DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the submission filed on 6/1/2026. Claims 1-5, 7-20 are 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 .
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 112
Applicant's arguments regarding the amendments filed 6/1/2026 have been fully considered and they are persuasive. The rejections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 6/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The claims are written broadly enough that they are reciting concepts directed to the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). The claims involve converting map data to graph representation, determining a position, determining where a point is located and replacing a line segment. These steps are simple enough and so broadly claimed that they could be performed mentally or with pen and paper and drawing the representations. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present generic computing components (CAD data) and insignificant extra-solution activity (obtaining map data). The rejection has been updated to reflect the amended claim language.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 102/103
Applicant's arguments regarding the amendments filed 6/1/2026 have been fully considered and they are persuasive. The rejections are withdrawn.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 1-5, 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of
nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements
that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.(See MPEP 2106).
Step 1: With respect to claims 1-5, 7-20, applying step 1, the preamble of independent claims 1, 14 and 19, claim a method, a method and an electronic data processing system. As such these claims fall within the statutory categories of process, process and machine.
Step 2A, prong one: In order to apply step 2A, a recitation of claim 1 is copied below. The limitations of the claim that describe an abstract idea are bolded.
A computer-implemented method of converting unstructured map data, the method comprising:
- obtaining unstructured map data according to a first data representation, the unstructured map data representing or comprising a number of geometric entities where the first data representation is a technical drawing representation or a CAD data representation, and
- converting the unstructured map data according to the first data representation to structured map data according to a second data representation, where the second data representation is a graph data representation (mental process/drawing with pen and paper –observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
- determining a position or set of coordinates of where two line segments of the number of geometric entities of the first data representation intersect (mental process/drawing with pen and paper –observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), and
- determining whether an end point is located within a predetermined vicinity or length of the determined position or set of coordinates, and if so then replacing the line segment for each of the two intersecting line segments with two line segments and connecting respective line segments to the end point determined to be within the predetermined vicinity or length of the determined position or set of coordinates (mental process/drawing with pen and paper –observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
The limitations as analyzed include concepts directed to the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). The claim involves converting map data to graph representation, determining a position, determining where a point is located and replacing a line segment. These steps are simple enough/broadly claimed that they could be performed mentally or with pen and paper and drawing the representations. Thus, limitations noted above also fall into the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas.
Step 2A, prong two: Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present generic computing components and insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations: “A computer-implemented method of converting unstructured map data” (generic computing components merely carrying out the abstract idea - see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and (b)), “obtaining unstructured map data according to a first data representation, the unstructured map data representing or comprising a number of geometric entities where the first data representation is a technical drawing representation or a CAD data representation” (insignificant extra-solution activity - mere data gathering/output MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these 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.
Step 2B: Moving on to step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as "apply it" or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered directed towards generic computer components carrying out the abstract idea and data gathering. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h). Furthermore, as Berkheimer evidence that the claim elements “obtaining unstructured map data according to a first data representation, the unstructured map data representing or comprising a number of geometric entities where the first data representation is a technical drawing representation or a CAD data representation” are Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional, MPEP § 2106.05(d) (II) provides support that mere data collecting and data outputting is well understood, routine, and conventional: "The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well- understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra- solution activity:
• Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather
data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary
computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d
607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image
transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d
1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google,
Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives
and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
• Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP
Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788
F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93
• Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115
USPQ2d at 1092-93
For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Independent claim 14 is directed to substantially the same subject matter as independent claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more. The same conclusion is reached for the claims 2-5, 7-20.
Claims 2-5, 7-13, 17 and 20 are further directed towards concepts directed to the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). The claim involves converting map data to graph representation. The step is simple enough/broadly claimed that it could be performed mentally or with pen and paper and drawing the representations. Thus, limitations noted above also fall into the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas. Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present generic computing components. In particular, the claims recite the additional limitations: “The computer-implemented method” (generic computing components merely carrying out the abstract idea - see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and (b)). Accordingly, these 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 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations is considered directed towards generic computer components carrying out the abstract idea.
Claims 14, 15, 16 and 18 are further directed towards concepts directed to the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). The claims involve converting map data to graph representation. The step is simple enough/broadly claimed that it could be performed mentally or with pen and paper and drawing the representations. Thus, limitations noted above also fall into the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas. Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present generic computing components. In particular, the claims recite the additional limitations: “implementing a trained graph artificial intelligence or machine learning method or component or a trained graph neural network (GNN), to generate or output the detected or identified one or more objects”, “wherein the trained graph artificial intelligence or machine learning method or component is or implements a graph neural network (GNN)”, “wherein the trained graph neural network (GNN) is a graph convolutional (neural) network (GCN) node classification system” and “wherein the trained graph neural network (GNN) is a graph attention network (GAT)” (generic computing components merely carrying out the abstract idea - see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and (b)). Accordingly, these 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 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered directed towards generic computer components carrying out the abstract idea.
Claim 19 is further directed towards the additional limitations: “An electronic data processing system, comprising: one or more processing units connected to an electronic memory, wherein the one or more processing units are programmed and configured to execute the computer- implemented method” (generic computing components merely carrying out the abstract idea - see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and (b)). Accordingly, these 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 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered directed towards generic computer components carrying out the abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 7-20 contain allowable subject matter.
The claims will be allowable if the rejections under 35 USC 101 are overcome.
Boatto, Iddianozie and Song teach a method for converting image data to graph representation. However, these references and the remaining prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest
(claims 1, 14)
“- determining a position or set of coordinates of where two line segments of the number of geometric entities of the first data representation intersect, and
- determining whether an end point is located within a predetermined vicinity or length of the determined position or set of coordinates, and if so then replacing the line segment for each of the two intersecting line segments with two line segments and connecting respective line segments to the end point determined to be within the predetermined vicinity or length of the determined position or set of coordinates”,
in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention. It is for these reasons that the applicant’s invention defines over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 NITHYA J. MOLL whose telephone number is (571)270-1003. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 571-272-3676. 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.
/NITHYA J. MOLL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights