DETAILED ACTION
Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application.
Priority
2. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 12/31/2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Chinese application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/21/2022 was received. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
4. The drawings submitted on 8/26/2021 are in compliance with 37 CFR § 1.81 and 37 CFR § 1.83 and have been accepted by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 Non-Statutory
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-11 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
1. A method for localization and mapping, comprising:
determining a first estimated pose of a current frame at least based on a pose of a first submap and a matching result of scan data of the current frame and the first submap, wherein the first submap comprises scan data of at least one preceding frame with a same viewing angle as the current frame, the first estimated pose and the pose of the first submap jointly indicate a mapping relation between a coordinate system of the scan data of the current frame and a coordinate system of the first submap, and the pose of the first submap is determined based on a pose of the at least one preceding frame the scan data are obtained by performing, by a SALM front end, voxel filtering on original point cloud data obtained using a laser sensor;
adding the scan data of the current frame into the first submap based on the first estimated pose and the pose of the first submap;
determining, by a SLAM back end, a plurality of candidate poses within a range around the first estimated pose;
for each second submap of at least one second submap:
matching the scan data of the current frame with the second submap based on each candidate pose of the plurality of candidate poses and a pose of the second submap to determine a score of each of the plurality of candidate poses in the second submap, wherein both the first submap and the at least one second submap are raster maps; and
determining a second estimated pose of the current frame corresponding to the second submap from the plurality of candidate poses based on the score of each of the plurality of candidate poses in the second submap;
in response to determining that a score of each second estimated pose of at least one second estimated pose of the current frame corresponding to the at least one second submap in the corresponding second submap meets a criterion, determining a third estimated pose of the current frame from the at least one second estimated pose of the current frame; and
updating the scan data of the current frame in the first submap based on the third estimated pose of the current frame.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 14 and 18.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 1 does belong to a statutory category, namely it is a process claim. Likewise, claim 14 is a device claim and claim 18 a non-transitory computer readable medium claim.
Under Step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 is found to include at least one judicial exception, that being a mathematical process. This can be seen in the claim limitation of “determining a first estimated pose of a current frame at least based on a pose of a first submap and a matching result of scan data of the current frame and the first submap, wherein the first submap comprises scan data of at least one preceding frame with a same viewing angle as the current frame, the first estimated pose and the pose of the first submap jointly indicate a mapping relation between a coordinate system of the scan data of the current frame and a coordinate system of the first submap, and the pose of the first submap is determined based on a pose of the at least one preceding frame the scan data are obtained by performing, by a SALM front end, voxel filtering on original point cloud data; adding the scan data of the current frame into the first submap based on the first estimated pose and the pose of the first submap; determining, by a SLAM back end, a plurality of candidate poses within a range around the first estimated pose; for each second submap of at least one second submap: matching the scan data of the current frame with the second submap based on each candidate pose of the plurality of candidate poses and a pose of the second submap to determine a score of each of the plurality of candidate poses in the second submap, wherein both the first submap and the at least one second submap are raster maps; and determining a second estimated pose of the current frame corresponding to the second submap from the plurality of candidate poses based on the score of each of the plurality of candidate poses in the second submap; in response to determining that a score of each second estimated pose of at least one second estimated pose of the current frame corresponding to the at least one second submap in the corresponding second submap meets a criterion, determining a third estimated pose of the current frame from the at least one second estimated pose of the current frame”, which is the judicial exception of a mental process and/or a mathematical concept because it is merely a data evaluation including calculations, and/or judgements capable of being performed mentally.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 14 and 18.
Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
In addition to the abstract ideas recited in claim 1, the claimed method recites additional elements including “updating the scan data of the current frame in the first submap based on the third estimated pose of the current frame” (claims 1, 14, and 18) which amounts to “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) The claims also obtain the data using a laser sensor, which is directed to data gathering and is also considered “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity”. The claim further recites “an electronic device” and a “computer” (claims 14, and 18) however the “an electronic device” and a “computer” are recited at a high level of generality, e.g. Spec. [page 2, lines 21-23] describing a generic processor that may be used, and merely amounts to the use of computer technology as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or the use of “a computer” or “electronic device” to perform the predictions, that are otherwise abstract, is merely an attempt at limiting the abstract to a particular field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The generic data gathering, processing, and output steps, and other elements, are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed system. For instance, nothing is done with the updated scan data.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use, and/or merely insignificant extra-solution activity (claims 1, 14, and 18). Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and output, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, and electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document).
Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that claim 1, as well as claims 14 and 18, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-13, 15-17, and 19-20, merely further expand upon the algorithm/abstract idea and do not set forth further additional elements therefore these claims are found ineligible for the reasons described for independent claims 1, 14, and 18.
See Supreme court decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International, et al.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments filed 9/4/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In this instance applicant argues that the claims use a specific machine implementation, applicant argues that the claims supports efficient matching and coordinate based updates to a map, further applicant argues that the claim contains language that is significantly more than the abstract idea.
While the claims may use specific machines the processing of the data is abstract and therefore merely amounts to the use of computer technology as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). It is unclear from the claims how the invention makes the process more efficient. Examiner finds that mere speed by a known computer implementation (SLAM) is not sufficient to constitute patent-eligible subject matter. It is unclear what particular language is considered significantly more than the abstract idea therefore the rejection has been deemed proper and maintained.
Conclusion
8. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
9. 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.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADITYA S BHAT whose telephone number is (571)272-2270. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am-6pm.
11. 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.
12. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby Turner can be reached on 571-272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
13. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/ADITYA S BHAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 January 20, 2026