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 Non-Final rejection on the merits of this application. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-14, 17-19, 21 and 23-28 are currently pending, as discussed below.
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Amendment and/or Argument
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the Claim Rejection of Claims 1, 24 and 25 under 35 USC 101 as set forth in the office action of 21 August 2025 have been considered and are NOT persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues (Pages 10-13 of Applicant’s Remark Dated 02/20/2026):
PNG
media_image1.png
598
826
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
777
615
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
234
632
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
487
645
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
587
844
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The Examiner’s Response:
The examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees for the following reasons:
Regarding Argument (I.):
Applicant’s reliance of USPTO Example 37 is NOT persuasive. The present claim recites generating candidate alignments, evaluating cost functions, and selecting an alignment—steps which constitute mathematical evaluation and comparison of data of mental process. While the claim references “map segments”, “reference frames”, and “reference maps”, these are forms of data representation and do not impose meaningful limitations on how the claimed steps are performed. Even if the reference frames exist only digitally in a CAD system, the underlying steps of placing predetermined rooms, evaluating fits, combining layouts and selecting the best arrangement, mirror mental processes that could be performed by a human designer without a computer. Furthermore, the argument that “reference frames requires a processor” is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. The claim does not recite any specific technological implementation for performing the transformations or handling distortion, but instead broadly claims that the result of aligning data across frames, as held in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016), limiting an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or data type does not render it non-abstract. Accordingly, the claim remains directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding Argument (II.):
Applicant’s argument that the claimed evaluation of candidate solutions cannot be practically performed in the human mind due to complexity or scale is NOT persuasive. The proper inquiry is not whether a human could realistically perform the claimed steps efficiently, but whether the steps are of the type that can be performed mentally in principle. The step corresponds to a designer mentally reviewing multiple candidate floor plan arrangement in a CAD system and observing which layout is most coherent and functional.
The federal circuit has consistently held that increasing the volume or complexity of data does not render an otherwise abstract idea non-abstract. See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 n.2, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2011) and FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 120 USPQ2d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016), As such, the applicant’s reliance on “practical impossibility” is misplaced and the claimed limitation fall within the mental process category despite being performed on a computer.
Regarding Argument (III.):
Applicant argues that determining the alignment of map segments is inherently computer-based, but the analogy to a human interior designer (see 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection below for details) arranging predetermined rooms in a CAD system shows otherwise. Conceptually, a designer could evaluate each room’s placement, test multiple layouts, and select the most coherent arrangement, even if impractical at scale. Courts have repeatedly held that practical limitations of performing a process do not render its non-abstract, see Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 120 USPQ2d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Thus, the alignment determination remains a mental process implemented on a generic computer without improving computer functionality.
Regarding Argument (IV.):
Applicant’s reliance on Ex Parte Desjardins is NOT persuasive because, unlike the claims in Desjardins, which recited a specific technique of modifying machine learning model parameters to address the technical problem of catastrophic forgetting and thereby improved the operation of the model itself, the present claim merely recites result-oriented steps of generating candidate alignments, evaluating cost functions, and selecting a preferred solution without specifying any particular algorithm, data structure, or technical mechanism for performing these functions; as such, the claim is directed to mathematical analysis and data evaluation, concepts consistently held abstract under SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163-65, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1598-1600 (Fed. Cir. 2018) and Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and does not integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application, since the purported improvement relates only to the quality of the resulting map alignment rather than to an improvement I computer functionality or mapping technology itself, rendering the analogy to Dejardins unpersuasive.
Based on at least the reasons above, Applicant’s amendment and/or arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections is/are NOT persuasive. See 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections below for details.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 26 Line 9-10: “segments the candidate solution” should read –segments in the candidate solution--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3-7, 9-14, 17-19, 21 and 23-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1 – YES
Claim 1 is directed to a computer implemented method (i.e. a process). Claim 24 is directed toward a data processing system (i.e. machine). Claim 25 is directed to a computer-readable medium (i.e. manufacture).
Therefore, claims 1, 24 and 25 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 claims 1, 24 and 25 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 24 and 25 are rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 1 as discussed here. Claim 1 recites:
A computer implemented method including the steps stored in non-transient memory for aligning a plurality of map segments having a local reference frame to a reference map having a global reference frame, each map segment of the plurality of map segments overlapping a portion of an area represented by the reference map, the computer implemented method comprising:
for each map segment of the plurality of map segments, independently generating candidate alignments aligning the map segment to the reference map, wherein each map segment of the plurality of map segments is defined in its own frame of reference, independent of the reference frame of the other map segments and the reference map, and wherein the different candidate alignments of each map segment have different centroid positions on the reference map;
for each of the candidate alignments, evaluating a candidate alignment cost function representing a likelihood that the candidate alignment is correct;
based on the candidate alignments and associated candidate alignment cost functions, generating candidate solutions, each of the candidate solutions comprising a single candidate alignment for each map segment of the plurality of map segments;
for each of the candidate solutions, evaluating a candidate solution cost function based on at least the candidate alignment cost functions for each of the candidate alignments included in the candidate solution; and
based on the evaluation of the candidate solution cost functions, determining the alignment of the plurality of map segments to the reference map and storing the alignment in the non-transient memory.
