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 .
This is a final rejection on the merits of this application. Claims 1-22 are rejected and currently pending, as discussed below.
Under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation, any use of the limitation “and/or” will be interpreted as “or”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of Claims 1-22 on the basis of a judicial exception have been fully considered but are not persuasive. As discussed in further detail below, the limitation of “positioning the pose graph in a frame of reference defined relative to the map by applying a transform to the pose graph” is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 does not contain any specific details regarding the “frame of reference” that make the limitation inherently computer-implemented. Therefore, under broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 1 covers performance of this limitation in the human mind. Additionally, Examiner notes that mathematical concept are also a category of abstract ideas.
Furthermore, Applicant’s cited computer and memory are recited at a high level of generality. These limitations impart no meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). In Example 37 cited by the applicant, the cited computer hardware imposes meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea, since the step of determining the usage relies on tracking memory allocation, which is a feature inherent to computer systems. Applicant’s frame of reference is not inherently computer-implemented. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments sufficient to differentiate between the claimed invention and the cited prior art of Lee (“Unsupervised Learning of Threshold for Geometric Verification in Visual-Based Loop-Closure”), in particular regarding the differences between Applicant’s trajectory loop closures and Lee’s image pair loop closures. The rejections are hereby withdrawn.
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 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Independent Claims 1, 21, and 22 are directed to a method, an apparatus, and a non-transient computer-readable medium, respectively, for transition detection.
Therefore, Claims 1, 21, and 22 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent Claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The other analogous Claims 21 and 22 are rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 1 as discussed here. Claim 1 recites:
A computer implemented method implemented by steps stored in non-transient memory on a first computer for determining a location of one or more transitions on a map stored in the non-transient memory and/or the time at which one or more transitions occurs, the one or more transitions made by a set of mobile computing devices, from a first zone to a second zone, the method comprising:
obtaining trajectory data representing a plurality of trajectories collected from one or more mobile computing devices, at least some of the trajectories passing through the first zone and/or the second zone;
processing the plurality of trajectories to identify transitions by:
generating a pose graph of the plurality of trajectories located with reference to each other by identifying loop closures and relative motion constraints;
positioning the pose graph in a frame of reference defined relative to the map by applying a transform to the pose graph, wherein at least part of at least some of the trajectories are positioned in the frame of reference defined relative to the map based on their correspondence with other trajectories; and
processing the plurality of trajectories positioned in the frame of reference defined relative to the map to determine the location and/or time of transitions from first zones of the map to second zones of the map by identifying clusters of trajectories in the pose graph, wherein the processing of the plurality of trajectories includes
prior to generating the pose graph, removing trajectories or segments of trajectories having unreliable motion constraints,
removing trajectories or segments or trajectories that are highly distorted by the process of forming the pose graph, and
removing trajectories or segments of trajectories not having sufficient loop closures.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind. For example, “processing…”, “generating a pose graph…”, “positioning…based on correspondence…”, and “removing…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, detected, etc.) and forming a simple judgment (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A computer implemented method implemented by steps stored in non-transient memory on a first computer for determining a location of one or more transitions on a map stored in the non-transient memory and/or the time at which one or more transitions occurs, the one or more transitions made by a set of mobile computing devices, from a first zone to a second zone, the method comprising:
obtaining trajectory data representing a plurality of trajectories collected from one or more mobile computing devices, at least some of the trajectories passing through the first zone and/or the second zone;
processing the plurality of trajectories to identify transitions by:
generating a pose graph of the plurality of trajectories located with reference to each other by identifying loop closures and relative motion constraints;
positioning the pose graph in a frame of reference defined relative to the map by applying a transform to the pose graph, wherein at least part of at least some of the trajectories are positioned in the frame of reference defined relative to the map based on their correspondence with other trajectories; and
processing the plurality of trajectories positioned in the frame of reference defined relative to the map to determine the location and/or time of transitions from first zones of the map to second zones of the map by identifying clusters of trajectories in the pose graph, wherein the processing of the plurality of trajectories includes
prior to generating the pose graph, removing trajectories or segments of trajectories having unreliable motion constraints,
removing trajectories or segments or trajectories that are highly distorted by the process of forming the pose graph, and
removing trajectories or segments of trajectories not having sufficient loop closures.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations above, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to implement the process. In particular, the “obtaining…” step from mobile computing device(s) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving information for use in the positioning and processing steps), and amounts to no more than mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, Claims 1, 21, and 22 further recite non-transient memory, a first computer, one or more mobile computing devices, an apparatus, a transition detector comprising processing circuitry, a computer-readable medium, and a system including processing circuitry. These limitations merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose mapping environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and processing circuitry are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use 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 not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent Claims 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitation of obtaining trajectory data is well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the mobile devices are anything other than conventional mobile phones. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 2-20 and 23-26 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent Claims 2-20 and 23-26 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Claim 1.
Therefore, Claims 1-26 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-26 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. §101 forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of Chao (previously cited) teaches methods and systems for detecting transitions from user trajectory data. Chao discloses obtaining trajectory data representing a plurality of trajectories from a plurality of mobile devices, wherein the trajectories pass through two zones. The trajectory data is processed by overlaying the data on a digital map, determining locations of transitions between the two zones by identifying clusters of trajectories, and removing portions of the data that meet certain thresholds.
Furthermore, the next closest prior art of Jiang (previously cited) discloses the generation of a pose graph from a plurality of trajectories. During generation of the pose graph, trajectory matches with unreliable motion constraints are eliminated from consideration.
Still further, the next closest prior art of Prasser (previously cited) teaches generating pose graphs by identifying loop closures and relative motion constraints, applying transformations to the pose graph, and identifying clusters in the pose graph. The trajectory data is processed to minimize error during he pose graph optimization, which reduces distortions from accumulated error.
Still further, the next closest prior art of Lee (previously cited) teaches systems and methods for learning appropriate thresholds for loop closure verification, in order to avoid cases where pose graphs have too many incorrect loop closures relative to the number of correct loop closures.
In regard to independent claims 1, 21, and 22 Chao, Jiang, Prasser, and Lee, taken either individually or in combination with each other or any other prior art of record, fails to teach or render obvious:
obtaining trajectory data representing a plurality of trajectories collected from one or more mobile computing devices, at least some of the trajectories passing through the first zone and/or the second zone;
processing the plurality of trajectories to identify transitions by:
generating a pose graph of the plurality of trajectories located with reference to each other by identifying loop closures and relative motion constraints;
positioning the pose graph in a frame of reference defined relative to the map by applying a transform to the pose graph, wherein at least part of at least some of the trajectories are positioned in the frame of reference defined relative to the map based on their correspondence with other trajectories; and
processing the plurality of trajectories positioned in the frame of reference defined relative to the map to determine the location and/or time of transitions from first zones of the map to second zones of the map by identifying clusters of trajectories in the pose graph, wherein the processing of the plurality of trajectories includes
prior to generating the pose graph, removing trajectories or segments of trajectories having unreliable motion constraints,
removing trajectories or segments or trajectories that are highly distorted by the process of forming the pose graph, and
removing trajectories or segments of trajectories not having sufficient loop closures.
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 Selena M. Jin whose telephone number is (408)918-7588. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/S.M.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667