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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 03/11/2025. Claims 1-12 are presently pending and are presented for examination. Claims 1-12 were amended by the Applicant.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "a first navigation module configured to", "a second navigation module configured to" in claim 6, “computer vision device configured to” in claim 8, and “guiding module configured to” in claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claim 1
Step 1: The claim is directed to a process as it recites ([a] navigation method).
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites:
A navigation method for a vehicle, said method comprising steps of:
determining, by a first navigation module, first navigation data of said vehicle based on data from an inertial measurement unit and from a satellite positioning module; and
determining, by a second navigation module, second navigation data of said vehicle, based on:
data from the inertial measurement unit, and from images captured by said vehicle; and moreover based on data from said satellite positioning module and/or from an altimeter.
The recited limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or by hand or with pen and paper as this step falls within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because it covers a concept performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. Thus, the claim recites a mental process which is an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element of:
A navigation method for a vehicle, said method comprising steps of:
determining by a first navigation module, first navigation data of said vehicle based on data from an inertial measurement unit and from a satellite positioning module; and
determining, by a second navigation module, second navigation data of said vehicle, based on:
data from the inertial measurement unit, and from images captured by said vehicle; and moreover based on data from said satellite positioning module and/or from an altimeter.
The additional elements are applying the abstract ideas in a vehicle environment. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong
2, the additional elements amount to no more than merely to apply the exception in a vehicular environment, which is also well understood and conventional in the art, as indicated in the following rejections under 102/103. For these reasons, claim 1 is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim does not include an inventive concept.
As per claims 2-5
These method claims further define the abstract ideas of the mental processes illustrated in claim 1, they do not recite any additional elements or other limitations that transform the determination of vehicle position data, and these elements are well-understood, routine and conventional in the art, as indicated in the following rejections under 102/103.
As per claim 6
Step 1: The claim is directed to an apparatus as it recites ([a] navigation device).
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites:
A navigation device for a vehicle, said device comprising:
a first navigation module configured to determine first navigation data of said vehicle based on data from an inertial measurement unit and from a satellite positioning module; and
a second navigation module configured to determine second navigation data of said vehicle based on:
data from the inertial measurement unit and from images captured by said vehicle; and moreover based on data from said satellite positioning module and/or from an altimeter.
The recited limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or by hand or with pen and paper as this step falls within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because it covers a concept performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. Thus, the claim recites a mental process which is an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element of:
A navigation device for a vehicle, said device comprising:
a first navigation module configured to determine first navigation data of said vehicle based on data from an inertial measurement unit and from a satellite positioning module; and
a second navigation module configured to determine second navigation data of said vehicle based on: data from the inertial measurement unit and from images captured by said vehicle; and moreover based on data from said satellite positioning module and/or from an altimeter.
The additional elements are applying the abstract ideas in a vehicle environment. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong
2, the additional elements amount to no more than merely to apply the exception in a vehicular environment, which is also well understood and conventional in the art, as indicated in the following rejections under 102/103. For these reasons, claim 6 is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim does not include an inventive concept.
As per claims 7-12
These apparatus claims further define the abstract ideas of the mental processes illustrated in claim 6, they do not recite any additional elements or other limitations that transform the determination of vehicle position data, and these elements are well-understood, routine and conventional in the art, as indicated in the following rejections under 102/103.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, and 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Krishnaswamy et al., EP-2133662-A2, hereinafter referred to as Krishnaswamy.
As per claim 1
Krishnaswamy discloses [a] navigation method for a vehicle, said method comprising steps of (system 100 resides on or is associated with a particular host platform including, without limitation, an aircraft, optional navigation-aiding sensor 108 is one of a global positioning system (GPS) sensor…system 100 is considered an inertial navigation system when the primary navigation function is based on processing the IMU sensor data - Krishnaswamy ¶9 & ¶10):
determining by a first navigation module, first navigation data of said vehicle based on data from an inertial measurement unit and from a satellite positioning module (system 100 resides on or is associated with a particular host platform including, without limitation, an aircraft, optional navigation-aiding sensor 108 is one of a global positioning system (GPS) sensor…system 100 is considered an inertial navigation system when the primary navigation function is based on processing the IMU sensor data - Krishnaswamy ¶9 & ¶10);
determining, by a second navigation module, second navigation data of said vehicle, based on: data from the inertial measurement unit, and from images captured by said vehicle; and moreover based on data from said satellite positioning module and/or from an altimeter (system 100 resides on or is associated with a particular host platform including, without limitation, an aircraft, optional navigation-aiding sensor 108 is one of a global positioning system (GPS) sensor…a barometric altimeter…system 100 is considered an inertial navigation system when the primary navigation function is based on processing the IMU sensor data, achieve the terrain feature navigation discussed herein, the processing unit 106 correlates the location of a first set of terrain features from each of the scan images, FIG. 2 is a model of an embodiment of an object 208 detected by the system 100 using terrain features…sensor element 104 of FIG. 1 captures a scan image A1 at time T1 and a scan image A2 at time T2 - Krishnaswamy ¶9 & ¶10 & ¶20 & ¶21).
