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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-17, and 21-23 are pending and examined. Claims 18-20 are cancelled. Claims 21-23 are new.
Drawing
Figures 1-16 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). Claim features starting point, ending point, distance, polygons, and path as recited in claims 1 and 23 are not indicated in any of the Figures. Further, S330 in Fig. 3 is objected because of the typo “ISCLOSEST”. 910 in Fig. 9 is objected to because it is not clear what 910 points to. Figs. 10-16 are objected because they are not legible due to the screen shot. Applicant are required to correct the drawings to facilitate understanding of the invention. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objection
Claims 1 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities: “determining a smoothed path based on the path, wherein the smooth path includes curved turns between consecutive line segments of the path”. smooth path should be corrected to smooth path for proper antecedent basis. 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 1-17, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Analysis for Independent Claims 1 and 21:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1).
If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) (Step 2A Prong 1), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception (Step 2A Prong 2), and if so, re-evaluate whether the inventive concept is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (Step 2B).
Claims 1 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1: statutory category
Independent claims 1 and 21 are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claim 1 of the claimed invention is directed to a method, which is statutory category of invention (Step 1: Yes), and the claim 21 of the claimed invention is directed to a machine, which is statutory category of invention (Step 1: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes). The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. The independent claim and the other claims recite method for accessing a boundary data structure generating a set of parallel line segments, generating a first line segment, identifying a first point, splitting the first line segment, determining a smoothed path, and storing or transmitting a path data structure as recited in independent claims 1 and 21. The limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “by the processor”. That is, other than reciting “by the processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the “by the processor” language, the claim encompasses a person looking or using a pen and paper at data collected and forming a simple judgement. The mere nominal recitation of by a processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
The claim recites additional elements for accessing a boundary data structure, generating a set of parallel line segments, generating a first line segment, identifying a first point, splitting the first line segment, determining a smoothed path, and storing or transmitting a path data structure as recited in independent claims 1 and 21. The accessing, generating, identifying, splitting, and smoothing is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering navigation data for use in the outputting step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The storing step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of outputting result from the smoothing step), and amounts to mere post solution outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “smoothing” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose mapping environment. The mapping environment is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automates the smoothing step.
Accordingly, even in combination, 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 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No)
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the performing and identifying steps were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that autonomous vehicle control among obstacle in a vehicle path is well known [0003]. 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 (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Analysis for Dependent Claims 2-17, and 22-23:
Step 1: Determining if the claim(s) are directed a statutory class of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Claims 2-17 are directed to “a method”. The claims are directed to a method, which is a statutory category. (Step 1: yes)
Claims 22-23 are directed to “a non-transitory computer readable medium”. The claims are directed to a machine, which is a statutory category. (Step 1: yes)
Step 2A Prong One: Determining if the claim(s) recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity, fundamental economic practices, and “an idea ‘of itself’”.
Claims 2-17 recite additional limitations directed to a mental process. The same analysis of Step 2A Prong One for claim 1 applies. Claims 2-17 are directed to the judicial exception of a mental process.
Claims 22-23 recite additional limitations directed to a mental process. The same analysis of Step 2A Prong One for claim 21 applies. Claims 22-23 are directed to the judicial exception of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two: Determining if additional limitations within the claim(s) integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 2-17 recite additional limitations, which viewed both individually and in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The same analysis of Step 2A Prong One for claim 1 applies. Claims 2-17 are not integrated into a practical application.
Claims 22-23 recite additional limitations, which viewed both individually and in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The same analysis of Step 2A Prong One for claim 21 applies. Claims 22-23 are not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Determining if the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The additional elements in claims 2-17 fail to recite any additional elements, viewed both individually and as a whole, that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The same analysis applies in this step 2B as discussed in Step 2A Prong Two (see independent and dependent claim analysis). Claims 2-17 fail to claim anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements in claims 22-23 fail to recite any additional elements, viewed both individually and as a whole, that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The same analysis applies in this step 2B as discussed in Step 2A Prong Two (see independent and dependent claim analysis). Claims 22-23 fail to claim anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion:
Dependent claims 2-17, and 22-23 are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process. Accordingly, claims 2-17, and 22-23 are not patent eligible. Overall, claims 1-17, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter and are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 21 are rejected because the claim limitation “generating a first line segment of the path connecting an ending-point of one of the line segments of the set of parallel line segments to a starting-point of another one of the line segments of the set of parallel line segments” as recited is indefinite and unclear where is starting-point and end-point of the parallel segments. For examination purpose, starting-point and end-point of the parallel segments are interpreted as any points of the parallel segments. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1 and 21 are rejected because the claim limitation “splitting the first line segment into two line segments, having a starting-point matching a starting-point of the first line segment and an ending-point matching an ending-point of the first line segment, that connect at a second point on the polygon encoded by the boundary data structure that is closest to the first point” as recited is indefinite and unclear where is starting-point and end-point of the parallel segments. For examination purpose, starting-point and end-point of the line segment are interpreted as any points of the parallel segments. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1 and 21 are rejected because the claim limitation “determining a smoothed path based on the path, wherein the smooth path includes curved turns between consecutive line segments of the path” as recited is indefinite and unclear as to the meaning of smoothed path”. What is the objective standards or measurement for “smooth”. For examination purpose, smooth path is considered as any path. Appropriate correction is required.
Dependent claims 2-17, and 22-23 are rejected based on the dependency of the respective base claims.
Notice re prior art available under both pre-AIA and AIA
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-17, and 21-23 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under drawing objection, claim objection, 35 U.S.C. 101, and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art of Uoya et al., US 2018/0209799 A1 teaches travel route generation device for a field work vehicle that includes a memory and circuitry. The circuitry is configured to generate, based on field data stored in the memory, a travel route. The circuitry is configured to determine a getting-off point in the travel route at which a driver gets off the field work vehicle. The circuitry is configured to determine a getting-on point in the travel route at which the driver gets on the field work vehicle. The circuitry is configured to define a first partial route in the travel route between the entrance and the getting-off point and a second partial travel route in the travel route between the getting-on point and the entrance as a manual travel route. The circuitry is configured to define a third partial travel route in the travel route between the getting-off point and the getting-on point as an automatic travel route.
In regarding to independent claims 1 and 21, Uoya taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record fails to teach or render obvious a method for accessing a boundary data structure that encodes a polygon on a map; generating a set of parallel line segments of a path for a vehicle on the map inside of the polygon encoded by the boundary data structure; generating a first line segment of the path connecting an ending-point of one of the line segments of the set of parallel line segments to a starting-point of another one of the line segments of the set of parallel line segments; identifying a first point on the first line segment that is a maximum distance from the polygon encoded by the boundary data structure; splitting the first line segment into two line segments, having a starting-point matching a starting-point of the first line segment and an ending-point matching an ending-point of the first line segment, that connect at a second point on the polygon encoded by the boundary data
structure that is closest to the first point; determining a smoothed path based on the path, wherein the smooth path includes curved turns between consecutive line segments of the path; and storing or transmitting a path data structure based on the smoothed path.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Examiner’s Request
The examiner requests, in response to this office action, support must be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, the applicant is requested to indicate support for amended claim language and newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). (MPEP 2163 I. B. New or Amended Claims). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application. When responding to this office action, applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. In amending in reply to a rejection of claims in an application or patent under reexamination, the applicant or patent owner must clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. The applicant or patent owner must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUEN WONG whose telephone number is (313)446-4851. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5:30 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi, can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YUEN WONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights