DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to communications filed on April 30, 2025. Claims 1-18 and 20-21 are pending.
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 1-18 and 20-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 1 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim 1 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward an abstract idea which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Regarding claim 1
A computer-implemented method of controlling a device, the method comprising:
sensing an environment in which the device is located using radio frequency, RF,
signals received by the device; and
determining based on the received RF signals, whether to use one or more further
environment sensors to further sense the environment around the device.
The method in claim 1 is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. It merely consists of mentally observing an environment and determining whether to take a closer look to evaluate the characteristics of the environment. Notably, the claim does not positively recite any limitations regarding the use of the data in controlling the device in a specific manner.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 1 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 1 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 18 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Araujo et al (WO 2021/121577).
Regarding claim 1, Araujo teaches a computer-implemented method of controlling a device, the method comprising:
sensing an environment in which the device is located using radio frequency, RF,
signals received by the device (Para. [0030]… as the vehicle 300 travels along the path 309 (e.g., road) through an environment the device 400 performs localization operations or combined localization and mapping operations, e.g. SLAM, using one or more of the sensors 301 and 303 to sense features of the environment in a proximate region); and
determining based on the received RF signals, whether to use one or more further
environment sensors to further sense the environment around the device (Para, [0051-0052]… Some embodiments are directed to detecting a need for activating one sensor and for deactivating another sensor which may be motivated by one or both of the following embodiments. In a first embodiment, a current or predicted decrease of the localization performance when using Sensor A is determined, where it is believed that Sensor B will perform better. For example, if Sensor A is a monocular camera and Sensor Ba LIDAR, the current or
predicted region may contain few visual features to be detected by Sensor A, while the structure of the environment may be well tracked by Sensor B.)
Regarding claim 2, Araujo teaches a method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the one or more further environment sensors have a higher energy consumption than an RF sensor in the device that is used to receive the RF signals (Para. [0054]… Sensor A consumes more power when operating than Sensor B and therefore is less energy efficient for the device to operate using. Referring to the operational embodiment of Figure 16, the operations can further include initiating 1601 activation of the second sensor (Sensor B) based on determining that the first sensor (Sensor A) uses more than a threshold amount of a defined hardware resource….)
Regarding claim 3, Araujo teaches a method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the one or more further environment sensors comprise any of: a camera sensor, a Laser Imaging Detection and Ranging, LIDAR, sensor, a Radar sensor, and an ultrasound sensor (Para. [0075]… Example types of sensors include, but are not limited to, RGB visible light camera, infrared camera, inertial measurement unit (IMU), radar sensor, stereo cameras (visible and/or
infrared), light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor, acoustic ranging sensor, proximity
sensor, GPS, and RF transceiver )
Regarding claim 4, Araujo teaches a method as claimed in claim 1, wherein, if it is determined to use the one or more further environment sensors to further sense the environment around the device, the method further comprises: enabling the one or more further environment sensors to sense the environment (Para. [0051-0052]).
Regarding claim 5, Araujo teaches a method as claimed in claim 1, wherein
the step of determining comprises:
determining to use the one or more further environment sensors to further sense the
environment around the device if the received RF signals indicate that an object of interest in the environment is near to the device, or an object of interest is unexpectedly located in the environment (Para. [0024]…The activation of Sensor B and the deactivation of Sensor A is selectively performed when the device is at a suitable location where certain sensor characteristics are determined to be achievable, such as because there are sufficient available environment features which can be acquired from both sensors when the switching between sensors occurs to enable localization to be performed with sufficient accuracy to satisfy the localization performance rule.)
Regarding claim 18, Araujo teaches a method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the device is a device with autonomous movement capability (Para. [0075]… The first device 400 and the second device 410 can be, but are not limited to, a component of any of a smartphone, wearable computer, augmented reality headset, virtual reality headset, mixed reality headset, semi-autonomous or autonomous vehicle…)
Regarding claims 20-21 please refer to the rejection of claims 1-2, which are commensurate in scope.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 6-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araujo et al. (WO 2021/121577) in view of Jovicic et al. (US 2012/005678).
Regarding claim 6, Araujo teaches a method as claimed in claim 1, Jovicic teaches further wherein the step of determining comprises:
determining to use the one or more further environment sensors to further sense the
environment around the device if the received RF signals deviate from an expected RF signal value (Jovicic, Para. [0024-0025]... Thus, due to expected variations in the environment, one fingerprint prediction may not be adequate to accurately locate a mobile wireless device within building at all times. In accordance with a feature of some embodiments, a mobile wireless device receives and uses multiple alternative fingerprint prediction maps with corresponding metrics to determine its location. In some embodiments, the mobile wireless device uses known information and/or sensed measurements to update the metrics, e.g., probability metrics corresponding to the different alternative maps, and determine its position.)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify 5the method of localization using sensor as taught by Araujo with the method for increasing the reliability of signal reference maps for use in position determination as taught by Jovicic to improve the reliability of a position estimate of a mobile wireless device (Jovicic, Para. [0008]).
Regarding claim 7, Araujo teaches a method as claimed in claim 1, Jovicic further teaches wherein the step of determining comprises:
comparing the received RF signals to a RF signal map , wherein the RF signal map is based
on expected RF signals at different locations in the environment (Jovicic, Para. [0046]…RF power map 1506 corresponds to condition set 1, e.g., door open, daytime, and high mobile device density. RF power map 1 506 is represented by sets of expected received power levels corresponding to different frequencies at different grid locations as indicated by block 507), and wherein the comparison comprises comparing the received RF signals to the expected RF signals at a current location of the device in the environment (Jovicic, Para. [0063]… The mobile wireless device compares the received power measurements…to stored RF power map information to determine position);
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify 5the method of localization using sensor as taught by Araujo with the method for increasing the reliability of signal reference maps for use in position determination as taught by Jovicic to improve the reliability of a position estimate of a mobile wireless device (Jovicic, Para. [0008]).
Regarding claim 8, Araujo in view of Jovicic teach a method as claimed in claim 7, wherein the step of determining comprises:
determining to use the one or more further environment sensors to further sense the
environment if the received RF signals deviate from the expected RF signals by more than a threshold amount (Jovicic, Para. [0024-0025]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify 5the method of localization using sensor as taught by Araujo with the method for increasing the reliability of signal reference maps for use in position determination as taught by Jovicic to improve the reliability of a position estimate of a mobile wireless device (Jovicic, Para. [0008]).
Regarding claim 10, Araujo in view of Jovicic a method as claimed in claim 7, wherein
the RF signal map is in the form of an encoded representation, and wherein the encoded
representation is any one of:
a look-up table comprising a plurality of entries indicating expected RF signals at
respective locations in the environment;
a parametric model that maps locations of the device in the environment to
expected RF signals;
an autoencoder that is trained to output a compressed representation of the expected
RF signals at a particular location in the environment;
a look-up table and autoencoder in which the look-up table comprises a plurality of
entries indicating expected RF signals at respective locations in the environment at which a confidence level of the expected RF signal is high, and wherein the autoencoder is trained to predict expected RF signals at other locations in the environment; and
a Gaussian representation of the RF signal map in which an expected RF signal is
modelled using a Gaussian process (Jovicic, Para. [0046]… RF power map 1506 corresponds to condition set 1, e.g., door open, daytime, and high mobile device density. RF
power map 1 506 is represented by sets of expected received power levels corresponding to different frequencies at different grid locations as indicated by block 507. Corresponding to
grid location LO, the expected received power for frequency….and the expected received power for frequency…)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of localization using sensor as taught by Araujo with the method for increasing the reliability of signal reference maps for use in position determination as taught by Jovicic to improve the reliability of a position estimate of a mobile wireless device (Jovicic, Para. [0008]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araujo et al. (WO 2021/121577) in view of Jovicic et al. (US 2012/0056785) in further view of Kirchmeier et al. (US2016/0269225) .
Regarding claim 9, Araujo in view of Jovicic teach a method as claimed in claim 8, Kirchmeier further teaches wherein the deviation of the received RF signals is determined as one or more of: a mean squared error between the received RF signals and the expected RF signals (Para. [0021-0023]… the at least one distributor device can also determine a signal quality and/ or a mean square error (MSE) of a physical signal at the at least one port connection, particularly of the voltage and/or of the current. In this case, the MSE is determined particularly from a gap between the expected signal level (voltage level) and the actually present signal level) ; and a mean squared error between encodings of the expected RF signals and the received RF signals (Para. [0021]) .
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the clamed invention to modify the method of Araujo in view of Jovicic with the method for operating a bus system as taught by Kirchmeier to provide diagnosis data with respect to the at least one port connection (Kirchmeier, Para. [0008]).
Claim(s) 11-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araujo et al. (WO 2021/21577) in view of Sinyavskiy et al. (US 2018/0281191).