These “…independently generating candidate alignments…”, “…evaluating a candidate alignment cost function…”, “… generating candidate solutions…”, “…evaluate a candidate solution cost function…” and “… determining the (best) alignment…” steps recite an abstract idea.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind or using a pen and paper. For example, the bolded limitation can be performed by a human, for example, an interior floor plan designer has separate rooms with predetermined shapes/outlines (e.g., rectangles, L-shape rooms) stored in a CAD system, each drawn in its own orientation and scale and he/she tries placing each room onto a master building plan (reference map) in the CAD environment, testing different positions and orientations for each room independently (corresponds to “for each map segment … independently generating candidate alignments…centroid position on the reference map”). For each placement of a room in CAD, the interior designer mentally notes or observes how well the room aligns with walls, doors, and corridors, deciding whether the placement seems appropriate; he/she may mentally compare multiple options to determine which arrangement looks most coherent (corresponds to “for each of the candidate alignment…the candidate alignment is correct”). The designer selects one placement for each room and images a complete floor plan layout with all rooms together as a candidate arrangement of the entire building (corresponds to “based on the candidate alignments…each map segments of the plurality of map segments”). The designer mentally compares each full candidate layout, observing which layout seems most coherent and functional. The designer may prioritize logical flow, connectivity, or aesthetic coherence without performing complex calculation (corresponds to “for each of the candidate solutions…included in the candidate solution”). The designer selects the floor plan that looks the best and saves it in the CAD system as the final digital version of the building plan (corresponds to “based on the evaluation…non-transient memory”), Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Examiner would also note 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). Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Here, the determination is a form of making evaluation and judgement based on observation (e.g. map alignment possibility).
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
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
A computer implemented method including the steps stored in non-transient memory for aligning a plurality of map segments having a local reference frame to a reference map having a global reference frame, each map segment of the plurality of map segments overlapping a portion of an area represented by the reference map, the computer implemented method comprising:
for each map segment of the plurality of map segments, independently generating candidate alignments aligning the map segment to the reference map, wherein each map segment of the plurality of map segments is defined in its own frame of reference, independent of the reference frame of the other map segments and the reference map, and wherein the different candidate alignments of each map segment have different centroid positions on the reference map;
for each of the candidate alignments, evaluating a candidate alignment cost function representing a likelihood that the candidate alignment is correct;
based on the candidate alignments and associated candidate alignment cost functions, generating candidate solutions, each of the candidate solutions comprising a single candidate alignment for each map segment of the plurality of map segments;
for each of the candidate solutions, evaluating a candidate solution cost function based on at least the candidate alignment cost functions for each of the candidate alignments included in the candidate solution; and
based on the evaluation of the candidate solution cost functions, determining the alignment of the plurality of map segments to the reference map and storing the alignment in the non-transient memory.
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 solution.
Regarding the additional limitations of “computer” and “storing the alignment in the non-transient memory”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (e.g. “processing circuitry” of claims 24-25) to perform the process. In particular, the “storing…” step in the non-transient memory is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. general means of storing alignment results from the determining step) and amounts to mere post solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, “processing circuitry” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose computer environment, where processing circuitry is recited as generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data. This generic processing circuitry limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and merely automates an evaluating and determining step. The claim does not recite a specific technological improvement and uses generic computer to perform generic optimization tasks and does not interact or improve hardware/software in any particular way and the storing alignment in non-transient memory step is a conventional use of memory which does not constitute a meaningful limitation.
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 impost any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claims 1, 24 and 25 do 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 limitations “processing circuitry” of claims 24 and 25, the examiner submits that the “processing circuitry” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer component performing generic calculation) such that it amounts no more than mere instruction to apply 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 limitation of “storing…”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
As explained, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05; Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S., 208,223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention”). Electric Power Group, LLC v, Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Selecting information for collection, analysis and display constitute insignificant extra-solution activity). Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1243-44, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1855-57 (Fed. Cir. 2016)( Generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location as performed by generic computer components). Hence, the claims 1, 24 and 25 are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 3-7, 9-14, 17-19, 21, 23 and 26-28 do not recite any further limitations that causes 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 3-7, 9-14, 17-19, 21, 23 and 26-28 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided in the rejection of independent claims 1, 24 and 25.
As such, claims 1, 3-7, 9-14, 17-19, 21 and 23-28 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significant more, and thus are ineligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-14, 17-19, 21 and 23-28 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the claim objection and claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth in this office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regard to independent claim 1 (similarly claims 24 and 25), the combination of prior arts Shapiro and Rosser and Ofek taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record fails to teach or render obvious of aligning a plurality of map segments having a local reference frame to a reference map having a global reference frame, each map segment of the plurality of map segments overlapping a portion of an area represented by the reference map, the computer implemented method comprising:
for each map segment of the plurality of map segments, independently generating candidate alignments aligning the map segment to the reference map, wherein each map segment of the plurality of map segments is defined in its own frame of reference, independent of the reference frame of the other map segments and the reference map, and wherein the different candidate alignments of each map segment have different centroid positions on the reference map;
for each of the candidate alignments, evaluating a candidate alignment cost function representing a likelihood that the candidate alignment is correct;
based on the candidate alignments and associated candidate alignment cost functions, generating candidate solutions, each of the candidate solutions comprising a single candidate alignment for each map segment of the plurality of map segments;
for each of the candidate solutions, evaluating a candidate solution cost function based on at least the candidate alignment cost functions for each of the candidate alignments included in the candidate solution; and
based on the evaluation of the candidate solution cost functions, determining the alignment of the plurality of map segments to the reference map and storing the alignment in the non-transient memory.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA F ARTIMEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3410. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am-3:30 pm 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, Faris S. 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.
/DANA F ARTIMEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667