As per claim 2
Krishnaswamy further discloses wherein the first navigation module and the second navigation module use the data from the satellite positioning module when the satellite positioning module is operational; said method comprises steps of: if said satellite positioning module is operational, providing said first navigation data to a guiding module of said vehicle; and otherwise, providing said second navigation data to said guiding module of said vehicle; and said method comprises several iterations of said determining and providing steps (optional navigation-aiding sensor 108 is one of a global positioning system (GPS) sensor…a barometric altimeter…system 100 is considered an inertial navigation system when the primary navigation function is based on processing the IMU sensor data - Krishnaswamy ¶10).
As per claim 3
Krishnaswamy further discloses wherein the first and second navigation modules respectively comprise an inertial system and a Kalman filter to determine said first and second navigation data (optional navigation-aiding sensor 108 is one of a global positioning system (GPS) sensor…a barometric altimeter…system 100 is considered an inertial navigation system when the primary navigation function is based on processing the IMU sensor data, the correction module 320 comprises a Kalman filter…for correcting the predicted terrain feature measurements and substantially reducing any navigational drift present in the navigation system. - Krishnaswamy ¶10 & ¶35).
As per claim 6
Krishnaswamy discloses [a] navigation device for a vehicle, said device comprising (system 100 resides on or is associated with a particular host platform including, without limitation, an aircraft, optional navigation-aiding sensor 108 is one of a global positioning system (GPS) sensor…system 100 is considered an inertial navigation system when the primary navigation function is based on processing the IMU sensor data - Krishnaswamy ¶9 & ¶10):
a first navigation module configured to determine first navigation data of said vehicle based on data from an inertial measurement unit and from a satellite positioning module (system 100 resides on or is associated with a particular host platform including, without limitation, an aircraft, optional navigation-aiding sensor 108 is one of a global positioning system (GPS) sensor…system 100 is considered an inertial navigation system when the primary navigation function is based on processing the IMU sensor data - Krishnaswamy ¶9 & ¶10);
a second navigation module configured to determine second navigation data of said vehicle based on: data from the inertial measurement unit and from images captured by said vehicle; and moreover based on data from said satellite positioning module and/or from an altimeter (system 100 resides on or is associated with a particular host platform including, without limitation, an aircraft, optional navigation-aiding sensor 108 is one of a global positioning system (GPS) sensor…a barometric altimeter…system 100 is considered an inertial navigation system when the primary navigation function is based on processing the IMU sensor data, achieve the terrain feature navigation discussed herein, the processing unit 106 correlates the location of a first set of terrain features from each of the scan images, FIG. 2 is a model of an embodiment of an object 208 detected by the system 100 using terrain features…sensor element 104 of FIG. 1 captures a scan image A1 at time T1 and a scan image A2 at time T2 - Krishnaswamy ¶9 & ¶10 & ¶20 & ¶21).
As per claim 7
Krishnaswamy further discloses [a] navigation system for a vehicle, said system comprising: a navigation device; an inertial measurement unit; a satellite positioning module; and an image capture device (system 100 resides on or is associated with a particular host platform including, without limitation, an aircraft, optional navigation-aiding sensor 108 is one of a global positioning system (GPS) sensor…a barometric altimeter…system 100 is considered an inertial navigation system when the primary navigation function is based on processing the IMU sensor data, achieve the terrain feature navigation discussed herein, the processing unit 106 correlates the location of a first set of terrain features from each of the scan images, FIG. 2 is a model of an embodiment of an object 208 detected by the system 100 using terrain features…sensor element 104 of FIG. 1 captures a scan image A1 at time T1 and a scan image A2 at time T2 - Krishnaswamy ¶9 & ¶10 & ¶20 & ¶21).
As per claim 8
Krishnaswamy further discloses comprising a computer vision device configured to determine at least one position of the vehicle based on the images captured by said image capture device (terrain feature navigation…processing unit 106 correlates the location of a first set of terrain features from each of the scan images processed at a first moment in time with the location of at least a second set of terrain features from each of the scan images processed at a second moment in time…the processing unit 106 determines the change in position of the host platform based on the probability distribution between the first and second sets of terrain features - Krishnaswamy ¶20).
As per claim 9
Krishnaswamy further discloses comprising a guiding module configured to guide said vehicle based on navigation data determined by said navigation device (output terminal 110 displays the terrain features of previously-identified landmarks and any additional objects present in the area adjacent to the system 100, and displays the current state and position of the system 100 based on signals received from the processing unit 106…the processing unit 106 uses the more accurate estimate to determine the necessary actions to take in order to reach a programmed destination - Krishnaswamy ¶19).
As per claim 10
Krishnaswamy further discloses [a] vehicle comprising a navigation system (output terminal 110 displays the terrain features of previously-identified landmarks and any additional objects present in the area adjacent to the system 100, and displays the current state and position of the system 100 based on signals received from the processing unit 106…the processing unit 106 uses the more accurate estimate to determine the necessary actions to take in order to reach a programmed destination - Krishnaswamy ¶19).
As per claim 11
Krishnaswamy further discloses [a] computer program comprising instructions for implementing the steps of a method, when said computer program is executed by at least one processor (a combination of digital electronic circuitry and software (or firmware) residing in a programmable processor - Krishnaswamy ¶41).
As per claim 12
Krishnaswamy further discloses [a]n information medium readable by a computer comprising a computer program (a combination of digital electronic circuitry and software (or firmware) residing in a programmable processor - Krishnaswamy ¶41).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnaswamy, as per claim 1, and further in view of Klaus, US-20200012842-A1, hereinafter referred to as Klaus.
As per claim 4
Krishnaswamy further discloses determining an estimated relative position of said at least one detected terrestrial reference point with respect to said vehicle based on a position of said vehicle determined by the second navigation module and on a known position of said at least one terrestrial reference point; and determining said second navigation data based on the difference between the observed and estimated relative positions of said at least one terrestrial reference point with respect to said vehicle (correlates the current navigational data of each of the identified terrain features with prior navigational data of previously-determined terrain features from an existing terrain mapping database accessed by the navigation platform (block 406)…the method 400 compares the current navigational data with the prior navigational data to determine if at least one of the currently identified terrain features matches one or more of the previously-determined terrain features in the existing terrain mapping database. As discussed above with respect to FIG. 3, the method 400 validates the correlated data to remove any sample comparisons that exceed the prescribed correlation threshold. From at least the correlated navigational data of the identified terrain features, the method 400 provides a current position estimate for the navigation platform (block 410) - Krishnaswamy ¶40).
Krishnaswamy does not specifically disclose comprising steps of: detecting at least one terrestrial reference point in said captured images; determining an observed relative position of said at least one detected terrestrial reference point with respect to said vehicle based on said captured images.
However, Klaus teaches comprising steps of: detecting at least one terrestrial reference point in said captured images; determining an observed relative position of said at least one detected terrestrial reference point with respect to said vehicle based on said captured images (FIG. 1F, each of the points P.sub.i appearing within both of the images 145-1, 145-2 may be constructed based on not only their respective disparities d.sub.i, but also a baseline distance b between the imaging devices 140-1, 140-2 when the images 145-1, 145-2 were captured – Klaus ¶26).
Krishnaswamy discloses a method and system of navigation using terrain features. Klaus teaches unmanned aerial vehicles that autonomously detect and avoid obstacles (or obstructions) that are located in or around landing areas for such vehicles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Krishnaswamy, a method and system of navigation using terrain features, with unmanned aerial vehicles that autonomously detect and avoid obstacles (or obstructions) that are located in or around landing areas for such vehicles, as taught by Klaus, with a reasonable expectation of success for detecting and avoiding objects, see Klaus ¶29 for details.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnaswamy, and Klaus, as per claim 4, and further in view of Singh et al., US-20220182498-A1, hereinafter referred to as Singh.
As per claim 5
Krishnaswamy does not specifically disclose wherein said step of detecting at least one terrestrial reference point in the captured images comprises steps of: selecting a portion of at least one captured image, the coordinates of said portion being determined based on a known position of said at least one terrestrial reference point, on a position of said vehicle determined by the second navigation module and on an item of information relating to the accuracy of said determined position of said vehicle provided by the second navigation module; and detecting said at least one terrestrial reference point in said portion of said at least one captured image.
However, Singh teaches wherein said step of detecting at least one terrestrial reference point in the captured images comprises steps of: selecting a portion of at least one captured image, the coordinates of said portion being determined based on a known position of said at least one terrestrial reference point, on a position of said vehicle determined by the second navigation module and on an item of information relating to the accuracy of said determined position of said vehicle provided by the second navigation module; and detecting said at least one terrestrial reference point in said portion of said at least one captured image (a high-risk area (a travelable area) and a low-risk area (a static map area, a portion including a landmark on the map…accuracy of a position of the vehicle, accuracy of conditions (vehicle position…of the vehicle, low-risk area contains a structural or landmark feature or a static feature that is useful for determining a position of the vehicle, may receive environmental data from one or more environmental recognition sensors (step 301). The vehicle may further receive a map of an environment and conditions and a position of the vehicle (step 302). The vehicle may also divide a surrounding environment into high-risk and low-risk areas based on the position of the vehicle and the map of the environment (step 303). The vehicle may also filter sensor data in the high-risk and low-risk areas based on…the position of the vehicle, and accuracy of the conditions thereof (step 304), a function of determining whether each of the objects detected belongs to the first area, based on the position of the corresponding one of the objects in the map image; a function of determining whether each of the objects detected belongs to the second area – Singh ¶27 & ¶51 & ¶56 & Claim 1).
Krishnaswamy discloses a method and system of navigation using terrain features. Singh teaches a system for making a decision based on data communication and being capable of reducing the amount of data to be communicated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Krishnaswamy, a method and system of navigation using terrain features, with a system for making a decision based on data communication and being capable of reducing the amount of data to be communicated, as taught by Singh, with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce the size of the data before transmission, see Singh ¶56 for details.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARIS ASIM SHAIKH whose telephone number is (571)272-6426. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:30 M-F 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, Fadey S. Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
/F.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights