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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8, filed 3-16-2026, with respect to spec objection and double patenting rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection and rejection have been withdrawn.
However, Applicant's arguments, with respect to 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In re pg. 10, applicant argues
PNG
media_image1.png
366
649
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In response, the calculation is recited in high level that one can reasonably perform mentally.
In re pg. 12, applicant argues
PNG
media_image2.png
510
700
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In response, the calculation is recited in high level that one can reasonably perform mentally. The calculation is different from, e.g. network packet, where it is too abstract for human mind. There is nothing in the claim that limits the claimed data or measurement or calculation to be unread or uncomprehensible form. As such, the broadest reasonable interpretation include measurement in plain text where one can easily perform calculation on.
In re pg. 12, applicant argues
PNG
media_image3.png
407
681
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In response, there is nothing in the claim that limits the claimed invention to real time calculation.
In re pg. 14, applicant argues
PNG
media_image4.png
453
708
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In response, such limitation is not treated as abstract idea. It is an addition element that amounts to mere insignificant application, an insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), which is extra-solution activity of well, understood routine and conventional operation of presentation of offer or statistics under MPEP 2106.05(d)).
In re pg. 16, applicant argues
PNG
media_image5.png
328
675
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In response, there is no blue noise mask recited in the claim.
In re pg. 16, applicant argues
PNG
media_image6.png
291
689
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In response, the calculation is mental process; the instruct movement of a robotic component amounts to mere insignificant application, an insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), which is extra-solution activity of well, understood routine and conventional operation of presentation of offer or statistics under MPEP 2106.05(d).
In re pg. 19, applicant argues
PNG
media_image7.png
219
660
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In response, the parameter linking is mental process.
In re pg. 20, applicant argues
PNG
media_image8.png
519
671
media_image8.png
Greyscale
In response, creating dataset is mere data gather/processing; the instruct movement of a robotic component in high level only amounts to insignificant application, an insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), which is extra-solution activity of well, understood routine and conventional operation of presentation of offer or statistics under MPEP 2106.05(d).
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: at least one curation engine, at least one link engine, at least one fusion engine in claim 1 and 15.
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.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 9: Step 1: the claim is directed to statuary category.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the following limitations:
analyzing the first position measurement and the second position measurement (analyzing measure in high level is an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion mental process which can reasonably be performed in one’s mind with the aid of pencil and paper);
curating the first position measurement and the second position measurement, thereby creating a curated first position measurement and a curated second position measurement, linking the first position measurement and the second position measurement (curating measurement, linking measurement in high level is an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion mental process which can reasonably be performed in one’s mind with the aid of pencil and paper);
linking the curated first position measurement and the curated second position measurement based in part on at least one first position property and/or at least one first position sub-property and at least one second position property and/or at least one second position sub-property (linking measurement in high level is an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion mental process which can reasonably be performed in one’s mind with the aid of pencil and paper);
calculate a conditional entropy between at least one first position property and/or at least one first position sub-property and at least one second position property and/or at least one second position sub-property (calculating a conditional entropy is mathematical concept);
fusing the first position measurement and the second position measurement (fusing measurement in high level is an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion mental process which can reasonably be performed in one’s mind with the aid of pencil and paper);
The claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements:
providing at least one computer processor including a memory (amounts to a generic computer component to perform a computer function as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f));
at least one curation engine, at least one link engine, and at least one fusion engine (amounts to a generic computer component to perform a computer function as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f));
using at least one curation engine, at least one link engine, at least one fusion engine (amounts to mere instructions to apply the exceptions on a generic computer as discussed in MPEP 2105.05(f));
at least one first position sensor capturing a first position measurement of a robotic component (amounts to mere data gathering, an insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g));
at least one second position sensor capturing a second position measurement of the robotic component (amounts to mere data gathering, an insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g));
creating by the at least one fusion engine at least one new data set (amounts to mere insignificant application, an insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g)); and
wherein the at least one computer processor is operable to instruct movement of the robotic component based on the at least one new data set (amounts to mere insignificant application, an insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the 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.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
providing at least one computer processor including a memory (amounts to a generic computer component to perform a computer function as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f));
at least one curation engine, at least one link engine, and at least one fusion engine (amounts to a generic computer component to perform a computer function as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f));
using at least one curation engine, at least one link engine, at least one fusion engine (amounts to mere instructions to apply the exceptions on a generic computer as discussed in MPEP 2105.05(f));
at least one first position sensor capturing a first position measurement of a robotic component (amounts to mere data gathering, an insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g) is receiving or gathering data which mere data gathering and well understood, routine and convention as identified by the court in MPEP 2106.05(d));
at least one second position sensor capturing a second position measurement of the robotic component (amounts to mere data gathering, an insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g) is receiving or gathering data which mere data gathering and well understood, routine and convention as identified by the court in MPEP 2106.05(d));
creating by the at least one fusion engine at least one new data set (amounts to mere insignificant application, an insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), which is extra-solution activity of well, understood routine and conventional operation of presentation of offer or statistics under MPEP 2106.05(d)); and
wherein the at least one computer processor is operable to instruct movement of the robotic component based on the at least one new data set (amounts to mere insignificant application, an insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), which is extra-solution activity of well, understood routine and conventional operation of presentation of offer or statistics under MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The claim is not patent eligible.
CLAIM 10: Step 1: the claim is directed to statuary category.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the following limitations:
The claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element:
10. The method of claim 9, wherein the non-existent link is a conditional entropy of 1, the weak link is a conditional entropy of between less than 1 and greater than or equal to 0.45, and the strong link is a conditional entropy of between less than 0.45 and 0 (amounts to generally linking the abstract ideas to the technological environment or field of use as discussed in in MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim is not patent eligible.
CLAIM 11: Step 1: the claim is directed to statuary category.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the following limitations:
11. The method of claim 9, further comprising categorizing via the at least one curation engine the at least one first position property and/or the at least one first position sub- property and the at least one second position property and/or the at least one second sub- property for the at least one link engine to calculate the conditional entropy based in part on historical accuracy of previous categorizations using artificial intelligence (categorizing position property in high level is an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion mental process which can reasonably be performed in one’s mind with the aid of pencil and paper).
The claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element:
via the at least one curation engine, for the at least one link engine, using artificial intelligence (amounts to mere instructions to apply the exceptions on a generic computer as discussed in MPEP 2105.05(f)).
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim is not patent eligible.
CLAIM 12: Step 1: the claim is directed to statuary category.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the following limitations:
The claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element:
12. The method of claim 9, wherein the at least one new data set includes an accuracy value for the at least one first position sensor and the at least one second position sensor (amounts to generally linking the abstract ideas to the technological environment or field of use as discussed in in MPEP 2106.05(h))
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim is not patent eligible.
CLAIM 13: Step 1: the claim is directed to statuary category.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the following limitations:
13. The method of claim 9, further comprising iterating calculations so that continuously calculates the conditional entropy of the weak link until calculates the non-existent link or the strong link (iterating calculations in high level is an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion mental process which can reasonably be performed in one’s mind with the aid of pencil and paper).
The claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element:
the at least one link engine (amounts to mere instructions to apply the exceptions on a generic computer as discussed in MPEP 2105.05(f)).
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim is not patent eligible.
CLAIM 14: Step 1: the claim is directed to statuary category.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the following limitations:
14. The method of claim 9, further comprising dynamically adjusting the threshold for the non-existent link, the weak link, or the strong link depending in part on the at least one query (dynamically adjusting in high level is an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion mental process which can reasonably be performed in one’s mind with the aid of pencil and paper).
The claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element:
via the at least one link engine (amounts to mere instructions to apply the exceptions on a generic computer as discussed in MPEP 2105.05(f)).
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 1-8 are system claims having similar limitation as of claims 9-14 and are rejected under the same rational. The additional elements in claim 1 is A system for sensor data fusion for sensor management and utilization in robotics, comprising: at least one computer processor including a memory (amounts to a generic computer component to perform a computer function as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract into practical application and are not sufficient to amount to significant more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are an abstract idea. The additional elements in Claim 6 is wherein the at least one link engine is operable to link the curated first position measurement and the curated second position measurement in real-time (amounts to generally linking the abstract ideas to the technological environment or field of use as discussed in in MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements in Claim 7 is wherein the system does not store the first position measurement and/or the second position measurement unless the at least one validation engine validates fused sensor data (amounts to generally linking the abstract ideas to the technological environment or field of use as discussed in in MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements in Claim 8 is wherein the at least one first position sensor and/or the at least one second position sensor is operable to include an accelerometer, a gyroscope, a force/torque sensor, a proximity sensor, a gear sensor, a magnetic field sensor, angle sensor, and/or a 6-axis combo inertial sensor (amounts to generally linking the abstract ideas to the technological environment or field of use as discussed in in MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claims 15-20 are system claims having similar limitation as of claims 9-14 and are rejected under the same rational. Note: the “first velocity”, “second velocity” is similar to the “first position measurement”, “the second position measurement”. The additional elements in claim 15 is A system for sensor data fusion for sensor management and utilization in robotics, comprising: at least one computer processor including a memory (amounts to a generic computer component to perform a computer function as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract into practical application and are not sufficient to amount to significant more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are an abstract idea. The additional elements in Claim 17 is wherein the at least one link engine is operable to link the curated first position and the curated second position in real-time (amounts to generally linking the abstract ideas to the technological environment or field of use as discussed in in MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements in Claim 19 is wherein the system does not store the first position or the second position unless the at least one validation engine validates fused sensor data (amounts to generally linking the abstract ideas to the technological environment or field of use as discussed in in MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Van Beek (US 20220161815 A1) discloses receiving sensor data from a plurality of sensors of an autonomous vehicle, data normalization, data warping/curation, data filtering, and data fusion. See [0064, Fig, 59, 0073, Fig. 67, 0078, 0096, Fig. 71, [0104-0105].
Collin et al (US 2022/0324464 A1) disclose evaluating performance of autonomous vehicles (i.e. robot) using conditional entropy, sensor fusion, validation. See [0208]-[0212].
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter (over prior arts only):
While the idea of sensor fusion, data curation, conditional entropy, performance validation is well known in the art, the specific steps of “wherein the at least one fusion engine is operable to fuse the first position measurement and the second position measurement based on a strong link between the at least one first position property and/or the at least one first position sub-property and the at least one second position property and/or the at least one second position sub-property” of claim 1 is not anticipated or render obvious over prior arts.
Similarity, “determining by the at least one link engine if the link between the at least one first position property and/or the at least one first position sub-property and the at least one second position property and/or the at least one second position sub- property is a non-existent link, a weak link, or a strong link via the conditional entropy;” of claim 9 is not anticipated or render obvious over prior arts.
Similarity, “wherein the at least one link engine is operable to determine if the link between the at least one first velocity property and/or the at least one first velocity sub- property and the at least one second velocity property and/or the at least one second velocity sub-property is a non-existent link, a weak link, or a strong link via the conditional entropy;” of claim 15 is not anticipated or render obvious over prior arts.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUT WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1123. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm 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, Abdullah Al Kawsar can be reached on 5712703169. 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.
/LUT WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2127
Prosecution Insights