, represents a detection angle of the Sun” is not sufficiency described in the current application’s specification. The claim and the specification fail to define how and what manner the alignment apparatus is connected and aligned to the magnetic compass. In the application’s specification (at Fig.1 & page 5-7) teaches a system 100 comprises an alignment apparatus AA capable of being rigidly connected and aligned to a magnetic compass B in which an individual P (a person) coincident facing with a direction of the Sun. The claim omitted the activities of the person who makes the alignment apparatus connected to the magnetic compass and the lubber line of the magnetic compass is aligned in the direction of the Sun in order the magnetic compass indicating an angle between the direction of the Sun and the direction of the North.
“a software application executable by a processing device, the software application being configured to, when executed by the processing device, cause the processing device to determine said geographical position as a function of: said detection angle of the Sun; and a date and time measurement of said detection angle of the Sun and of said angle of elevation of the Sun” is not sufficiency described in the application’s specification. The specification does not describe how and what manner the values of the angle of the Sun, the angle of elevation of the Sun, and date & time are received by the processing device. Also, the claim omitted using a sextant ST to measure the angle of elevation of the Sun which described in the specification at page 7.
Claim 10 has same issue above.
Claims 2-9 depend upon rejected claim 1 above.
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 1-9 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.
Regarding claim 1, recites:
Line 1, “Kit for determining the geographical position…” is grammatical incorrectly. Applicant suggested to correct as – A Kit for determining geographic position …--.
Line 3, “an alignment apparatus capable of being rigidly connected …”, wherein the phase “capable” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phase are optional or required to carry out the invention.
Regarding claim 10, recites of:
Line 1, “Method comprising:” is grammatical incorrectly. Applicant suggested to correct as – A method comprising: --.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), fourth paragraph:
Subject to the [fifth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA )], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 10 recites at line 3-4, “rigidly connecting the alignment apparatus of the kit according to any of the previous claims to a magnetic compass” is improper cause it claims for a method which by definition is containing a series of actions, while the previous claims are a group of “A kit” that is a structure. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Prior Arts Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Huang (20100312519) discloses a system for automatically identifying a geographic direction (e.g., a heading relative to true north). The system includes a position processor, a magnetometer, a heading module and a declination data as shown in Fig.2.
Belenkii (20240230341) discloses a celestial navigation system (CNS) designed for determining position of a vehicle in GPS denied or degraded environment by imaging celestial objects and measuring vehicle ground speed, attitude, and time. Vehicle position is calculated by a processor using dead reconning navigation algorithm and heading measurements from celestial sensor, ground speed measurements from ground speed sensor, pitch and roll measurements from IMU, and time from the onboard clock.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGA X NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5217. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30AM - 2:30PM.
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, JELANI SMITH can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
NGA X. NGUYEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3662
/NGA X NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662