Regarding claim 11, Araujo teaches a method as claimed claim 1, Sinyavskiy further teaches wherein the device uses a cost map relating to the environment (Sinyavskiy, Para. [0094]… Block 404 includes generating a cost map associated with an environment of a robot), wherein the cost map indicates a cost to the device of moving into or through different parts of the environment (Sinyavskiy, Para. [0097]… cost map can be reflective at least in part of the value of the preference of travel (e.g., navigation, movement to, etc.) of robot 200 to particular locations), and wherein the method further comprises:
updating the cost map based on the received RF signals (Sinyavskiy, Para. [0020]… mapping unit configured to generate a map of the environment based at least in part on the sensor data generated by the one or more sensors; generate a cost map associated with at least a portion of the generated map of the environment).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of localization using sensors as taught by Araujo with the method for robotic path planning as taught by Sinyavskiy to improve the efficiency of robots (Para. [0063]).
Regarding claim 12, Araujo in view of Sinyavskiy teach a method as claimed in claim 11, wherein if it is determined to use the one or more further environment sensors to further sense the environment around the device, the method further comprises:
sensing the environment around the device using the one or more further environment
sensors (Sinyavskiy, Para. [0079]… sensors unit 212 can comprise systems and/or methods that can detect characteristics within and/or around robot 200); and
updating the cost map according to the sensing by the one or more further environment
sensors (Sinyavskiy , Para. [0020]... mapping unit configured to generate a map of the environment based at least in part on the sensor data generated by the one or more sensors; generate a cost map associated with at least a portion of the generated map of the environment).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of localization using sensors as taught by Araujo with the method for robotic path planning as taught by Sinyavskiy to improve the efficiency of robots (Para. [0063]).
Regarding claim 13, Araujo in view of Sinyavskiy teach a method as claimed in claim 11, wherein the method further comprises:
determining a movement path for the device according to the updated cost map (Sinyavskiy, Para. [0097]... the cost map can be reflective at least in part of the value of the preference of travel (e.g., navigation, movement to, etc.) of robot 200 to particular locations).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of localization using sensors as taught by Araujo with the method for robotic path planning as taught by Sinyavskiy to improve the efficiency of robots (Para. [0063]).
Regarding claim 14, Araujo in view of Sinyavskiy teach a method as claimed in claim 13, wherein the step of determining whether to use one or more further environment sensors to further sense the environment around the device is further based on the cost map and the determined movement path for the device (Sinyavskiy, Para. [0129]…determining the cost of the projected plurality of path portions. In some implementations, the cost of a path portion can be determined with reference to a cost map (e.g., a cost map substantially similar to the cost map described with reference to FIGS. 5A-5B, 6). Accordingly, the cost of travelling via the path portion can be calculated.)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of localization using sensors as taught by Araujo with the method for robotic path planning as taught by Sinyavskiy to improve the efficiency of robots (Para. [0063]).
Regarding claim 15, Araujo in view of Sinyavskiy teach a method as claimed in claim 14, wherein the step of determining whether to use one or more further environment sensors comprises determining to use the one or more further environment sensors if the device is to move in to or through a high cost area indicated by the updated map (Sinyavskiy, Para. [0102]… robot 200 can be configured to minimize the value of the pixels it touches. Accordingly, pixels in indicator 504 can have lower values, and/or negative values, to indicate a preference of robot 200 to go to those locations.)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of localization using sensors as taught by Araujo with the method for robotic path planning as taught by Sinyavskiy to improve the efficiency of robots (Para. [0063]).
Regarding claim 16, Araujo in view of Sinyavskiy teach a method as claimed in claim 14, wherein the step of determining whether to use one or more further environment sensors comprises determining that the one or more further environment sensors are not to be used if the device is to avoid high cost areas indicated by the updated map (Sinyavskiy, Para. [0102]... pixels in indicator 504 can have a higher value than pixels in other places. Moreover, pixels of indicators 506A-506C can have lower values, and/or negative values, to indicate preferences for robot 200 not to go to those locations.)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of localization using sensors as taught by Araujo with the method for robotic path planning as taught by Sinyavskiy to improve the efficiency of robots (Para. [0063]).
Regarding claim 17, Araujo in view of Sinyavskiy teach a method as claimed in a claim 11, wherein the cost map is any one of:
a look-up table comprising a plurality of entries indicating costs at respective
locations in the environment; a parametric model that maps locations of the device in the environment to costs; and a machine learning model that is trained to update a cost based on a presence of an obstacle at a location in the environment (Sinyavskiy, Para. [0098]… the cost map can be a two-,three-, four- or more dimensional data structure wherein portions of the cost map correlate to locations ( e.g., relative and/or absolute) in an environment. In some cases, those locations can be correlated to time, where the characteristics of the locations can change over time. For example, in a two-dimensional ("2D") map, each pixel can correlate at least in part to a physical location in the environment in which robot 200 navigates)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of localization using sensors as taught by Araujo with the method for robotic path planning as taught by Sinyavskiy to improve the efficiency of robots (Para. [0063]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JODI M JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-0107. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/JODI JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights