DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to Application # 19/130,574 filed on May 16, 2025 in which claims 1-17 were presented for examination.
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
Claims 1-17 are pending, of which claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101; claims 7, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b); claims 1, 8-13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103; and claims 2-6 are objected to.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed May 16, 2025 and December 18, 2025 comply with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. They have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 C.F.R. § 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 4 recites a method claim including the limitation “comparing a first accuracy state of a primary navigation positioning module and a second accuracy state of a backup navigation positioning module, and switching the backup navigation positioning module to the primary navigation positioning module when the first accuracy state is inferior to the second accuracy state.” (Emphasis added).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation does not require the comparing to be performed because it does not require the first accuracy rate to be inferior to the second accuracy rate. See Ex parte Schulhauser, 2013-007847 (PTAB 2016) (precedential) where the board held that when method steps are to be carried out only upon the occurrence of a condition precedent, the broadest reasonable interpretation holds that those steps are not required to be performed. (id. at *7). See, e.g., Reactive Surfaces v. Toyota Motor Corp., IPR2016-01914 (PTAB 2018) (“[t]he use of ‘when’ instead of ‘if’ does not change whether the method step is conditional”) (citing Ex parte Kaundinya, No. 2016-000917, 2017 WL 5510012, at *5-6 (PTAB Nov. 14, 2017) ("when" may indicate a conditional method step); Ex parte Zhou, No. 2016-004913, 2017 WL 5171533, at *2 (PTAB Nov. 1, 2017) (same); Ex parte Lee, No. 2014-009364, 2017 WL 1101681, at *2 (PTAB Mar. 16, 2017) (same)).
Claim 5 recites a method claim including the limitation “switching the backup barometer module to the primary barometer module when there is no measurement value for the first barometer sampling data within a first preset period or there is no change in the measurement value for the first barometer sampling data within a second preset period.” (Emphasis added). The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation does not require the switching to be performed because it does not require the “when” condition to occur. See Ex parte Schulhauser, 2013-007847 (PTAB 2016) (precedential) where the board held that when method steps are to be carried out only upon the occurrence of a condition precedent, the broadest reasonable interpretation holds that those steps are not required to be performed. (id. at *7). See, e.g., Reactive Surfaces v. Toyota Motor Corp., IPR2016-01914 (PTAB 2018) (“[t]he use of ‘when’ instead of ‘if’ does not change whether the method step is conditional”) (citing Ex parte Kaundinya, No. 2016-000917, 2017 WL 5510012, at *5-6 (PTAB Nov. 14, 2017) ("when" may indicate a conditional method step); Ex parte Zhou, No. 2016-004913, 2017 WL 5171533, at *2 (PTAB Nov. 1, 2017) (same); Ex parte Lee, No. 2014-009364, 2017 WL 1101681, at *2 (PTAB Mar. 16, 2017) (same)).
Claim 6 recites a method claim including the limitation “switching the backup magnetometer module to the primary magnetometer module when the first module data is inferior to the second module data, or the first module data is empty within a third preset period.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation does not require the switching to be performed because it does not require the “when” condition to occur. See Ex parte Schulhauser, 2013-007847 (PTAB 2016) (precedential) where the board held that when method steps are to be carried out only upon the occurrence of a condition precedent, the broadest reasonable interpretation holds that those steps are not required to be performed. (id. at *7). See, e.g., Reactive Surfaces v. Toyota Motor Corp., IPR2016-01914 (PTAB 2018) (“[t]he use of ‘when’ instead of ‘if’ does not change whether the method step is conditional”) (citing Ex parte Kaundinya, No. 2016-000917, 2017 WL 5510012, at *5-6 (PTAB Nov. 14, 2017) ("when" may indicate a conditional method step); Ex parte Zhou, No. 2016-004913, 2017 WL 5171533, at *2 (PTAB Nov. 1, 2017) (same); Ex parte Lee, No. 2014-009364, 2017 WL 1101681, at *2 (PTAB Mar. 16, 2017) (same)).
Claim 7 recites the limitation “comparing the timestamps during a measurement update phase of applying a preset filtering algorithm, to align the historical data frame with a slow update rate to the motion states represented by the historical data frame with a fast update rate.” (Emphasis added).
This appears to recite that the intended use of the comparing is “to align” the data. “An intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates.” Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although “[s]uch statements often . . . appear in the claim’s preamble,” In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754 (Fed. Cir. 1987), a statement of intended use or purpose can appear elsewhere in a claim. Id; Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U.S. 150, 157 (1875) (‘The inventor of a machine is entitled to the benefit of all the uses to which it can be put, no matter whether he had conceived the idea of the use or not.’). Thus, it is usually improper to construe non-functional claim terms in system claims in a way that makes infringement or validity turn on their function. Paragon Solutions, LLC v. Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Claim 9 recites a method including the limitation “determining the filtering algorithm is less healthy than expected when the confidence level exceeds a preset threshold, and using another backup filter operating independently for the state estimation.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation does not require the determining to be performed because it does not require the “when” condition to occur. See Ex parte Schulhauser, 2013-007847 (PTAB 2016) (precedential) where the board held that when method steps are to be carried out only upon the occurrence of a condition precedent, the broadest reasonable interpretation holds that those steps are not required to be performed. (id. at *7). See, e.g., Reactive Surfaces v. Toyota Motor Corp., IPR2016-01914 (PTAB 2018) (“[t]he use of ‘when’ instead of ‘if’ does not change whether the method step is conditional”) (citing Ex parte Kaundinya, No. 2016-000917, 2017 WL 5510012, at *5-6 (PTAB Nov. 14, 2017) ("when" may indicate a conditional method step); Ex parte Zhou, No. 2016-004913, 2017 WL 5171533, at *2 (PTAB Nov. 1, 2017) (same); Ex parte Lee, No. 2014-009364, 2017 WL 1101681, at *2 (PTAB Mar. 16, 2017) (same)).
Claim 10 recites a method including the limitation “forcing the extended Kalman filtering into a preset auxiliary mode without navigation and positioning when the confidence level of the state estimation of the navigation positioning module exceeds the preset threshold within a preset period; retaining the calculation for an inertial measurement unit, the magnetometer module, and the barometer module in the auxiliary mode.” (Emphasis added). The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation does not require the forcing or retaining to be performed because it does not require the “when” condition to occur or the auxiliary mode to which the retaining is conditioned. See Ex parte Schulhauser, 2013-007847 (PTAB 2016) (precedential) where the board held that when method steps are to be carried out only upon the occurrence of a condition precedent, the broadest reasonable interpretation holds that those steps are not required to be performed. (id. at *7). See, e.g., Reactive Surfaces v. Toyota Motor Corp., IPR2016-01914 (PTAB 2018) (“[t]he use of ‘when’ instead of ‘if’ does not change whether the method step is conditional”) (citing Ex parte Kaundinya, No. 2016-000917, 2017 WL 5510012, at *5-6 (PTAB Nov. 14, 2017) ("when" may indicate a conditional method step); Ex parte Zhou, No. 2016-004913, 2017 WL 5171533, at *2 (PTAB Nov. 1, 2017) (same); Ex parte Lee, No. 2014-009364, 2017 WL 1101681, at *2 (PTAB Mar. 16, 2017) (same)).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 13-17, they recite a “computer-readable storage medium” storing instructions that perform various functions. The plain and ordinary meaning of “computer-readable storage medium” includes both statutory and non-statutory subject matter. See Ex parte Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d 1857, 1862 (P.T.A.B. 2013) (precedential). In the Specification of the present application, the “computer-readable storage medium” is never expressly defined to exclude transmission media. Although some examples are given, these are not limiting. Thus, the recited “computer-readable storage medium” is not a “process,” a “machine,” a “manufacture” or a “composition of matter,” as defined in 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Examiner recommends amending “computer-readable storage medium” to “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” to overcome this rejection.
Accordingly, claims 13-17 fail to recite statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 7, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 7, the term “slow update rate” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “slow update rate” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not know how to judge an update rate to be slow as compared to fast or medium speed update rates.
Therefore, this claim is indefinite.
Regarding claim 15, this claim depends from claim 7 and, therefore, inherits the rejection of that claim.
Regarding claim 11, this claim includes the limitation “evaluating a raw observation data for each of the sensors based on an uncertainty and innovation of the state estimation.” (Emphasis added). The claim is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. It appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Specifically, it is unclear how it is possible to evaluate data based on “innovation” because innovation is related to the creativeness of an idea, which does not apply to sensor data.
Therefore, this limitation is indefinite.
For purposes of examination, this limitation shall be interpreted as “evaluating a raw observation data for each of the sensors based on an uncertainty … of the state estimation.”
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicants are advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 8, 12, 13, are 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Omr et al., US Publication 2022/0107184 (hereinafter Omr) in view of Hauck et al., US Publication 2020/0088543 (hereinafter Hauck).
Regarding claim 1, Omr discloses a processing method for sensor data, comprising “performing preset … process on a first sensor data acquired by a plurality of sensors of an aircraft according to categories of the sensors respectively, to obtain a second sensor data” (Omr ¶ 43) by processing multiple optical sensors (i.e., a category of sensors) of a drone to obtain a stereo view (i.e., second sensor data). Additionally, Omr discloses “performing alignment process on the second sensor data by means of a preset data buffer and motion states represented by each of the sensors, to obtain a third sensor data” (Omr ¶¶ 79-80 and Fig. 5) by aligning the stereo view using motion sensor data (i.e., motion states) to generate third sensor data such as position, velocity, and altitude. Further, Omr discloses “performing data fusion process on the third sensor data in a loose coupling manner” (Omr ¶¶ 50, 58, 180) where the determination of the navigation solution requires the sensor data fusion (Omr ¶ 50), which is disclosed to be the position, velocity, and altitude. (Omr ¶ 58). Omr then discloses that at least the position and velocity are integrated (i.e., fused) using a loosely-coupled integration. (Omr ¶ 180). Moreover, Omr discloses “performing calculation to obtain a current required motion information” (Omr ¶ 50) where the navigation solution is the current required motion information. Likewise, Omr discloses “wherein an observation model of the data fusion is decoupled into independent measurement equations corresponding to each sensor” (Omr ¶113) where the sources are decoupled. Finally, Omr discloses “measurement values of each sensor obtained from the measurement equations are sequentially fused during measurement updates” (Omr ¶ 180) where the updates are performed after the initial measurement, which means it is being performed in a sequence.
Omr does not appear to explicitly disclose performing preset comparison, shaping, and filtering process on a first sensor data acquired by a plurality of sensors of an aircraft according to categories of the sensors respectively, to obtain a second sensor data.”
However, Hauck discloses that it is well-known in the art of sensor processing to perform preset comparisons, normalizing (i.e., shaping), and filtering on sensor data. (Hauck ¶ 6).
Omr and Hauck are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of sensor processing.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Omr and Hauck before him or her to modify the sensor processing of Omr to include the comparisons, normalization, and filtering of sensor data of Hauck.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). Omr teaches the “base device” for processing sensor data. Further, Hauck teaches the “known technique” of performing comparisons, normalizations, and filtering on sensor data that is applicable to the base device of Omr. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Regarding claims 8 and 16, the combination of Omr and Hauck discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Omr and Hauck discloses “wherein performing data fusion process on the third sensor data in the loose coupling manner, and performing calculation to obtain the current required motion information, wherein the observation model of the data fusion is decoupled into independent measurement equations corresponding to each sensor, and measurement values of each sensor obtained from the measurement equations are sequentially fused during measurement updates, comprises: within a preset range of positioning accuracy, setting an expanded observation noise of each sensor as a noise parameter for extended Kalman filtering.” (Omr ¶¶ 148-149). Additionally, the combination of Omr and Hauck discloses “using an inertial guidance calculation of the third sensor data as a state prediction for the extended Kalman filtering, wherein establishing the observation models of the magnetometer module, the barometer module, and the navigation positioning module respectively, and involving the measurement values of each observation model in the measurement updates of the extended Kalman filtering” (Omr ¶¶ 60, 148) where these steps are performed for all data (Omr ¶ 60) and indicating that GNSS (i.e., navigation positioning module), manometer, and barometer may all be used to provide data. (Omr ¶ 148).
Regarding claim 12, it merely recites a processing device for performing the method of claim 1. The device comprises computer hardware and software modules for performing the various functions. The combination of Omr and Hauck comprises computer hardware and software modules for performing the same functions. Thus, claim 12 is rejected using the same rationale set forth in the above rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, it merely recites a medium for performing the method of claim 1. The medium comprises computer software modules for performing the various functions. The combination of Omr and Hauck comprises computer software modules for performing the same functions. Thus, claim 13 is rejected using the same rationale set forth in the above rejection for claim 1.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Omr in view of Hauck, as applied to claim 8 above, and in further view of Mathews et al., US Publication 2017/0158213 (hereinafter Mathews).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Omr and Hauck discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 8 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Omr and Hauck does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the method further comprises: calculating a confidence level for a state estimation based on a state error covariance matrix of the extended Kalman filtering; determining the filtering algorithm is less healthy than expected when the confidence level exceeds a preset threshold, and using another backup filter operating independently for the state estimation.”
However, Mathews discloses a method for processing sensor data “wherein the method further comprises: calculating a confidence level for a state estimation based on a state error covariance matrix of the extended Kalman filtering.” (Mathews ¶ 39).
Additionally, as discussed above, the limitation “determining the filtering algorithm is less healthy than expected when the confidence level exceeds a preset threshold, and using another backup filter operating independently for the state estimation” is not required to occur.
Omr, Hauck, and Mathews are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of sensor processing.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Omr, Hauck, and Mathews before him or her to modify the sensor processing of Omr and Hauck to include the confidence calculations of Mathews.
The motivation for doing so would have been that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such a modification would improve the accuracy and reliability of the sensor processing.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Omr, Hauck, and Mathews discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 9 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Omr, Hauck, and Mathews discloses “performing a preset no-position observation operation” (Omr ¶ 161) by performing an observation on the optical sensor data, which does not include the position.
Further, as discussed above, the limitations “forcing the extended Kalman filtering into a preset auxiliary mode without navigation and positioning when the confidence level of the state estimation of the navigation positioning module exceeds the preset threshold within a preset period; retaining the calculation for an inertial measurement unit, the magnetometer module, and the barometer module in the auxiliary mode” are not required to occur.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Omr, Hauck, and Mathews discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 9 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Omr, Hauck, and Mathews discloses “evaluating a raw observation data for each of the sensors based on an uncertainty and innovation of the state estimation.” (Omr ¶ 106). Further, the combination of Omr, Hauck, and Mathews disclose “before using the raw observation data for measurement updates, removing the raw observation data of poorer quality than expected” (Omr ¶ 192) by removing estimated sensor errors (i.e., of poorer quality than expected).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Georgy et al., US Publication 2016/0061605, System and method for performing sensor fusion.
Kumar et al., US Publication 2017/0212529, System and method for performing sensor fusion.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW R DYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on 571-270-3832. 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.
/ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights